Updated 2019 02 07: Added links to related articles.
By Roger Eldridge, Ireland
To put so-called Family breakdown in context I provide a few extracts from my upcoming book which sets out my hypothesis that “feminism”, “domestic violence” and the “gender war” are simply manufactured marketing tools.
“In order to pay the wages and make a profit the media has learnt that their clients – readers, viewers, listeners, must be good consumers or else the advertisers will go elsewhere. The best consumers are overwhelmingly women – Maureen Gaffney of the National Economic and Social Forum estimates that at least 90% of financial decisions and purchases are now made by women – so to survive and be successful editors everywhere must fill the spaces between the ads with content (what in the old days used to be called “News”) labelled WAWMAA – stories that reinforce what women like to hear – ones that say Women Are Wonderful, Men Are Awful.
It’s not that editors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.
The mantra of big business is growth so their strategy has to be always to maximise profit through sales. For every cent they pay to a woman they know they will get it back immediately in sales. For them to hire women rather than men, wherever it is feasible, suits their purpose.
It’s not that managers and company directors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.
Since the seventies governments have acted exactly like big business. They now claim taxes from virtually every purchase made so, if they want to expand their empire, they have a vested interest in ensuring consumerism is maximised.
That means it makes sense for government, like the media and big business, to have policies which use WAWMAA to justify the transfer of control of the Family income from the man to the woman. Hence the built-in bias in the governments family Courts – both in Custody and Domestic Violence cases – and Child Support laws and decisions.
It’s not that governments like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.”
God bless, Roger Eldridge
Executive Director, Family Rights Institute of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
email@example.com 07196-67138 086-8180146
#Family #Feminism #MediaBias #PropagandaExposed
- Australian newlyweds — Women far more violent than men
- Mission: Find domestic violence against women
- Sheep People Comparisons – Are people sheeple?
- Martin Bormann Memorandum: Securing Germany’s Future
- Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering
- Feminist Conquest -Supremacism – in India vs Male Rights
- Parkinson’s Law — Its various forms make society creak
Your hypothesis is correct, perhaps more so than you assume, but make sure it doesn’t leave out that it doesn’t hurt business to have man-hating journalists write man-bashing articles. Not only that, but you well know that liberal and feminist journalists write very few articles that are sympathetic to the so-called patriarchy.
Many people wonder why male journalists write man-bashing articles. The reason for that is simple. Men have to make a living at least as surely as women do. Men have to try harder than women do to advance or to keep journalistic careers. Moreover, the education system (of which the media are part) produces male as well as female feminists on account of the constant indoctrinating it engages in. It produces more male than female feminists. Not only that, but it is quite a normal outcome of the situation that it is primarily women journalists who have the freedom to be honest when writing about family politics or about the politics of sex. Not only that, but women journalists are also able to lie with impunity or to use sloppy journalistic standards that often are in outright violation of journalistic integrity, simply because women journalists are unlikely and men more likely to be critically examined and to be complained about.
The following comment will possibly point to the need to widen the scope of the issue addressed by your book somewhat, but perhaps you considered that.
In the mid-seventies I had a contract hauling the newspapers for the Edmonton Journal out of Edmonton to North-Eastern Alberta. The distribution manager at the time told me that the price for a copy of the Edmonton Journal paid for nothing but the cost of the newsprint used for a copy of their paper. I verified that, by calculating the price of a copy based on the price of a ton of newsprint. The distribution manager was correct, almost to within a cent. All other costs of producing the Edmonton Journal and its contents, including its distribution, required to be raised from advertising revenues.
The cost calculations for the price of a local newspaper in your locality will quite likely produce comparable results. Even though the weight (per page) of newspapers has gone done a bit over the years (due to newsprint being less in weight per square meter), the price of a ton of delivered newsprint has gone up enormously.
The consequences of the circumstances described in the last two paragraphs dictate that advertisers are the primary clients of newspapers, and that the “news” contents of newspapers are merely a means to boost circulation. There is a bit more to that. The bigger the advertiser, the larger its influence on editorial content (something that feminist activists are well aware of, which is why on many political issues they find offensive they target advertisers, not the media). The governments at all three levels comprise the three largest advertisers and therefore the largest editorial influence. It helps the feminist cause that all sectors of the governments are permeated with feminists (a subset of liberals). Furthermore, the government bureaucrats, not our elected officials, constitute the lion’s share of political power but also the largest political influence on editorial contents of the media.
The following expands the discussion beyond the apparent scope of your book, but the issues discussed nevertheless relate to the growing extent of the influence of government bureaucracies on the editorial content of the media. Keep in mind also that I deliberately use the term “media”, as all sectors of the mainstream media are affected in a virtually identical fashion. The only difference is in the nature of the medium used for transmitting information to the masses.
The bureaucracy has aims of its own. Those aims have enormous inertia and are hardly and rarely influenced by elected officials. Contrary to popular belief, it is not so much that politicians influence the bureaucracy as it is that the bureaucracy largely controls elected officials. To a very large extent, elected government officials are opportunists who go along for the ride and who merely live off the system. The less they rock the boat, the smoother their ride. That includes even their getting into the boat. After all, election-campaign financing is controlled by the bureaucracy and stacked in such a way that the bureaucracy will be disturbed as little as possible through electoral changes, by keeping the incumbent party in power for as long as possible.
As I well know from having for many years served on three different boards of directors of private utility-service organizations, the policies of private industries are influenced by the interactions between industry and government bureaucracy. The more a given industry interacts with and depends on the government bureaucracy, the more a given corporation will target and shape its actions at making the bureaucracy happy. There is an inexorable dimension of the influence of the government bureaucracy: the extent of government-bureaucracy influence positively correlates to the rate of growth of the bureaucracy. When the power of the government bureaucracy comes close to being totalitarian, the media will experience close to absolute censorship. The nature of the censorship will depend on the ideological nature of the aims of the bureaucracy.
Consider the unchecked, cancerous growth of government in a sector of the government industry that is very influential in regard to social engineering but is not entirely and completely removed from social politics affecting the traditional nuclear family:
**Stage Two — the Growing Power of the State 1972-1984**
Trudeau was not content (or instructed) to limit himself to symbols and patriotic platitudes. (“The land is strong” = “Socialism in one country”). He also desired to extend the power of the state by a rapid increase in the size and power of the civil service. The rise of Environment Canada illustrates this neatly. Based in Toronto, the headquarters of the Dominion Meteorological Agency before 1970 was a sleepy and unassuming set of offices in the old Observatory building located near Varsity Stadium and close to the University of Toronto. If it had two dozen employees and a small library of archives, it might have resembled one of the university faculties. By the mid 1970s the agency had located to a palatial new set of buildings in the northern suburb of Downsview, spread out over four floors, and employing over a thousand people. It briefly changed its name to Atmospheric Environment Service (A.E.S.) and then in the late 1970s when the metric system came into effect, to Environment Canada.
Nowadays, it presides over the bogus climate change “industry” and is a vast empire for patronage and lateral waste of tax money on a vast scale involving tens of thousands in its many outer layers. This is typical of the vast and Soviet-style expansion of the public sector without creating goods or services of intrinsic value.
Source: The Canadian Soviet Socialist Republic: a brief history, by Peter O’Donnell; Free Dominion, 2008 06 28
Incidentally and with regard to the title of that excerpt, 1984 was the year, in Canada as well as in the USA, when feminism finally achieved total and absolute control of the education system.
Here now I may tell you something that you are well aware of. Before you send out your manuscript, try to obtain critiques by some journalists and newspaper editors.
I hope that you do well with your book, and that — most importantly — you will find a publisher for it who will be able to garner the required number of sales to make your book a success.
All the best,