Men: Figureheads for Women

Males are groomed to take pride in a servitude role as ‘men’. Otherwise, outside of this, they are not only expendable but criminal (if non-compliant) with no value or opportunity provided for them (as acceptable men) to exist in their own right or any security provided for their best interests. Where is the love in that? And yes, love. Men, as well as women, hate men. With extreme expectations placed upon them if men do not comply with strict social standards they are cast as bad and hated. None of this is applied to women.

A man is a figurehead often whose main purpose is to serve women and promote women’s social status. This is often expressed by women amongst other women. For example, in one case a woman was married to a shoe salesman (back when this was a common occupation). Although her husband did well and provided an adequate income, his occupation was ‘beneath’ her. After giving him an ultimatum to get another occupation or she would leave him, she divorced him and went for another man who had a higher occupational status. (Money is not the only ‘value’ women seek but the social status that often comes with it.) Unless they suit women, men are easily disposed of–a devalued status indicated in every aspect of our existence.

The Titanic tragedy underscores men’s expendable existence and lack of equal value to women. Conscription also demonstrates men’s devaluation compared to women. (Require women to register for the military draft and watch politics and policies change due to the higher value placed on women’s lives.) Politically women have been provided more by men than men have ever provided themselves–the reason women felt no need to acquire the vote until 1920 (US). Prohibition was the main reason women wanted to have the vote. Women were basically at home (but not ‘confined’ any more than men were to their role). At home women often ruled the roost.

Let’s also consider marriage and what that ‘union’ represents, including the rituals attached. The preceding courting process sets the precedence for marriage. In the beginning, the groom-to-be strives to please the woman and at the end of this selfish and one-sided process of degradation, risk, expense, increased legal liability, he gets down on his knees and begs the potential bride to marry him, often with a token of monetary worth to back it up–the ring.

And, by the way, let’s compare the wedding rings and their value to each other. One, the groom’s ring for the bride, is much more costly than the one intended for the groom, hers being sort of a token offering or afterthought in response to the groom’s offer. Having many bridesmaids ceremonially gives brides a sense of power that is consummated by female collectivism also represented in the marriage ceremony. A blatant attested to the bride having status over the groom is the wedding song itself that not only elevates the bride over the groom but expresses no acknowledgment of the groom. This unequal status is secured thereafter in law per a contract that throws out the rules of all contracts due to the female sex (privileged status) of one of its ‘partners’. Church and state merge here as one under the consummation of the marriage.

[If we state the truth, as in this case, we are accused of hating women–that inaccurate assessment over-riding fact. This is how much power women are allowed to possess in a misandric society and is a testimonial to the effect it has had in our political, legal, and educational system.]

Who gets what in divorce settlements to include possessions and assets, child custody, child support, and alimony is all based on the female’s higher status, as we’ve seen well-acknowledged and carried through from the marriage ceremony. A man is literally enslaved which process he endorsed through his correlated gesture bearing the ring.

Being granted a status above accountability also allows women a power beyond compare–practically makes them untouchable. This is well conveyed in assault and sexual assault–acts that in comparison to when wrought upon men by women often go overlooked or even unnoticed. Ironically, women’s lack of equal accountability to men has also been incorporated into laws such as sex laws that have changed from the past that now do not hold women equally accountable to men given the same circumstances. This is a power beyond power–an abuse and misuse of power–even pertaining to an exclusive power that only women possess. Ironically, men have not only been held accountable for their power (finances and the ability to secure finances) but forced to forfeit that FOR women.

False interpretations we are commonly fed relate to the past include women not having the vote. The vote evolved due to men being held more accountable to women than to. They were held to making the decisions. (The vote is a responsible decision.) Holding men accountable, once again, for women’s lack of equal accountability is not only preferred by modern-day women/feminists but forced upon society per laws as mentioned above. Due to apparent blind selfishness, the majority of women are too ignorant to realize they are digressing in their status to the likeness of spoiled children by their selfish demands per a privileged status. They are once again given less accountability to men PER THEIR CHOICE, although more power–sort of like giving a 6-year-old a driver’s license or a loaded gun.

Thus, the on-going female pedestal status from the past has its applications to the present. However, recognition of the actual truth due to an evolved sex-biased effect is purposely exempt via misandric propaganda purposes.

Merely carrying over from when men were expected to drive the horse of the carriage they were held to serving women as their chauffeurs when it came to driving cars. Neither of my grandmothers had a driver’s license because that was something men did in their servitude role. The same applied to women working outside the home–that was a total disgrace, usually with a shame stigma attached to the husband who was not ‘man’ enough (capable) of providing for his wife and family. (I recall this common sentiment as a boy.) But the arrangement was forced by the government, with the breaking up of families, divorce, and separation encouraged and successfully implemented with the divorce rate sky-rocketing. Many government divisions and agencies were quickly created to accommodate, the implementation of government control where it had never been before and the lack of control by the people. I recognized this right off as a direct threat to our nation referring to the effect and forced social condition as The Soviet Theory in my first book–the title of a chapter therein. The government intrusion came under the title (facade) of affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) with Human Resources invading the workplace and many businesses. Prior we had unions, not government coercion.

EEO not only cut in half men’s capability to provide for women and the family, which women still hypocritically hold men (potential mates) to now, it came with inaccurate political propaganda laced with misandry in that men prevented women from working due to a type of a male dictatorship. [This is Marxist propaganda that no one but me seemed to realize at the time it occurred. People close to me thought I was nuts.] The male’s assets per occupational role evolved from basic biology with him being the basic provider of sustenance. The female’s counterpart assets were her sexual and domestic credentials. The ‘oldest profession’ (as well as women’s present-day selfish demands in the dating process) attests to this arrangement.