Tocqueville (late 1800's) warned that if feminism changed women in America, we would have "weak men and disorderly women." Look around and see how correct he was indeed! Being a "man" these days has been reduced to over-competition for women and sex, with lies, cowardice, and swollen egos from males... all revolving around placating women to the embarrassing point of the destruction of family, stability, and good commonsense living. Males have become pawns, obedient puppets, and customers, but won't accept criticism for their bad deeds to society and for the hellish changes for boys that require them to keep losing power if they are to please women.

A Female President?!

A woman president?!!

We shouldn’t have female governors, senators, congressmen, or let women hold ANY political office—-let alone be our President.  Here’s why.

Whether you see it or not, like it or not, lie about it or not, understand it or not, want it or not, or believe it or not, but along lines of nobility and dignity, there is an unmistakable and undeniable link and bond between being a leader of your people and that of finding it worthy of risking one’s life for those same people…  and in which the people being led approve of and protect that sovereign connection.

This principle has been followed by most all decent people since humans started gathering in cities and civilizations came into being. There is no valid reason to change it… unless you believe in SPT for women so they can, stilted up, circumvent the traditional cornerstones of our millennia–respected values, heroism, decency, philosophies, and commonsense—-as if none of that really matters at all.

In yesteryear, sure the males in power no doubt saw that some of the things about womens’ rules were oppressive, but so that the family unit thrived and prospered, they tolerated the sacrifices women were to make. The stable society depended upon them both doing what even the women knew was necessary. Additionally, those  men and that respective gender had the guts to be the ones to die for this country—-to protect EVERYONE—-including those very women—-the few misfits that existed—-that complained about men and the “awful“ rules of a patriarchy!

That DID matter! You bet it did!

As it stands now, women can’t serve as first-line combat defenders of the same country that their feminists misfit leaders have exploited for their own, pecuniary gain. For that matter, and also in their protective favor, females aren’t even required to register for selective service! What they ARE allowed to do is skate by straight into the Oval office with no major requirements or balancing sacrifices made of them whatsoever. But let’s see, they want to change all the rules and lead us around!  The last two sentences combined sure make a lot of sense !@#$%^&*!.  Huh?!

Even though we have a constitutionally-mandated requirement to ensure the Presidency is a civilian—-not a military leader (and for good reasons), the balancing question of why can’t women risk the ultimate sacrifice if they also want to lead, still begs an answer. Besides, it is not the individual civilian we are examining; but it is the gender—-the same gender concept (but inverse) that feminists have made such a stink about.

Say, we are not under a draft these days?  Being an all-volunteer military should erase our argument?

Bull!  A draft is not the point—-at all! But it does highlight the DEATHLY sexism against males in which males, as “real men”, must never refuse the honor of being drafted to die…   so the rest can live on and generate masculinity-disrespectful trash they derive from their misguided envy of males.

Besides, if we were to draft again, as it stands now, women equal as they are… when it comes to things they like, that is… won’t be drafted—-not even into stateside positions while the men go die horrible deaths abroad! Too, if we are going to allow contributions such as this to be optional, then what would be said if men opted out of their requirement to risk dying?  Where would we all be now if men chose to opt out—speaking German?!

Using the draft—-or absence thereof—-to maintain this avoidance is transparent because the “equality” that both men and women supposedly adhere to isn’t really equality when men can’t legally or respectfully option out of their required duty should a draft be reinstated.  Like so many things feminists claim is fair, women have choices; Men do not!

Yes, we all know, (even if the feminists refuse to admit it), that by far, women are not generally as equipped with the minds and bodies, mental bearings and power, to survive warfare turmoil as males generally are. Yes, we all know that with women up front, we will lose wars.

We will lose because 1) women have not the physical strength to do most ground fighting, especially if it gets physical—-and it does! 2) We will lose because men change when women are in their midst and are faced with survival/protection of those they are “supposed” to try to please instead.  These are but two of the many very valid reasons women aren’t allowed in combat.

So are we saying that only those with the ability to physically beat up a bunch of other people should be allowed to lead? (Feminists will exploit the “caveman excuse” or patriarchal dread that they exaggerate enough already).  No!! But we ARE saying that regardless of ability, those (the gender) seeking to lead should be out there trying their darned best to defend as well—–and with just as much tenacity as other equalizing pursuits of theirs, NOT (conveniently) take “no” as an answer from authorities.

Sure females might get in the way, making us sad at their losses and wishing we hadn’t given in to them.  However, if they wanted to be equal—-even to the point of leading, then they ultimately chose this path for themselves and all women.

Letting feminists challenge humanity, with their stability–depleting, family–destroying,  femi–socialistic, female–revolving, synthetic replacement scheme for everyone everywhere, but also not expect them to put up or shut up—-to not require them to prove their salt—-is downright mockery of what equality was supposed to mean. To allow women to bask in the benefits of equality with men, but hide their faces when the going gets real tough is mockery and is proof that MOTIVATEMEN is correct in saying that this is just another way for women taking advantage of chivalry to exalt their superiority masked as equality.

This ongoing discrepancy between men and women is proof that women, but especially feminists, don’t really know what equality is—-not even if the concept somehow morphed into a snake and reared up to bite them right between their eyes!…  Not if it sat in their laps and called them momma!

Instead of worrying about “what kind of man sends a woman to fight his battles” (and women to continue exploiting that cliché), men need to remember it was women who started this feminism fight with males.  Men have the right to win it.  Men do not HAVE to lose because the opposition is women. Believing anything to the contrary is puppetry, ridiculous, weak… and stupid!

If they’d rather lose to keep the women placated, then it is grossly unfair that men be the only ones dying on the designated combat battlefields while men be made to cower under the leadership of women.  While not severable, this basic link between leadership, equality, and the ultimate sacrifice is avoidable.  Letting women lead as a gender, without also expecting them to sacrifice as a gender, is avoidance. Avoidance of truth, dignity, nobility, and respect…. Not to mention it breeds cowardice in males!

Sure the notion of mass female casualties and fatalities is ugly!  But what makes it any less ugly for men to be the only ones suffering and dying like they are in combat? It is not right (AND EQUAL) that men be the only ones to get maimed, tortured, vaporized, or otherwise killed while women claiming they are equal but  simultaneously get shielded from having to protect their freedom with sacrifices…  staying in the safe, protected harbor of their leadership positions?

Anyone should be able to see the likely-to-be inherent (at least potential) conflict of interest deeply reticulated in such a notion as letting women such as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Solonas, Gloria Steinem, and any other feminist (proven anti-male philosophies) have the power to send men to die. Even an idiot would have very little trouble grasping this basic concept of why that would be wrong.  While it would be hard to prove, it is very possible that the face of a woman President (a feminist) will hide her inner satisfaction of treating men the way men have NEVER treated women. No man has ever sent droves of women to die… or any women…  for any reason.  Letting women do this to men—-and men ONLY—- with self-evidence intact, is fundamentally flawed!

Speaking of conflict of interest, what about letting a feminist woman have power to use executive orders and presidential pressure and persuasions that unfairly will go against males across the land?  Don’t think this will happen?  If you really believe that, you have either lived in a cave or turned a blind eye toward the awfully anti-male legislation called the VAWA. You can bet your ass that a woman President will likely favor women to the point of no shame whatsoever!  It would be shoved into our faces, with men not daring to have the male stamina to oppose the celebrated hatred of their own gender!

One might think that men, despite their eagerness to please females, could still garner enough  male nobility, pride, and stamina to help solve this dilemma before they allow a female to be President—-if—- that is ever allowed.

But no!!, so-called “men” cave in on this one too.  It is as if men are afraid to be male any more when it comes to serious issues like this one. Men will be male with their penises (in which they seem to package the majority of their achieving “manhood” criteria), but they will not be equally male with their minds—-not anymore! Feminists don’t allow it and weak men comply.

We should not let any feminist be President, including weakened males—-and it is inescapably true that all women seeking public office are feminists, like it or not.  Our country is supposed to guard against even potential conflicts of interests.

Hummm, why would we ignore this example?

Oh! That is right, forgive us!  It’s more SPT for women… who are by the way equal to men! Remember that? Or, are you afraid to remember equality when it is inconvenient for females?

Men, being clearly able to see the irrefutable proof that the generally relatively frail and bruising women can’t perform as well on the battlefield so they refrain from sending women to fight to defend the men and the country in which the women exploited, but not have the same stamina when it comes to other aspects of equality that are surely lumped into the same boat in the great scheme of things ultimately, can not be described as anything but weakened, feminized, chivalry-laced stupidity. No excuse will do when it comes to saying women aren’t as able as men in some things, but still let the women have their way on everything else they please.

Such lies!

Thus lay the essence of the real and nobility-laced link, the bond, the tie between being supreme leader (or any leader) and that of combat’s ultimate sacrifice. If someone doesn’t see this basic link and concept, then they are trying their darned best to not have to acknowledge it. It is staring them straight in their faces!

Either their gender is completely equal or it is not equal at all…  and only equal Americans should lead Americans.

Letting women pick and choose which parts of equality they are fine with but hide from the truth-telling, dangerous parts they aren’t good at is ridiculously weak of men. It is shallow and transparent.  There is no better way to illustrate the men-as-customers and cowardice phenomenon(s).

A real man will have the spine and guts to stand firm on this, regardless of what it costs him. His nobility and dignity are at stake here. He should be able to tell women the truth, and make those who deep-down already know it, accept that women can’t have their cake and eat it too. He should be able to look a woman in her eyes and say to her, if you can’t be equal enough (physically strong enough, etc) to die for your beloved country, then you know what this HAS to mean.

And then he has to follow through. A man must have the guts to make women chew up and swallow what they bit off—-or else spit it out and be woman enough to accept that as internally reflective proof of their gender’s nearly two-century misbehavior.   Anything else is cowardice.  It is fear of womens wrath and not being in their good graces.  It is the placating of females at no matter the cost, omissions, and lies… pure weakness! It is as if men are afraid to be honest with women.

(The statements of the preceding few paragraphs are true in their own self-explanatory merit, but we maintain that making women go back to 1840’s style living is NOT our goal or motive.  Such can never happen now.  All we want is for the truth to be told—-no matter what—-and if we still MUST do this equality thing (in which it is certainly looking like we do), that it be done to the point of TRUE EQUALITY.  MOTIVATEMEN really believes that letting women pick and choose relative parts of equality lends incredibly to female majority power and longevity—-aka, superiority. We don’t think it fair the men eagerly exempt women from combat, but still let them have their way on everything else.

If men and women are going to stand beside one another as equals, then women, (….and men), that doesn’t mean the women get a few steps in front!  It can’t mean that because it would prove that equality isn’t attainable. This beside-each-other reality is what we want women to see and for men to enforce…. And there is nothing wrong with that because it is the OBJECTIVE definition of equality.

If women want what is “truly” the real truth (according to them)—-if they are all about the truth, then why can’t they look this truth we speak in it’s face? Why do they “make” men lie?   Men are being “forced” to redefine (or let women redefine for them… along notions of their own feelings) what it means to be noble, fair, and balanced. Men, allowing themselves to be beat down by the misfits, can’t help define fairness anymore.)

Anyway…  Right now, adding to the number of men who already naturally die much earlier than women, combined with dangerous job-related deaths for men disproportionately, we also make only men die in numbers that severely dwarf the female casualties of war. This translates to fewer men remaining alive to vote and help send the politicians of their choices to power. This equals fewer men to remain as fathers to pass on their more masculine perspectives to children. This leaves fewer men to remain… further fragmenting any remnant of solidarity amongst themselves.  This leaves jobs and leadership positions vacant for women to fill.

This is a feminists dream! Now ask yourselves!  How fair is THAT! Would they EVER allow the reverse?!

And men, what the hell is wrong with you…  Are you really going to allow all this to happen?! Undermining your own gender this way, how can you dare to call yourselves men? Real men would never allow this farce.

If this were reversed in which women were facing these hefty political and economical disadvantages for their gender, like most everything else they exploit against the signs of nature’s intentions, they would rant and rave about being “oppressed” to the point of their increased deaths—-all contrived by “mean” men….  But of course!

Or maybe they would blame the supposed “patriarchal society” in which they have proven themselves to be filled with hate…  yet are oblivious to just how much awesome and other power women had over men—-always have had!

On the front battlefields, even if the real and obvious reason a bunch of women would naturally die more so because of their physical incapacities, no matter!  Society would have to fix it or else “men would ‘hate’ women.” Just like everything else in the feminists movement, those women would have to get their way—-or else!

Rationality would play no role! Prostitution–like power over men would rule even if the individual women don’t feel that way inside, or even understand such a comment. A general trend of effect like this would still permeate and dominate.

If you say that is baloney…  YOU are baloney!  Feminists have been doing things such as blaming and punishing men for nature’s processes and finding ways to circumvent practical rules based on their “being left out” or made to “endure burdens disproportionately” since their first misfit leaders started their disruptive, family–destructive mess in the 1840’s!  They use every thing they can to overturn anything that in their opinion, causes them to lag behind or suffer “unevenly” without so much as heeding a single forethought on the long-term damaging ramifications to a world that belongs to more than just women.

There is no reason to think that if women were to be the ones dying disproportionately that they would be nice about it and let it go.  That is not their pattern of behavior ever since they grabbed the power to blame and punish men—-even for things in which there is no rational way men were at fault—-especially with males living today!!

(Don’t worry men, you can quit worrying about where the vaginas to have sex with will go!  Men in general, are hung up on protecting women (their vaginas…and OUR wombs).  So, it will take great opposition for our country to change up these combat sacrifices.  If our male military leaders (and women leaders) already believed, and thus had in their solid arsenal that women can perform every bit as good as men on the combat battlefield in every way and do so without disrupting the male camaraderie so critically important in winning battles, then women would already be there doing that—-save for the unfair chivalry from which over–competitive men tenaciously and stupidly cling).

Besides, just like everything else done and modified so women can perform equally with men (wink-wink), if women are ever sent to the combat battlefield, special preferential treatment (SPT) will cloud and obscure the lack of TRUE EQUALITY.  So disproportionately more women can live through wars but still get full credit, things like extra training for women ($$$), additional protective clothing, added measures of support and shielding, enhanced and designated vehicles (so the enemy won’t aim at women as much), combined with a general refusal to send a woman to brandish the first sword…  all will overshadow the importance of having the same spending emphasis on males. Pursuant to the movement itself, men have already said to themselves that winning isn’t important, but protecting females is.

(Males…  who needs them.  There will be some sperm left… plenty to go around.  Why should we save the males on the battlefield?  It is females everyone would be grossly disproportionately worried about, no? This way, women can be equal in combat too (wink-wink). Who cares how many men suffer and die hellish deaths?)

So what are you pathetic males worried about?  Despite their being equal numbers of men and women hypothetically sent into combat of the future, men will still die in much greater numbers compared to women.  This SPT-protective pattern has already been well established even though it has repeatedly required us to ignore the truth of related matters. We ignore the truth because women do not want to believe or even hear it.

As President, the “so-protectable” humans with vaginas and wombs might get bumped off by a deranged madman (or woman) assassin! What are we thinking… putting women in such dangerous positions like that?!!  Why on earth would women want to risk it and why would “real” men allow us to sacrifice women like that?

We see women taking “18 million”  cracks at their “glass ceiling” so why don’t we see them taking equally visible swings at other barriers…  such as combat?—-THE most noble equality expression of all! We don’t see the push for women on the battlefield like we see women push for other changes, now do we? Aside from the ERA, (which was defeated due to female fright about would–be combat requirements for women too), women–in–combat is a token concept. It is as if women think it unnecessary to die out there on the front lines, but they sure want to lead the nation and the movement…  the movement of men through such hell—-to their deaths!

Although token-pursued, a few female feminists are trying to get women on the front lines.  MOTIVATEMEN agrees that this is one area that feminists are correct. Women should have to prove that this land is their country too and that such notion doesn’t just exist when it comes to benefits—-that women should have to fight militarily for its principles—-and by “fight” we don’t merely mean nagging, whining, arguing, suing, chastisement, and betrayal of their own boys!

Curiously, why haven’t most feminists visibly hounded this issue?   Why aren’t they mad–pushing women into rushing to risk dying for their country? Where is the historic female march into combat? Could it be that the feminists know women will want equal pay and equal everything else, BUT an exception is made in which women will turn on feminists if pushed into combat? MOTIVATEMEN is pretty sure of that answer! And that answer proves why the “equality” movement is wrong when it stops short of TRUE EQUALITY—and it does!

When we look in the faces of women, oblivious to the need of a noble balance here (of course, the feminists will shrug off and pretend there is no real connection between combat gender and the Presidency gender…  probably just a “patriarchal” rule of men so they can “oppress women”), how can the women still seek the Presidency?  Can’t they, and we, see the cheating character of this dilemma that is stacked greatly in their favor?

When we let women win, (have cake with eating it too and/or “win” without the sacrifices), what is it in women that compels them to accept so much SPT—-to let men help them in so many areas they should be proving completely on their own—-but when finished, they still really think they won fair and square (!@#$%^&*)? What is different about women that thinks it just fine to take advantage of  male chivalrous treatment toward them that men would have great shame accepting for themselves?  (For men, someone to let them win really bothers them.  If it is not a real win, then it is shameful and mockery…  and unacceptable!)

Understand the above question and provide a viable answer and you will also understand the very real and stark differences between the minds of the sexes in which nature intended it to be that way, and in which feminists hate with a passion and are doing all they can to pretend it doesn’t exist—and force that flawed, feelings–based, wishful thinking belief onto the rest of us—-in which the gullible are soaking it all up like dry sponges in a just–rained desert.

The imagery sent to female minds…  that men will shield women from having to be completely fair to men and that women will not be held responsible and accountable, trains the female mind to exploit even further and deeper this phenomenon. In this context, why are men resisting feminism at all?  Why don’t men just get it over with and let women have their way on every single stinking thing that they want to rearrange for everybody but that serves only themselves? Why put up a token fight any longer?  Haven’t we seen enough already that men are just too scared to stand up to women, but will surely protect them when they whine—-no matter how much sense all this ultimately doesn’t make?

Just like the Secretary of State position, occupied by women since The Clinton Presidency with Madeline Albright, in which every successive appointment has been female, so will the Presidency be subjected to similar expectations for women.  Once done the first time, if at least every third President isn’t a female, females will charge sexism, “hate”, oppression, discrimination, and anything else they can exaggerate that they subconsciously think helps bring pity onto them and beats down the males in their way.  It is as if the women love to flash around to the world that a woman has such great power and representation. It is as if no man shall dare to upset “the new right of women” to be that specific cabinet secretary now. Similarly, what is to stop them from whining about the Presidency despite the process of democracy?

However, as a balance, humans will just have to wait until, say, about a century or so to witness mass female casualties on the immediate front lines.  It will take that long for the mass feminization of male minds (orchestrated by feminists per se) to be completed, which will result in mass numbers of men truly thinking like women (and like feminists want them too). This much feminization will eventually come. Bank on that… if things do not do an about-face!

Men, “real men” …where are you? Letting women smack you around like this—-with traitorous, crap-eating grins on your faces?!

One good thing about it is that finally—-finally—-severely late albeit—-but finally—-women will get to see and FEEL the irrefutable truth that being male is not and never was glamorous or even “privileged.” (Women had that misguided lie pumped into their brains until they finally believed it).

We all know already that women don’t want complete and full equality with men; Just the easy stuff, the pay, and the more fun parts are what they only had in mind.  Mere equality will do…  which doesn’t include TRUE EQUALITY with all its hell, responsibility, and matching accountability.

Even the skinny little frail feminine-type women should grab machine guns and fight? Well, YES!—-given that feminists claim they “represented all women”.  Indeed, hasn’t the same body–type females benefited from the enjoyable flip side of equality? Fair is fair, right?  Or do we have to make even more blind exceptions for women…  (that if we really look at what we are doing, will shine huge light onto the fallacy of equality for the sexes as identical capacities)? Perhaps this conundrum is proof that feminists were shortsighted in thinking all women should get to do anything that any man does.

All these concepts, predictions, fallacies, etc, were talked about by antifeminist men and women of yesteryear as far back as, well, the 1800’s. But no one would listen to the “woman-haters”.

If you make women see TRUE EQUALITY, to them, you must “hate” them.  Yep! You must “hate” them because you told the ultimate truth that they have been desperately hoping you avoid telling…  that is “if you really love them!” In general, women are too emotional and take almost everything personal. Combine the two and you end up with distortion–saturated irrationality.

OUR love for them has to take on their definition!  Why in the world should it be any different?!!  What do men know? Men aren’t allowed to love as they see fit. Such has strict, channeling guidelines orchestrated by the feelings of women.

What amazes us sometimes is the complete obliviousness of women about all this in this huge arena.  Or maybe it is that some women DO see all these inherent discrepancies discussed herein, but still with complete and utter lack of dignity, they still want to lead the country, rearrange everything, and run our lives.  Exploiting men’s weakness that lets women overrun them is one of the most awful things feminists have done.  It is second to abortion when it comes to stooping low in order to achieve something that is completely unnatural, selfish, shortsighted, cruel to men, traitorous to boys, circumventing, and plain wrong.

So how is it under a fair philosophy, that we should shield women from bullets with our own male bodies, but they can still lead us? … By avoiding the truth deeply ingrained in this often–paralleled dilemma that spells out just how wrong it is to let women have their way all the time with everything?  …even war and leadership? … even be our commander in chief…  the most powerful person on earth?!

Along the lines of our entire argument here, we’ve known so many women, even though they know not all women are alike (in which some are more manly), still, they adamantly defend that women should not be President. … And they hoped to never see one.  In fact, it is from these fair women that we derived the majority of components of this argument in the first place. So help us God, that is the truth! There are some really good women out there… and thank God.

Men can be double-talking.  This shame is ever-present when we see men scared to be truly honest with women on ALL things—-regardless of what such honesty has to mean for women… and men. Men, afraid to oppose women, act like this dilemma isn’t real—-that rationality is wrong.  They do this so they won’t have to oppose women and/or be seen as the losers.

Yes, men know that if women aren’t suited to be like men on the battlefield, then by definition of fairness and TRUE EQUALITY, women aren’t suited to be like men on anything else either…  for the question  is not “can they” , but it is …  “should they.” It is cowardice that men are too scared to be this honest…  meanwhile our society continues to degrade in which men refuse to hold feminist women accountable for their collective damages to basically everything that we knew!  Men aren’t men anymore; they are obedient puppets and horny, competitive customers.

A female President? Are we out of our minds?!!

What’s next?!! What next will feminists attack?!! … and weakened men will allow?

Men, until males and females gather their senses, women should never be allowed to be President if they can’t also risk the ultimate nobility for the country. There won’t likely be any laws prohibiting this disgrace such as what this parody presents. However, there is something you can do.  NEVER vote for any women—-regardless—-not  until we see just as many women defend with their lives our borders, principles, and philosophies—-the same qualities that feminized women rushed to exploit. How dare them stoop this low…  and how dare men allow it!!

There should be a law created that proudly says that the gender that pursues the Presidency—-the highest and most powerful office in the land—-must also respect the nobility of the ultimate sacrifice…  that a gender not in compliance, under the tenets of decency, forfeits rights to the Presidency.  If women want to be able to lead their nation (and the world), then they should also be willing to die for it! … and then men, should let their protective, competitive chivalry die out and let women decide this for themselves. But if women do decide this, they must consider that they too can be drafted when needed … and not just to hang out in support, rear military units safely tucked away from danger.  It could and should mean their possible deaths on the front lines!

No person should stand in the shoes of the Presidency unless they (their gender) similarly could stand (and die) in the boots of combat and risk dying for the nation’s causes! There is no way this link can be severed. 

It is avoidable however—-prompted by scared cowards…  from both sides of the argument.

Even though this writing is long enough already, before we go, it is important to also include one more thing.

Somewhere, there will present at least one clueless feminist saying, “ See there!  MOTIVATEMEN does ‘hate’ women because they want women to be placed on the battlefield to die—-else be kept from achievements back home, based on an imaginary link of nobility!”

And when such idiot(s) state that truth–avoiding, twisted, but hilarious claim, we won’t have to say a word—-not one single word!

But we will.

We will say, “See there! Feminists do hate men because they want men to be killed in combat while women remain protected but fat with what their distorting feelings (in which they are oblivious to) call equality! Having gotten used to so much SPT, no wonder they won’t (don’t have to) recognize a link that has always been there.”

When the feminist idiot(s) say we “hate” women, she, he, or they will be proving us correct better than we ever could have ourselves… that some women are completely clueless about what equality actually is supposed to mean and that they and their feminist lords should have thought about all this before they started whining about the benefits they weren’t getting by being “shut out” in what they erroneously dubbed “a man’s world”!

Let us thank the silly bitch(es) in advance. Thank you for proving us right!

Some things in yesteryear society may have indeed been wrong, but being a man never was glamorous or privileged! …  And some women are starting to catch on!

On most of the things they changed, early feminists were saturated with misguided envy about masculinity and spread their corresponding hatred of the truth to gullible women and males.  And weakened “men” have allowed it. …And now, just look at the well-in-advance predicted chaos we indeed have to hand off to our boys.

Sounds real manly, huh?!!

Are we going to let it get any worse? It is time sensible women and men speak up!  Our votes are powerful! NO–MORE–WOMEN–IN–OFFICE… unless women can also die to protect that right to hold that office. There is NOTHING unfair about that. In fact, it is noble… and equality must include this facet too, so NO-MORE-COWARDICE!

Coming soon!

Coming soon in the future: On the right side of every page, (where this is written) we have dedicated the space to connecting our website with the world by posting pictures, articles, relevant examples found from places besides our minds, external (inter-) links with sites outside our own and so forth. While we have used the remaining spaces on most of our pages to illustrate how we feel, think, know, and hope---all derived from our understanding, wit, insight, knowledge, daily lives, commonsense, experiences with women, and all backed up by many years of reading, thinking, compiling, editing, and organization, we also want to include "other" sources as direct proof to the material we post on this site. We have read extensively, thought deeply, studied research, and tried to involve ourselves in a well-read manner about the subject of the gender war. We are not merely strongly opinionated coupled with courage. The courage and opinion parts are both combined with an undeniable immersing into the issues with feminism and its shortsighted plan to overhaul everything everywhere for everybody---like it or not! It takes a lot of time to develop a website like this and is perhaps the reason there aren't many out there who go to this extent to try and help men and boys. We apologize for the wait on substantiation, but we wanted to get on the net, to have our debut, to begin helping men and boys help themselves in a world where they are expected to cave in to the whims of females even to the point of ultimate demise. We have obtained our information for this site by exploring, reading, analyzing, and organizing. Like most people, we didn't go around all the time documenting most things we have read and learned from. Who has the time for that in their daily lives? But now that we are starting and pledge to maintain this revolutionary site, we are dedicated to gong back to cite, reference, link, and otherwise prove how we have arrived at the conclusions presented herein. Give us time. There is a lot of work to be done. We WILL accomplish this. Each week, with the exception of vacations, and stuff like that, you will see the evidence and proof we speak of here. Tune back in routinely, scan our site, compare it to the month before, you'll see---WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT SUPPORTING EVERYTHING WE POST ON OUR SITE. We will not let you down. Thank you.