Girls Aged Eight To Be Indoctrinated
I'm a girl, a 17 year old girl to be precise. I'm not a feminist as such,
well, I don't think women are better than men (do feminists think they are? I
suppose some do) but I do like equality. One of the thing that annoys me
particularly is the whole maternity leave thing, and this in relation to
pensions, government saying that more should be put into women's pensions for when
they are on maternity leave. But f they haven't worked, then
they shouldn't get the money; they made the choice to have kids.
The fact is, however, that women were oppressed, and made second class citizens for a
very long time. Because of this, women
have this victimised feeling, and often they react in extreme ways. They think
that because they were oppressed for a long time, they now deserve the best of
everything. Which is silly really.
Well, I can tell from your email that you're not all bad.
But this ...
"The fact is, however, that women were oppressed, and made second class
citizens for a very long time."
... is intolerable!
In fact, it is an outrage.
So let me see if I can explain to you some of the reasons why you think that
women were 'second-class' citizens - the implication being that men were
Firstly, you have been brought up in a feminist-dominated world. And the
educational establishments that will have indoctrinated you for the past many
years - in fact, since you were a toddler - are even more feminist-dominated than most other establishments.
Secondly, billions of dollars every year are pumped into creating propaganda
to make women believe that they are - and have been - second-class citizens.
And they are starting to indoctrinate youngsters in this belief at a very
early age ...
Canadian Girls Are Second-Class Citizens By the time they're 8, many girls already see themselves as second-class
That's why the province is now targeting girls from 8 to 14 in a $1.4 million campaign on dating violence and sexual harassment, said Sandra Pupatello, Ontario's minister responsible for women's issues.
By the age of eight, girls are to be taught about the
inherent vileness of men.
Yep. By the age of eight, girls are to be taught about the inherent vileness
But all this nonsense and the accompanying demonisation of men is just a way of getting power, money and jobs for your
And it all starts out as a 'shakedown'.
Loosely speaking; this is how it works.
A bunch of angry wimmin get together and form man-hating groups. They scream,
and yell, and rush around hysterically claiming that women are oppressed. And
they threaten any politicians who disagree with them. "We shall portray you
as 'abusers of women' unless you give us money. But if you give us money we
shall persuade people to vote for you!"
Eventually, the politicians hand over the money for fear of losing votes.
These women then use this money mostly to feather their own nests
and to fund even further screaming, yelling and hysteria to bring them in even more
Yes. Some of the money will go into helping 'abused' women and what have you.
But that's OK - because they have got a fistful for themselves.
Indeed, most of the money will go to them.
The lawyers then think, "Hmm. There's some good
business to be had here.
The lawyers then think, "Hmm. There's some good business to be had here. Let
us also hand some money to these foaming women; because the more that they can scream and yell, the more business do we get." (In the USA, lawyers hand
over millions of dollars to women's groups to 'encourage' them to bring huge lawsuits which
are worth many millions of dollars every year to the lawyers themselves. And then, of course,
there is also the enormous number of pickings to be made from all
the divorces and disharmony that they bring about.)
And, before long, even Canadian girls of 8 believe that they are second-class
And so they, too, will soon start
screaming and yelling; thereby adding to the deluge of hysteria.
That's how it works out there!
there is political gold in those hills of 'abuse'
And, of course, even the politicians realise that there is political gold in
those hills of 'abuse'. And so they join the band-wagon.
And, bit by bit, an organism grows - and then it grows and grows and grows.
No valid evidence is needed; just a few lies, buttressed by some phony
'research' and a bit of friendly media hype will do. Add a good amount of extra hollering
and some righteous indignation and the ball will keep rolling very nicely. And, before
long, you have a positive feedback loop created wherein the pie begins to grow
as each section of the 'abuse industry' pumps more and more money into the
propaganda pot - in
order, of course, to generate even more wealth and power for itself.
Anyway. There is no evidence that I have ever seen to suggest that women were
ever treated worse than men - certainly in western history; but there is plenty
of evidence to suggest the very opposite.
In fact, as far as the past 200 years or so is concerned, the evidence that
men have been treated worse than women in most areas
of their lives is virtually indisputable.
And there is also evidence all over this website showing how the suffering of
men is purposely kept hidden - e.g. by the BBC - and how, for example, the feminist-dominated media
orchestrate huge campaigns of hatred
(Also see Spin
Sisters by Paige Mackenzie.)
You know; Uri Geller managed to sell thousands of little plastic pyramids
worth about 10 cents for $20 by successfully convincing gullible people (women
mostly) that these pyramids were a key to their healing.
Well. When you've got billions of dollars and millions of jobs dependent on creating a similar piece of hokum, take it from me, those involved in the scam
have a very powerful influence on people; including you!
Here is a particularly trivial example of how the evidence concerning the past is twisted.
And I choose it only because it comes to mind at the moment.
I remember a time when financial institutions and retailers in the UK
required the signature of their husbands before wives could take out loans - and
similar agreements. And the feminists, many years after this
situation had been stopped, made a huge fuss about this and used it as evidence
for how low was the status of women in those days.
The truth, however, was this.
In those days, companies could not effectively sue
In those days, companies could not effectively sue women to get their hands
on the loaned money if the women defaulted in their payments; particularly if, for
example, the women only had temporary jobs. And so they needed to be able to
clobber the husbands in these circumstances.
So, yes, on the one hand, if a husband refused to sign the deal then the
woman was often blocked from getting the loan. On the other hand, however, the
poor sod was being forced to take responsibility for any loans that she might
Tell me, young Emily, would you like to have to put your signature to
loan that I am taking out?
Would you like to put your signature on all the loans that your boyfriend is
Furthermore, of course, without making the husbands responsible, the husbands
and wives could easily have colluded together to take out loans knowing full
well that the money could not be recovered from them.
(And, remember, there were no interlinked business computers in those days.
So dishonest couples could scam businesses time and time again without being
In addition, husbands in those days were seen as being totally responsible
for the family income. And so if they messed up, it was considered to be their
fault. As such, it seems quite right to me that their signatures were required
on any forms that could have a significant bearing on the family income.
My point is that it is so easy to look at one side of the coin but not the
Thank you for your email.