Since I was recently commended so heavily for posting an excerpt from Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man, I thought that I would seek to gain some further applause for myself by pinching some text from one of the most popular Men's books in recent times.

The book is Sex-Ploytation by Matthew Fitzgerald.

Link to book at Amazon USA   ... Amazon UK

The beauty about this book is that it is blunt, straightforward, in your face, and there is no dithering about. In other words: It is a man's book! And, most importantly, it gives the reader a very good insight into how, and why, men have ended up being treated like fourth-class citizens and how it is that they have recently even been described as 'parasites' by academic biologists.

This book would also make a great gift for any chum of yours who has yet to see what is being done to him

At his own expense!

And, while on the subject, men are notoriously hopeless at thinking of what gifts to buy for their chums. Those in the men's movement must never hesitate to buy them a good Men's book for a birthday or a Christmas present. Not only does this spread the word, but it also supports those very authors in the front line of the movement.

And, of course, thanks to online sellers, you won't even have to spend hours wandering through any stores!

Yo!

That's what I calls shopping!

Anyway. Revel in this glorious piece.

But, Watch Out, he's vicious!

SEXIST SOCIETY

Ours is an overtly sexist society, biased toward women. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming - you don't have to look any farther than common sense. In times of war, men are the cannon fodder conscripted to die in battle, while women are offered the choice of military service; it is men who are forced to initiate courtship and finance sex; men must shoulder the primary responsibilities of mortgages and college tuitions and weddings (not to mention diamond rings). The justice system is disgracefully female-friendly: judges regularly give the nod to women predators who practice divorce as a business; custody of children is routinely awarded to the wife, even if she is a known abuser (fathers win custody of children in less than 2% of divorce cases, and usually only when the mother is deceased or otherwise incapacitated); and when men and women commit the same crime, men are many times more likely to be sentenced to prison.

Women have hoodwinked male society; the slave mistresses have conned their drones into thanking them for a beating. They bully men with their vaginas. But by positioning themselves as innocent, sexually pure "victims" of male "domination", women have manipulated men into granting them tacit sanction of their whoredom. It is women who are the true oppressors, not the oppressed: the logo of the feminist movement should be not a female gender symbol, but a leather-clad dominatrix raising a bloody whip. But even though they can gain easy access to male incomes, still, like spoiled children, they want more. They lust after men's jobs as well, manifestly in a spirit of personal validation. With one hand dipping into masculine pockets, they brag of their equality to men. But the ethics of "liberation" must have made their prostitution self-evident, even to them -a situation absolutely intolerable for such practiced self-deceivers - and their response was to campaign harder to insinuate themselves into the workplace, to try to legitimize their gender with titles and offices.

In the business world men are natural egalitarians - proof enough is a recent Gallup poll which recorded that 99% of men approved of equal pay for equal work. The emphasis here is on the word "equal". Men don't care who does the job, as long as the job gets done and done well. Accomplishment generally presupposes hard work, but a new generation of "feminists", trained from childhood to be takers, and so accustomed to manipulating men into giving them what they want, marched into office buildings expecting a sinecure and found labor instead. They assumed that men would hand them equal jobs and equal pay just because they were biologically female, and were shocked to learn that their superiors weren't writing out fat paychecks for flirting and baring cleavage. Instead of working harder, women began to use their energies to bitch about how unfair the "man's world" is. It would never dawn on them that they are the sole authors of all their problems.

For centuries, business has evolved as a male domain because men, conditioned by women to have to purchase female attention, have been constrained into performing as workhorses. Women have forced men to create such a unique environment, yet they are dismayed to discover that their idle and alien presence is not particularly welcome here, unless they are willing to toil as hard as men. What works well in the bedroom fails miserably in the boardroom. Business depends on effort-that is to say, giving, not taking. With few exceptions, the higher the salary, the greater the requirement of time and labor, and women, spoon-fed a diet of female pornography (women's books, magazines and television shows), have discovered that the true-life business world isn't elegant lunches and deal-making on the slopes of Aspen, but stress and deadlines and traffic jams. So accustomed to getting something for nothing, they have to come face to face with the awful realization that profit exacts a price: the road to commercial success imposes an expensive toll.

RADICAL, MAN

Since the mind-bending days of the late 60's, the equal rights movement has struggled to come of age. But it has been a journey beset with complications. Since women's brand of "logic" is mercurial at best, it was hardly unexpected when the original coalition of like-minded thinkers splintered off into rival factions, each devoted to their own polemical agendas. One such sisterhood is the radical feminists, a peculiar and vicious cult of man-haters who prey on lesbians, the psychologically crippled, and unsuspecting college co-eds as recruits for their fanatical crusade. In archetypically cultish fashion they insist on a polarized philosophy: if you're not for us, you're against us. This is the worst kind of intellectual cowardice.

A truly paranoid cabal, they are alienated from any appeal to reason, convinced that some ill-defined "patriarchy" is conspiring to oppress the female gender, and is solely responsible for all the horrors ever conceived by the human race, from rape to war to having sex with men. They have tried and convicted male society in the kangaroo court of their sadly freakish dogma and have pronounced the entire gender to be scum: in fact, a man's only hope for salvation is to have his testicles shrivel up into ovaries. "Male", it seems, is a particularly nasty four-letter word.

Radical feminists indulge themselves in half-truths, skewed statistics, and outright lies. Hopelessly chauvinistic, they refuse to tolerate any criticism or intellectual scrutiny of their claims. As with all women, they have quarantined themselves against reality with seasoned self-deceit. A typically egregious example of their data manipulation is an oft-cited "fact" in feminist literature which mourns that each year at least 150 thousand women die from symptoms related to anorexia and bulimia (since, wouldn't you know it, it is men who pressure these poor victims to be thin). The actual number, according to government statistics, is about 100 (not thousand-just 100). But such alarmist teachings will be a booby-trap for uncritical minds. The radical feminists are far too narrow-minded to get it through their heads that women contract neurotic disease because they are uninhibitedly obsessed with themselves and their appearance; because they are trying to mimic the willowy models glamorized in check-out counter magazines (published by and intended for females); and because they are aspiring to such an unrealistic ideal because they have been brainwashed (by women) that such an appearance is beautiful, and will therefore attract a wealthy man.

The radical feminists are militant bigots; they are bitter and mean-spirited hate-mongers. They divide the world into black and white, them and us. Their doctrine sanctifies the female as the moralizing and ennobling force of the universe, angelic victims of male treachery and perversion. In contrast, all men are potential abusers, killers, child molesters, and rapists, a hand's reach from the violation of their precious female bodies (someone might want to inform them that men don't have sexual thoughts about women with butch haircuts and figures like packing crates). Men are despots who plot to control women's bodies by denying them birth control and rights to abortion; they are domineering opportunists lusting to procure women as sexual playtoys. Marriage is another trap of the "patriarchy", enslaving women to drudge as housewives "for free" (they conveniently ignore the actuality that if a housewife were to be paid a fair wage for labor, out of which was deducted her share of the mortgage, utilities, various insurances, repairs, car payments, food, clothing, and entertainment, she would have to get a second job just to pay her husband what she owed). Make-up, presumably another male fiat, degrades and victimizes women; and men invented high heels to hobble women from fleeing from sexual advances.

It should be obvious to any rational thinker that such hysterical nonsense is the fruit of a very perverse solipsism, the equivalent of a lunatic ranting at his own reflection in a mirror. But it's pernicious nonsense all the same. Like all women, the radical feminists are masters of self-delusion, and so they have hyperbolized a world of sweeping generalizations unencumbered by facts. To pronounce that all men are potential rapists is like saying that all boys can grow up to be President-the possibility may exist, but the odds are exceptionally low, and depend on many specific sets of circumstances. But by depersonalizing men into rapists and the "oppressive patriarchy", the feminist bigots can assuage any sense of guilt when they despise the masculine gender. These women desperately want to ennoble themselves as martyred revolutionaries, but the truth is that they are nothing but angry and bitter broads who can't get a date.

If men are "pigs", then these deluded evangelists are sexist sows. If one of them were suddenly transfigured into a beauty queen, she'd be thrusting her cleavage at men instead of screaming at them from behind a protest sign. They are too self-indulgent to be proper whores-it's far less trouble to scorn men than to go on a diet.

Radical feminists are responsible for the majority of negative aspects of the equal rights movement, including "sexual harassment" and "date rape", which open a Pandora's box for false charges and flagrant abuse of men's rights. They warp logic by trying to deny that hormones define and control female behavior, that emotionalism is biologically determined. They insist that human beings are born sexually neutral, clean slates on which society etches prescriptions of gender-specific behavior patterns. Unfortunately for their unstable theories, science has proven beyond doubt that the male and female brain differ not only in size (the male brain is bigger), but in functional activity. In many respects, behavior is hard-wired into the neural structure. What's more, these women argue for test-tube conception, so that marriage and mating would become redundant. They promote androgyny in the schools and workplace and attack traditional sex roles. Their notion of "equality" is really sexist fascism: women should have absolutely no contact with men. And they are oddly obsessed with feminizing the vocabulary (womyn instead of women, ovular instead of seminar), as if a new language can somehow validate their credo or invent novel ideas. These are women with immense chips on their shoulders, raging because their bodies are too unattractive to be able to control men.

Radical feminism is a failure because it is a segregationist movement, interested only in promoting its own poisonous agenda, not in assisting beneficial cultural change. Like a billboard with meaningless jumbles scrawled across it, the radical feminist message may evoke curious attention, but in the end signifies nothing.

HISTORY LESSON

While the radical feminists are a small and rabid cult, the majority of modern equal right advocates, the true heiresses of the cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's, never really lost sight of their commercial goals. These "liberated" women couldn't afford to hate men (at least not openly) - it would be like biting the hand which was writing out the check that fed them.

In 1963, when Betty Friedan (who, twenty years later would champion Dustin Hoffman's "Tootsie" as the masculine ideal) published her seminal book The Feminine Mystique, she lit the fuse on a time bomb of social controversy. Friedan moaned that women had been "forced" into "dreary" lives as wives and mothers (Gloria Steinem termed the home, unbelievably enough, a "pink-collar ghetto"), wasting their brains and talents by being excluded from the business world. She was hardly an inspired emancipator, however-liberation of all sorts was already stirring in the underground, like new shoots pushing up in the spring. In the south, blacks were campaigning for civil rights, and hippies had begun to challenge the Leave-It-To-Beaver mythology of suburban comfort and security. Notwithstanding, The Feminine Mystique touched a raw female nerve; for women, it was as if someone had suddenly turned on all the lights in a huge, abandoned mansion. Friedan told them that they could have their cake and eat it, too: while their husbands labored to pay the mortgage, housewives could go back to school or take a glamour job or work for a charity to convince themselves of their productivity and worth.

And this was the problem in a nutshell. Entranced by her own militantism, Friedan had neglected to factor feminine delusional systems into her equation: it's easy to be liberated when someone else is paying your bills. All at once women wanted to crusade for equality, but not at the expense of their comfortable lifestyles. Whether Friedan realized it or not, The Feminine Mystique was pointing a very indirect finger at dishonest whoredom, and sowing the seeds of the most brazen hypocrisy which was to come.

The 60's housewives had amused themselves with setting up the props and the scenery, but it fell to their idealistic daughters to act out the proper roles in the play. These young women were open-hearted revolutionaries, who shook off inherited "truths" and seized the new zeitgeist by the throat. By the early 70's women were stampeding into universities. Bras came off, drugs were mind-expanding, and the commercialization of the birth control pill banished any fears of pregnancy. Freed from the puritanical restraints of their mothers' "morality", for the first time women allowed themselves to be uninhibited and unmercenary about their sex drives- suddenly they were demanding orgasms instead of cash. A true New Age of female honesty seemed to have begun: they had ripped the mask off their self-deception and exposed the fraudulence of their whoredom. It was an era of unransomed freedom and hot-blooded exploration. It was the foundry of true feminism (which doesn't hate or use men), untainted by greed, a philosophy which furloughed women to educate themselves and pursue careers, while at the same time pleasuring their bodies without selling them. Waving their banners of peace and love and unqualified sexuality, the young women of this generation had stumbled across the great secret of successful relationships: partnership instead of cash.

But as glorious as it should have been, this "New Age" was doomed, almost a stillborn child. Its tragic mistake lay in overlooking women's venal history, believing, in a Camelot-like moment, that the female soul could exist unsullied by greed, and that women were capable of being tutored by the natural rhythms of the human heart. By the mid-70's the buoyant idealism of youth had been rubbed a bit raw: thousands of new graduates were having their eyes opened to the reality that college life was a false image of the real world-it had granted them freedom without the chains of responsibility. Young men and women were matriculating into the marketplace, and were surprised to learn that they could no longer get away with partying all week, then cramming at the last minute to fulfill their sales calls. Men, indoctrinated by their mothers to be workhorses to support women, reverted to this lethal brainwashing; and as soon as they saw the college partyers earning money, women scurried to swap their baggy sweatshirts for plunging necklines. When nobody had any money, it was fine to give sex away, but now the old adage rang clear and cold in their minds: why should a man buy the cow when he can get the milk for free? Prostitution was back, and free love, the sexual revolution, had all wisped away to a fading memory, like the remnants of an hallucinogenic dream. These young liberationists, rebellious though they were, had internalized their mothers' messages too well. No longer were they burning their bras-now they were stuffing them. No man was going to sneak a peek without first paying the admission fee.

Cultural change does not proceed in quantum jumps, but evolves at a much more erratic pace, often encompassing times of transition. The Disco era was one of these transitional stages, arising from the social disintegration and scattering of forces which was the wake of the 1970's. Directionless young people were searching for a hook upon which to hang their lives; they stood poised between the dying vestiges of innocence and a surging new riptide of materialism. The riptide swelled, and Disco emerged, pointing like a flashing neon arrow at the brutal avarice which belonged to the future. Like the hippies, Discoers wore costumes to assure themselves of their identities: they traded in love beads for gold chains and tie-dye for polyester dripping with dancing sweat. But whereas the hippies had celebrated lovemaking as a wholesome and natural act, now the campfires of the communes were electrified into the dazzling lights of the city, and a new sensuality was throbbing through the urban nightclubs. The beat of Disco music was deliberately syncopated to the pulse of the human heart; women's dresses were slashed to display thigh and breast; and men's pants looked shrink-wrapped to their crotches. When they danced, partners interlaced fingers and caressed bodies, just as their parents had 20 years ago. But the cult of materialism put a price tag on such contact. Women were once again baiting men with their sexuality and selling it to the highest bidder. The sexual revolution had emancipated females to express their sensuality, but love was no longer free-Disco had snapped its fingers and awakened a hypnotized greed.

In a perverse way, the radical feminists were more committed and loyal to their doctrine because, even though their innate bigotry presumed more sexism than the claims imagined for their "oppressors", at least these women were flying the flag of solidarity and not relying on men to support them. Their hate was virulent enough to strangle down normal female avarice. But with the dawning of the 80's-the Yuppie era-a new brand of feminism had emerged: the pseudofeminist. In a milieu of designer labels, power lunches, corporate raiders, and soulless consumerism, these women forged their ideology with a viperous will. They dissected the feminist manifesto with their manicured talons and culled whatever suited their best interests. Their amended version of equal rights was gimmee, gimmee, gimmee. Men were making money-lots of money-and women wanted it, and the message they had harvested from the hard-core feminists was an excuse to plunder male bank accounts. "Empowerment" was translated into a license to steal. Their mothers might have been bothered by a suspicion of inner deception, or perhaps even wrestled with their consciences because they were living off the fat of the land while their husbands sweated over deadlines and cursed their lost dreams; but these newly-created hypocrites were tossing out even these proprieties - they expected to be handed everything free of charge. At least their mothers would have rolled over on their backs once in a while, but these women weren't even bothering to lure men with the promise of sex-they just wanted and took and held their hands out for more. The only bulge in a man's pants they were interested in was the bulge of his wallet.

Drunk with power, calculating and self-centered, the false feminists trampled men into peonage, and sexually famished males doled out anything these harpies grasped for. Women had become true oppressors, and they were scavenging male flesh with red tooth and claw. But in order for a tyrant to most ruthlessly exploit her victims, she must first depersonalize them into "things", so what little conscience she has will never bother her. Thus the pseudofeminists borrowed the hate and blame cards from the radicals' nasty deck. With shrill, venom-laced voices they began to vilify men as "pigs" and "liars", to label them as sex-crazed seducers worthy only of scorn. Such depraved creatures could hardly be thought of as sex objects; instead women degraded them into "money objects". And when these women weren't handed a job or a promotion, they put the blame on men-never on their own incompetence or inexperience. If no one asked them for a date, it was because men were "intimidated" by their intelligence or position, not because their arrogance and bad attitudes betrayed them as unpleasant companions. And if they weren't married, the reason was that men "can't make a commitment", not because no man would relish a lifetime of living with a cold-hearted bitch.

The Yuppie empire was built on the shifting sands of an artificial economy, and when its infrastructure began to crumble, social theorists happily predicted a New Age for the 90's, which was supposed to be an era of diminished materialism and enhanced intergender relationships. Shirley MacLaine had already tried to blaze a trail with her silly pastiche of 19th century spiritualism and modern pseudoscience: crystals, pyramids, and channeling touched off a worldwide fad for the supernatural because these sophistries provided an antidote for the yawning emptiness of the "greed is good" 80's. MacLaine preached anti-materialism (although she made a fortune from seminars and book sales) and "going within". Sheep-like women followed her in herds. They may have taken a journey inside themselves, but apparently there wasn't much to be found, because when they came back out again, their mercenary attitudes had not been channeled away.

Somebody - men - had to be paying the rent while these women were off seeking harmonic convergence or running with the wolves. Shirley MacLaine's "New Age" was more of a whim than a renewal-it takes more than mumbling a few chants over a shard of rock to make a woman relinquish her whoredom.

The 90's were supposed to be the "we" decade. But such idealism does not take into account the voraciousness of female avarice. Like sharks sensing blood in the sea, women had been gorging themselves in a feeding frenzy of lust for masculine earning power, a hunger which, once awakened, would prove impossible to slake.

It is crucial to understand that nowhere in the separatist gospel of the radical feminists, or in the mercenary gluttony of the pseudofeminists is there any conviction of a true desire for social equity. The hard-core feminists despise the male gender so much that they believe that a man's only possible redemption would be to become a woman; and the false feminists, besotted with their self-serving doctrine of predation, seek only societal permission to take men for everything they have. But attacking or objectifying men are just childish shortcuts; this is not aiming at a solution, but focusing full attention on me, me, me, and consigning blame to everyone but yourself. These women want to alienate themselves from men, and use them, but they are working at cross purposes. What they don't realize is that their third-rate philosophies are ultimately dependent upon men, not only to define themselves, but also to subsidize their duplicity.

A true feminist - and there are very, very few of these - likes men. She revels in their company, just as men revel in the company of an honest woman, not for monetary gain, but simply for the excitement and mystery which glamorizes the opposite sex. She lives with the profound belief that men and women can exist in a spirit of harmony and partnership. This, of course, is the point which the dishonest feminists shut their eyes and ears to (and couldn't care less about): that men and women are fundamentally different, both physiologically and intellectually, and that nature has designed them this way so that they will complement and reinforce each other, so that each gender will contribute its own remarkable strength to a successful relationship.

But the pathetic reality is that the false feminists care only about themselves. They are their own worst enemies. Without even a glimmer of insight or understanding, they are diligently erecting the gallows which will hang them all.

....

And, finally, also from the book, here is a good piece of advice for all you men out there ...

Participate fully in the coming backlash. The founders of our nation championed the slogan "no taxation without representation", and you cannot any longer pay tribute to those who abuse and take advantage of you. By continuing to manipulate men while still reaping the rewards of equal rights, women have abrogated their rights to easy privilege.