Latest Posts

One single unquestionable problem that the "ladies" have is the fact that they refuse to believe anything negative about their own sex. Regardless whether it is something they are well aware of or something they have noticed themselves, they will on most occasions justify the actions of any female, regardless of behaviour. It really is fascinating how they can reject anything out of hand just because their current or personal situation has never had to question or face anything remotely the same..

A great example is the fact that they have special privileges or are given special treatment regarding education and employment. Their claim is that it could not possibly be true because they have had to work hard (harder then men, in their opinion) to achieve their position and thereby assuming they achieved that position because of it. What they refuse to understand and comprehend is the fact that there are laws in place in every western country that guarantees she will be employed first over any male regardless of ability, training or experience as the law states that she must be given priority.
They refuse to except the fact that universities admit at a ratio of 2 to 1, females first, regardless on how many males apply for positions at university (normal ratio at 2-1 again). On top of that special treatment, the governments have guaranteed that women will be given priority over men in government positions and promotions purely because of their sex, meanwhile they bloat and brag about being that bright they were actually awarded the position because they are so talented. How much talent does a Degree in Art help anyone in a gov. position has yet to be determined..

So whenever any Men's issues arise they automatically disclaim it as being either irrelevant or insignificant as far as they are concerned. Ignore one single problem any "woman" has at your own risk. But there is no discrimination ofcourse, because she said..

Do men get a rough deal?

(Update..article has been removed/deleted/archived at the SMH..)

Seems a bit rich these days to claim there is a ‘‘glass ceiling’’ for female jobs. Load of cobblers, isn't it? I mean, Australia has a female Prime Minister and a female Governor-General.
Has there really been discrimination over the years against mothers who work -- or against women without children?
The National Council of Women thinks so and no surprise there. I recently chatted with Victorian leader Jennie Rawther who pointed out that, among other things, women at the end of  World War 1 had to give up their jobs to returning servicemen -- even though their husbands may have been killed in combat. There was no widow’s pension, nor child support.
Sounds tough but Age reader Steve Hills of Rosebud is not impressed. ‘‘There is overwhelming evidence that female health, safety and female lives were held as more valuable than men’s lives,’’ he says. ‘‘Men’s lives were routinely regarded as disposable. The view that women alone were discriminated against is an ignorant one.’’
According to Hills, ‘‘men have generally protected women but when women share all the power, will they look after men? No. They never have. Is there any such thing as a widower’s pension? Doesn’t exist. Never did.’’
Hills is not alone in his jaundiced view of an anti-male world.
Women-only discounts for car rental in New Zealand -- a Canadian woman who killed her defacto with a knife but walked free from court -- a British study (by a woman) that finds women actually do like staying home while men pay the bills:
The idea that women dislike being financially dependent on men is a myth, with more choosing to “marry up” now than did so in the 1940s, according to Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics. After decades of gender equality campaigning many women now find it hard to admit that they want to be a housewife more than they want a successful career of their own, she said.Says Steve Hills: ‘‘Patently women have been protected and paid for -- and paid respect due to their sex -- far more than men.’’
Is he right?

The above article dates back to Jan. this year and also includes a few MM links and sites which is rather fascinating in itself. We must not forget the ignorant, arrogant victimhood specialists responses to this article. Heaping vitriol and sarcasm while quoting justification of their actions, back to world war one, is beyond pathetic..

Here is chalmer number one..
What a silly article. Of course some men get a rough deal as do some women. This article seems to support the hysterical "woe is me" style carry on the talk back radio seems to cater for.
Quite frankly, I can't believe I am seeing this tripe in The Age. Shouldn't this be in the Herald-Scum?
Oh, and people like Jasper, Steve Hills, etc appear to simply be professional victims.

Chalmer number Two..
What a load of old tosh.....was this written as a joke?

The other interesting factor about this article in the "Age" newspaper is that the comments are from a majority of MRAs. It's worth it just to have a look..