Young fatherhood may be a risk factor for early death

This post is inspired by an article “Fatherhood in Early 20s May Raise Risk of Midlife Death” at

The article can be summarised by one sentence from it as reproduced below.

In the large Finnish study, researchers found that men who had their first child by age 22 were 26 percent more likely to die in middle age, compared with men who fathered their first child at age 25 or 26

The article doesn’t go into the reasons other then some speculation that the education and careers of young fathers being short circuited and thus being forced to support his family with lower paying and more dangerous work.

“…interrupt career plans and push young dads into lower-paying jobs, which could impair their health”

The factors will not known without further research but the results suggest that fatherhood and family life in general takes a toll on men. There are many stresses associated with family life and men generally have few resources and few people who will want to listen. “Be a man”, “suck it up” and “man up” are common put downs while the problems of women in general and mothers in particular are acknowledged.

This caused my brain to recognise a pattern. That this that since the 1960s and 70s the difference in life expectancy between men and women has narrowed from a maximum of 7 years in favour of women to 4.2 in 2014 in favour of women. In the period 1975-7 the average life expectancy of men in Australia at birth was 69.6 years and for women it was 76.6 years, a difference of 7 years. See

Fast forward to 2014 statistics the life expectancy for men is 80.1 years and for women it was 84.3 years. See

Over this period the median age of first marriage has increased. See!OpenDocument

This is a graph from the above site.

AusFirstMarriageThe observant reader would have noticed on the tables of the previous web pages listed that the  difference in life expectancy between men and women was narrow near the end of the 19th century and widening out to the 1970s before narrowing again towards today. This widening of the difference in life expectancy in the 1970s mirrors the dip in the median age of first marriage in Australia. See


I can guess that the age of fatherhood would bare some relationship with the median age of marriage. It looks like that early marriage and early fatherhood are health compromising choices for men. If that is the case the Finnish study linking early fatherhood to more likely early death of males does not surprise me.

This highlights the need for more study of mens health issues in general. Trends in mens health are occurring under the radar without comment or interest. The narrowing in the gap of life expectancy for men and women is good news for men. The reason as I can see may be worrying for policy makers. The implications for the value of marriage for men and its cost in terms of the health of men are areas researchers should take an interest in. The implications for the MGTOW movement are obvious although I will not talk about MGTOW in this blog.

Shamtrinos – some thoughts on the shaming culture

Other people’s opinions of you is none of your business. – Leftleaningantifeminist

Care about what other people think and you will always be their prisoner. – Lao Tsu

Shaming is a part of our landscape. No one wants to be ostracised but yet this seems to be social policy whip of choice. Doing or not doing anything because of a fear of social ostracism is one of the worse reasons to do or not do anything. It is on the lowest rung of values. Those employing such instruments as policy implementers really show the utmost contempt for other people. In short it is simply disrespect. It works in a situation of “insiders” who talk to each other in one vocabulary in one narrative and who talk to “outsiders” in terms of clichés and in a vocabulary of emotional manipulation like shamming. The inner party and the proles.The superior and the inferior.

In our feminist times there is a shamming vocabulary used against men by both feminists and non-feminists and by women and the chivalrous men stepping up to save their honour. “Man up”, “take it like a man”, “Peter Pan”, “commitment phobia”, “suck it up”, “take responsibility”, “mansplaining” and “man up” are just a few examples of these shamming barbs. On Twitter there are the derogatory hash tags of #MenzFeelz and #WhatAboutTheMenz. There are also a few oldies like “sissy” and “wuss” are also optional shaming barbs. Regrettably the mens movement has also developed a few of their own like “mangina” which I think is counter productive because it appeals to an emotional centre instead causing pause to think.

For men this is further complicated by the demand that men “express their feelings” at the same time as a combination of social and biological reasons work to discourage exactly this. Whatever the rhetoric women both forge and test men for stoicism. Women will one minute describe an ideal “sensitive” man and in the next minute will actually despise a real sensitive man. One minute women will talk about how important it is that men express themselves and in the next minute will demean such self expression with “male tears”. This is the conflict between the ideal and the reality. In evolutionary psychological terms women will test and forge men assisted by other men because in the context of the African savannah women need need a strong protector and provider and such a male will be rewarded with mating rights. The offspring of such a union will be more likely to survive with a strong provider. These values are consistent with stoicism. This pattern is followed even today even given of the absence of sabre tooth cats and mammoths today.

It is evident that calls for men to “man up” or claims that all men are (……fill in your own insult……) is really testing and forging men to stoic standards required on the African savannah. This can sometimes take on tribal scales. Shamming men with white feathers in WWI or asking men to take cat callers/domestic violence offenders/rapists to task if not actually do violence against them. The basis for Jim Crow and mob justice. An atmosphere close to that today with the rape culture hysteria. Mob justice is not fair but it can be understood in context of our biology. The global labelling of all men as having some kind of “original sin” for which men need to confess and atone for is an extension of this sort of shamming. It is also evident the gender politics is an extension of general primate politics in the wild but with more a elaborate vocabulary. The issues pertaining to that vocabulary are not important or the real focus. The instincts expressing themselves through whichever vocabulary is what matters.

However the real profit from the conditioning for male stoicism on top of what may be biological may be to the detriment of feminism. Men can gain much more personal autonomy by deciding not to be shamed. Not a naturally easy task given the threat of social ostracism but a training in stoicism is valuable here. Shamming barbs are intended to get a reaction. It is why they are fired. Think of these shaming barbs as neutrinos. Neutrinos are sub-atomic particles which do not react with anything. Millions are passing through your body at any time. Think of shaming barbs in this way. Passing through without interacting. We can call them shamtrinos.

Misincelry or Hatred of Incels

We all understand the terms misogyny and misandry. The basic definitions are given below.

Misogyny – The hatred of women.

Misandry – The hatred of men.

The first one is found in standard dictionaries but the latter is not found in most dictionaries. The last word was in use before the Mens Rights Movement and even probably before second wave feminism.  This is why I have not quoted the definitions  from a dictionary reference. One is recognised by standard dictionaries and the other is not. Such is the power of feminists to put pressure on to others that even dictionaries will bend to their demands. I am coining a new term – misincelry or hated of incels . First some more definitions.

Incel – Short for Involuntary celibacy. Someone who in spite of a desire for sexual intimacy is sexually celibate. About 2/3 or more of incels are men. I believe that this gender imbalance of men over women in incel numbers is explained by a biological tendency towards hypergamy of females towards males, the desire of women to marry upwards. This means a greater number of sexually frustrated and unmatched males than is the case for females. It is not an officially recognised term in therapy.  Related terms are love shyness and true forced loneliness.

Vocel – Voluntary celibacy for whatever reason. The opposite of incel. The vocel may be asexual and not have any desire for a sexual relationship or may have have chosen to refrain from acting on his/her sexual desires for religious or other reasons. It may be for a finite period such as before marriage or it may be life time decision such as being a member of a religious order or being tired of sexual relationships in general.

Asexual – A type of vocel. The person has no desire for a sexual relationship or from Wikipedia, “ is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity“.

Hypergamy – The tendency of women to marry above their own position or at least at their own level. A male doctor will be more likely to marry a female nurse than a female doctor is to marry a male nurse.

True Forced Loneliness – Similar to incel in that they have no success in relationships. As good as a synonym. The term was coined by Bill Greathouse. From is this definition “…. areforced” to be alone because they perceive other women (or men in some cases) to be rejecting them….”

Misincelry – Hatred of incels as defined above.

I have noticed an impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting of incels from men and women and very frequently from feminists, very often from the same feminists who criticise men and non-feminist women for ” impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting” women”. This is similar to feminists complaining about being “silenced” and then shouting down their critics to the point of ruining careers.

I don’t think this comes down simple rudeness or social blinkers although these things do figure. I believe evolutionary psychology explains much of what is observed in misincelry as well as bullying, racism, homophobia and transphobia. This is where sociologists and especially those of  a strong ideological bent are opposed to evolutionary psychology.

In my post on Oppressive Etiquette I gave the examples of Japan and the US south under the Jim Crow laws. Today feminists are exercising the same requirements for etiquette from men towards women as whites required from blacks under Jim Crow.

This is all the more onerous for men with autism or Asperger‘s syndrome who are more likely than average to be incels and for men who are generally more socially awkward. Feminists on Jezebel and Wehuntedthemammoth web sites take pleasure in shaming in rubbishing incels. One is reminded of school yard bullies. In this case however our feminist messiahs must place themselves on the side of “good” and to that end construct complicated narratives to make their victims the “villains”. Projected hate. A classic example of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender).

This is an extension of the sport of shaming men in general which many women (not limited to feminists) feel free to indulge in a way which would not tolerated if the target was black, Asian, Jewish or of some other demographic minority. This is a way to express the same dark angels of our nature in language which is approved by the cerebral cortex and society collectively. Take a look at this quote by Julie Burchill.

Julie Burchill2

I have substituted Jews for men and Nazis for feminists to see how similar to extreme racist rhetoric is to that of radical feminists. This is not an isolated example. Women and feminists of the non-radical variety, the so called NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) either put their heads in the sand when confronted with this rhetoric or they become offended, not for the men put down and insulted but for the implication that all feminists are like that. After making clear that ALL men must take responsibility for the outrage of Elliot Roger these feminists are quick to distance themselves from any responsibility for their ugly sisters. Double standards as usual.

So to describe the penchant of feminists and many non-feminist women, (joined in by many men happy to impress women with their bullying prowess) to kick incels in the teeth and do do so with relish I have coined the term misincelry. There is no way to control others so that they will nor shame us but we can control our reaction to just shaming. This applies to all shammed males, not just to incels. I will make another post about this called Shamtrinos in the future.

The Gamergate Controversy

Other more knowledgeable blogers and gamers than myself have written in detail on the issues of the #Gamergate controversy. I will not repeat what has been said but I will make just a blog entry on my overall view of gamergate.

Gamergate reveals just as much about feminists as it does about the gamers. It is an important lesson on hubris and self delusion by feminists but one I expect they will not learn.

The brief history of feminism over the last 40 years is one of conquest and domination of one area after another. Academia, education, publishing, media, judiciary, politics, and into many subcultures of some religions, atheism and scepticism, The onward march seemed inexorable. It is instructive to google “Atheism Plus” and the story of splitting atheism with the influx of feminists who branch stacked organisations and wrought the changes they desired. I have seen this in other organisations.

Enter the new target for feminist reform, the gamers and their culture. The infiltration of gaming journalism and the conflicts of interests between the gaming media and games developers. On one side there is the gaming feminist infiltrated media and games developers against the gaming public. The expectations was that gamers would fold and submit like all other combatants have before them. Alas all has not gone according to the script. Gamers have resisted and reacted instead of meekly complying.

The reason for this is that feminists have not understood the reasons for their success over the decades and have allowed themselves to be filled with hubris such that the ability to learn is impaired. Many generals have made this mistake through history. Self flattery will get you all the way to ruin. Recall the march to Moscow in winter by Napoleon and Peloponnesian wars.

Much of the capitulation of men to the demands of feminism has been attributed to rationales of one type of another. To justice, to logic, to equality, to ending harassment and discrimination et al. Much of that does figure but there is more and that unrecognised factor is the factor I believe explains the lack of success of feminists to reshape gaming culture to their preferred design. In reality biology is much deeper seated than realised.

In fact chivalry, the protective instinct and a desire to please a potential female partner all operate at a conscious and unconscious level of personality.Peer pressure is also at work. At the very crudest level is the possibility of sex or its withdrawal.

Enter the drive by feminists to conquer the gaming world as they have triumphantly done in all other areas preceding. This is failing big time because feminists have fail to heed the wisdom of Sun Tzu.

Sun TzuThe Art of War at

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Reduced to to most basic reality gamers are nerdy, basement dwelling Aspergers male virgins. That is the stereotype and a very easy target for making fun of. An acceptable playground outlet for letting loose the inner fascist for some exercise just as one might exercise their dog. One does not exercise their dog on one’s neighbours’ front yard and takes care to ensure this doesn’t happen but instead one will find a suitable dog park for this purpose. It is the socially acceptable thing to do. With gamers all the usual standards of polite behaviour can be dispensed with and a great many dogs have been scent marking this new territory as dogs are want to do.

Of course the diversity of gamers is far more broader than that but there is a certain attraction for socially awkward wizards and virgins in the gaming world. What very simply has happened is that feminists have threatened virgins a sex strike. As if that ever had any chance of working. It is with the gaming game that feminists reveal that they do not really know themselves. This was already obvious by the apparent lack of insight into their own deeper motivations. They have also revealed themselves to be ignorant of their enemy and deluded about their cause. They have revealed their arrogance. While the media has brought the feminist line on Gamergate the gaming world itself has not succumbed to the effort.

I do not remember another occasion when a subculture targeted by feminists has so successfully resisted such a corruption. 

Below are a few links for more information on Gamergate.

The best relationship I never had

This is a brief account of an earlier episode in my life.  The names have been changed to protect the guilty.

I had started working in a new work place in a new city. I did not have many friends and my life was very quiet. I was in the mood for more excitement in my life. I had unmet needs including a lack of experience with women.  In this workplace was Helen. She stood at 5 foot 9 inches making her about an inch taller than myself. She was not beautiful in a classic sense. Her face had some distinctive features including a prominent nose which in combination with her other facial features made her appear to me as a pretty face. She was impulsive, carefree to the point of careless, wild partying, heavy drinker and assertive where I was quiet, cautious, withdrawn, thoughtful and relatively sober. She had spunk and I was what you might call a dork. Helen’s work and punctuality was the subject of adverse performance feedback from her supervisors mainly due to her partying lifestyle. I very quickly developed a fascination with Helen to the point of obsession. She was never out of my mind. She was always friendly and ready to talk and I revelled in such occasions. I knew deep down that a relationship with her could never work but I had turned off my intellect and I could not think of anything else. I wanted her. I was in love. I had flipped from my normal caution into stupidity. From intellect to raw emotion.

To cut a long story short I was jilted. My working relationship with Helen deteriorated to hostility as she had not only rejected me but wanted that rejection to hurt. I descended into a deep depression to the point that my work performance was affected. My outlook on the world was very dark. I descended into the depths of a mental hell from which I emerged very slowly. In Jungian analysis it could be viewed as the shadow emerging and rather disastrously. In transactional analysis it could be viewed as a poorly adapted and not a very well protected Child after a lifetime of living in the Adult and following Parental precepts. However with psychology models one should keep a pinch of salt ready because they all have limitations and problems centred around unfalsifiability.

Helen went from partying most nights of the week to enter into several successive relationships with men. The most significant of these was to a fellow worker Simon. She was growing up a bit and her work had improved. Despite growing more mature she had deep insecurities which would sometimes manifest. Helen was extremely jealous and prone to acting out.  Then the stories of her turbulent relationship with Simon started emerging. Simon would come to work with a black eye. He would visit me at home after the latest argument with Helen. They were both living together not too far from myself. Helen would throw heavy pots across the room at Simon. Men at work would mock Simon behind his back for being “hen pecked”. The insecurity of Helen was the extraordinary good looks of Simon. Simon would be regularly propositioned by women. He had been voted by the women in the office as the most attractive man on site. He had extraordinary problems fending off lusty ladies. He was that rare species known as a “chick magnet”. A problem most men would envy and it was definitely not a problem I shared.

Simon shared with some other people at work including myself an account of Helen in a nightclub. Her group of female friends had some issues with another group of girls in this particular nightclub. It was resolved by Helen and her friends intended to take knives into the club to teach the other group a lesson. Simon persuaded Helen to call off this act of vengeance. He was very good at talking sense calmly and with reason. Helen and Simon eventually parted ways. Helen became a single mother to someone else’s baby.

I can make several observations from this story. First I was fascinated by what was a violent woman. I was ready to start a relationship with a violent woman. It was lucky for me that she wanted nothing to do with me. Another observation is that female on male domestic violence is an object of amusement for other men and women. There is a tradition of laughing at this form of domestic violence in the media and in films and I saw this in real life. For men it is a case of “scream quietly or the neighbours will hear”. What could Simon have done? The answer is nothing. There are no sympathetic police officers and quiet a few who will quickly arrest the male victim instead. There are few friends a male victim of domestic violence they can turn to. I was one such non judgemental ear for Simon. There is no lobby group for such victims. There are no political candidates who will waste any time on an issue which by general consensus is met with heads buried in the sand. There are no shelters for such men. There is nothing but derision for such male victims. There is only the never ending media tirade of “how violent men are” and how men must feel guilty about domestic violence against women.

Statistics in most jurisdictions show that domestic violence against man by women is about on par with domestic violence against women by men. The level of domestic violence in the gay and lesbian communities is on the same level as in the heterosexual community. Erin Pizzey founded the first women’s shelter in the world in Britain. For the trouble of pointing out the above facts she was precluded from a women’s group, was subjected to hate, had to have her mail vetted by the police for fear of letter bombs, received death threats and had her dog shot by angry feminists. She was forced to leave Britain for her own safety. The feminists were objecting ironically to the notion that women can also be very violent. Anne Cools in Canada opened up Canada’s second women’s shelter. She has also been subjected to hate for making similar observations to Erin Pizzey.

We all know Helens and Simons in our lives and if we haven’t buried our heads in the sand conclude that 1) it’s not anything more than a 1 in a million problem, 2) he must have have done something to deserve it, 3) that’s so funny and 4) Yay, girl power, go girl.

Time to get real. Time to stop pretending. Time to stop gazing at the world through ideologically tinted sunglasses. From the 1930s on the abuses by Stalin were clear for all to see but otherwise quiet intelligent socialists were hand waving them away, burying their heads in the sand and making up excuses. George Orwell is one notable exception. He was a socialist who spoke out against Stalin’s abuses. In the 1950s it was no longer possible to pretend as Khrushchev himself came clean about Stalin. We observe the same devices being used in feminism today in respect of violence by women. Time instead for some good old fashion intellectual honesty. Time to realise that domestic violence is not a gender issue. It is a criminal issue and a mental illness issue. It is not to be used for scavenging opportunities for idealogical feminists in their hate campaigns.

Why I am not a Feminist

My politics are of the left. I am a friend of the environment. I believe in a mixed economy with strong welfare. I eschew growth capitalist economic policies. I believe that democracy is increasingly becoming a corporate run oligarchy. My model of humanity is of the economy as a subset of society and of human society as a subset of the environment. As a result economic and population growth is not sustainable and can only be perused by driving more species into extinction.  This not being the subject of this blog I will not go into detail except to say that politically this is my home.  I am a member of the Australian Greens. I am a hetero male.

But I have a problem. Feminism is de rigueur for the left. I no longer identify with feminism. I have divorced myself from feminism. I have not divorced myself from feminism because I do not believe in the equality of the sexes. On the contrary I have divorced myself from feminism BECAUSE I DO believe in equality of the sexes. Whatever the dictionary definition of feminism, feminists do not practice what they preach. I have come to believe that feminism is a menace to the left, an embarrassment to the left and the achilles heel of the left.  I said “divorced”. Yes I was married to feminism. I was very passionate about feminism. I dovetailed nicely with my passion for human rights. My move away from feminism has been a troubling journey for me causing me much angst. I feel like the village atheist in a village of evangelical Christians.  I don’t think there was really a “road to Damascus” moment. Rather it has been a longer journey with a disease I might call ideological leprosy. That is bits and pieces falling off  my feminist ideology along until finally I had to just step out of  the burka of feminism and enjoy the freedom of fresh air on my body.  Strangely a feeling of lightness and freedom has come over me since I have come out and decided come what may. The relief of putting a heavy load.

As an atheist I have often heard the story of committed Christians, strong believers from fine Christian homes and communities who devoted themselves to the task of reading the bible cover to cover and came out of the experience as atheists. The case that a little knowledge can make you a believer but a lot of knowledge can make you a skeptic. So it was for me in the area of feminism. What an eye opener!  What a shocker! First there was feminist anthropology. Once there was a Garden of Eden which was a matriarchal paradise and everyone was happy and peace reigned supreme. Then came along the patriarchy to take control of the Agrarian Revolution. This was like the fall in the Garden of Eden. Since then everything has been war, empires and imperial exploitation. Not all feminists buy into this narrative. It’s nonsense. There is a comparison with religion here. Not all Christians buy the Genesis narrative of creation. I contented myself with safe in the knowledge I did not have to buy into feminist anthropology. Feminism was about equality and human rights and believing in fantasy notions of a prehistoric matriarchy wasn’t needed.

I had my first WTF moment one day listening to the radio as a feminist talked about ALL heterosexual sex being exploitation of women in ALL circumstances. It was an early hint that feminism having a dark side. I put this out of my mind because feminism is about the equality of the sexes. Then came my first disillusionment moment. I picked up a book by Katie Roiphe called “Sex Fear and Feminism”. It was opposed to feminism. The book was an account of her years in college but she made reference to studies about the incidence of rape and domestic violence.  The first knowledge I was to have about flawed and fraudulent research methodology. I was surprised but several worrying questions in my mind seemed to fall into place, mainly the inconsistency between the claims of what males were  and my experience and how weak and vulnerable women are and in need of protection and the alternate narrative of how strong women are, very often in the same sentence without irony or insight by the feminist in question.

Roiphie’s book is a great personal account of what she described as an “Alice in Wonderland” experience of weirdness of the feminist politics at college where nothing made sense and anything might be falling down the rabbit hole next. She did not write a very detailed analysis of feminism preferring to tell her story. That forensic microscopic analysis was provided by Renee Denfeld in her book “The New Victorians” and feminist Christina Hoff Summers in her book  “Who Stole Feminism”. In it is the statistic of the oft repeated “1 in 4 women are raped”. The source was found to be very flawed study by Mary Koss. Only 1/4 of those Koss identified as “rape victims” actually claimed they were raped. The other 3/4 were assigned “rape victim” status by Koss on the basis of a questionnaire for as little as regretting the night before the morning after. Domestic violence occurred equally between men and women as perpetrators and domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships runs at the same level as heterosexual relationships. Everywhere Summers looked there was flaw or fraud. I also learned the difference between “gender feminism” and “equity feminism”. I decided with identifying with “equity feminism” because feminism is really about the equality of the sexes and all the above could be put behind. The problem that arose was that equity feminists and moderate feminists actually used the flawed statistics on a routine basis, statistics which I knew were dodgy. By this time I was not talking about feminism with anyone any more. It was filed away. I still identified with it but I was no longer passionate about it.

It was becoming more frustrating trying to discuss feminism or to air differences of opinions. If I agreed with a feminist that was well and good as a male who knew a little on the subject. If I disagreed then suddenly I had no right to an opinion as a male and I had “male privilege”. My gender matter nothing before. My opinion should also have been “male privilege” precluded when I was in agreement. I have also noticed this between feminists themselves; between feminists who have been raped and those who have not. Any feminist can speak on the subject of rape when in agreement with the party line of the “rape culture” line but those who are without the “rape card” are excluded when they challenge the party line on rape or any other issue. The years rolled on and I came to have a looser and looser attachment to feminism. It was no longer near the top of my passions but was a bit heavy and near the bottom. I was being asked to feel responsible for all the bad things other men do. Indeed not just responsible but actually guilty. I was also supposed to be innately evil myself on account of being male. Discussing differences was like arguing with a Spanish Inquisition who have already made up their minds about your guilt. This was not equality of the sexes. This was religious fervour and very likely actually mental illness in many cases.

It became apparent to me that feminism takes it’s definition from “equity feminism”, apple pie all things sweet and nice yadda yadda yadda but its actual influence comes from the darker “gender feminism” side and unfortunately so do more and more government policies and laws. So where is the influence of “equity feminism” in all this. Nowhere. “Equity feminists” spend more time spin doctoring and apologising and making noises about “I’m not that sort of feminist” than they spend actually countering their darker sisters. There is a sort of “honour among thieves” code operating.

Fast forward to 2010. In Australia Julia Gillard becomes the first female prime minter of the country. She attracted a lot of animosity. There was a lot of hate driven by shock jocks on the carbon tax issue. At this time the word “misogyny” was being branded about but the adjective was being devalued by being used needlessly. Sure there was hate of Julia but hate of one woman is not hate of all women any more than hate of Tony Abbott is not hate for all men. Pointing this out would label you as a misogynist too. Misogyny is hate of women, not one woman and misandry is hate of all men, not one man.

Another experience was the subject of a possible male contraceptive pill. This is something that brings out all the feminist insecurities. Fond of repeating that men need to take responsibility for the children they sire they are strangely reluctant to actually allow men the agency to take on this responsibility. The main objection being that “men will forget to take the pill” and that women will bear the greater consequences of this. No drug has ever been denied scheduling on the basis that people may forget to take it. This objection also ignores the fact that women do not have to stop contraception themselves. In fact the result would be far better. No child would be born unless wanted by both parents.

I finally got tired of all the fictions, myths, spin doctoring, the misandry, the denial of inconvenient facts, the unfair methods of arguing, all the vile and vitriol and I lost patience with moderate feminists to step up to the mark. I decided it was time to divorce feminism altogether. In future posts I will explain why feminism is one of the best things the one percent had going for it and why I believe feminism is the achilles heel of the left.

When I finally peeled back the last bit of feminist wallpaper I felt like a load had been lifted from my shoulders. I can appreciate how Darwin must have felt. He was very sickly but once he was forced to publish the “Origin of Species” by the threat of Alfred Wallace publishing his theory Darwin’s health improved.  Dan Barker in his book “Losing Faith in Faith” tells the story of how he finally gave up on religion and the lifting of the burden. I have heard this also from other former Christians. Pretending to believe what is false is a great drain on energy.