Two Sources Perpetuate Inequality for Men: One Old, One New Alan Lee Millard

Two camps exist for anti-male sentiment and female bias–the conservative, chivalrous one that places women above men (on a pedestal) and provides them special privileges and the feminist one based on male hatred, cruelty, and historical/bio-sociological deception. Both are misandric and sex-biased favoring women. Although the first came as a prerequisite upon which feminism is built, they both now exist simutaneously and merge to further persecute and suppress men. Any awareness of men being the most legitimate recipients of equality standards and equal rights is vehemnently opposed. Due to women having their higher status to men, society is indoctrinated with forced views that dissallow the expression of truth regarding men, although double standards and contradictive practices regarding men continue to increase. The denigration has self-perpetuating benefits for misandrists.

An all-time low reveals that due to men now being established as ‘scum’ they are not entitled to equal consideration to women. They are given no voice–basically deemed unworthy to even be heard. After all, they are sculptured to serve women as the main part of their worthy ‘manhood’ existence.

As feminism is harbored within our colleges and universities, chivalry is commonly harbored in religion with both camps not only tolerating the injustices but perpetuating them into the future, further entrenching the inequality of men compared to women. As part of what defines men, per their unworthy status prescribed, they are shamed for wanting equality as not being real men and unwilling to take it like ‘real men’. Only a masculinity prescribed by women and a government that also requires men to serve it will be acceptable.

Men were never really in control in the past as feminists claim. They were mere figureheads and place-holders in a servitude role for women (and by the government to pay its taxers and fight in its wars). Although women’s influence was dominant, women merely chose not to directly participate in matters outside their immediate interests (the home). Politics and other responsibilities and accountable positions were assigned to men. However, the result had to meet women’s approval.

Allow me to elaborate by example in presenting an accurate perspective of the past concerning two events and evolved conditions that are erroneously used to convey women’s supposed inequality to men and commonly passed off as men oppressing women.

Women in the past were treated like goddesses, with a corresponding arrogance commonly expressed amongst women toward men. Everything is typically done for the ‘queen’ and ‘princess’. This applies to tasks and responsibilities as voting and driving. And just like operating a motorized vehicle, politics were a man’s responsibilty. (Let’s remember that many men didn’t have the vote either, basically only land-owners/heads of families, much like what an electorial vote is to a community.) Held to being the most accountable, a man was a servant to women in a physical form as a chauffeur and in a decision-making or mental capacity as a voter. Women new that no matter who was elected, they would always be taken care of, so they didn’t concern themselves, other than through their puppet-master abilities influencing the men in their lives.

Women who had the money, status, and power set the standards for all. As part of the aristocracy they were ‘above’ menial labor and accountability. This especially became the case when modrrn-day conveniences were provided to women and especially when Equal Employmet Opportunity was implimented and women gained political power. Many female politicians feel the same coming from a long line of higher status. Although they had little use for the vote, other women who were in the ‘trenches’ so-to-speak, didn’t have it so well. It was they, the ‘lower class’ women, who fought for women to have the vote. One of the main reasons for the female vote was to outlaw alcohol since this was one demand that was hard for women to enforce upon men and an important outlet for men including the environment (escape) where they sought to induldge.

Women also had no reason to drive, with men driving them, the task often considered a privilege by men who were programed to serve women as part of their ‘manhood’. The times of the horse and buggy never left this male transportation burden, merely transitioning men’s chore of controlling the horses to controlling the motorized mode of transportation. (As women now fight for having no accountability, they still lack the know-how when it comes to maintaining and repairing the automobiles they operate.)

Only if we look at how events actually evolved in context of the times when they occurred can we see the truth purposely exempt, taken completely out of context and inaccurately applied to the present, skewing our thoughts of the past with modern-day feminist sex biases. An accurate perspective–what could be a whole field of study–purposely kept hidden, may be lost from our knowledge base and what may linger as unexplainable (if exposed) unless we come to terms with the truth. But this is only possible if the truth is valued enough to rise above chivalry and placing women above men.

The message is clear: We must not offend women even if it is the truth. Will we therefore end up with a further advancement of chivalry, incorporating feminism’s influence and effects? Sadly, this seems to be the case so far.

Leave a Reply