Her Power of Jealousy - Part 2

"Jealousy is a tool some ignorant people try to use to pry open a long range relationship. Jealousy is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways between ignorance and stupidity." - Richard Pawlowski - New Power of Women

______

(A chapter from the ebook Bogus Beauty & The New Power of American Women)

Do you know the difference between someone who is broke and someone who is poor? And, do you know the difference between someone who is ignorant and someone who is stupid? Well the distinctions are important and you should understand that if someone is “broke” that can merely be a temporary circumstance which can change in an instant. Being poor, on the other hand, typically means being substandard and of low quality. A “broke” person isn’t necessarily a “poor” person, and a poor person can have plenty of money but not have the ability or brains to do anything worthwhile with it. Poor is substandard and broke (in this sense) isn’t necessarily a lifetime circumstance.

The difference between ignorant and stupid is similar because, while a person may not know something - yet - she/he can still learn and grow when they do learn from their ignorance. Ignorance is not the same as stupidness. Smoking for example, is stupid (very stupid) especially if you know it is killing you and you keep smoking. If you are in a relationship and the other person is having sex without your knowledge, you are ignorant. However, if you find out and allow it to continue and to happen again, you are pretty stupid. Of course if you know it and don’t give a damn, and if that’s OK too - you aren’t ignorant nor stupid.

So what does this exercise in semantics have to do with the new power of American women and specifically, the power of jealousy? Well my friend, jealousy is a form of stupidness because it can blind people into believing something that is not real. Jealousy is the rampant green-eyed dragon that magnifies doubts and destroys relationships all over the world and very often, when a person is ignorant of someone else's motivations or preferences, ignorances can turn into a chronic and stupid state of jealousness which can lead to crazy-making and violence.

Paraphrasing Parul Sengal, a researcher and TED seminar leader: 

“Jealousy is the number one cause of spousal murder. In reality, jealousy is a quest for the truth.” 

Jealousy is also a tool some ignorant people try to use to pry open a long range relationship. Jealousy is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways between ignorance and stupidity.

Here’s some examples of being ignorant and stupid about jealousy. These are true stories from some guys I’ve interviewed but whose names are changed. 

Larry is a Harvard MBA in his late 40’s. He’s been married twice, had 3 children and gives financial seminars around the country. Larry meets Mary, a divorced Realtor in her early 30’s with two grade school children. They wine and dine continuously while Larry gets to show off how great he is when he is glowing in front of his audience. Mary follows Larry around the speaking circuit for a few months and after Larry buckles to her beauty, he suggests they get married and honeymoon in Hawaii. She says she wants to wait to have sex because she “wants to make it special.” On the plane to Hawaii from LA, and right after the wedding, Mary tells Larry that she really doesn't love him and that she has been seeing her ex-husband and is still “emotionally connected” to him. Larry of course, is dumb-struck and speechless. When the veins in his neck get almost back to normal, Larry blurts out; “Why in the hell didn’t you tell me this before we were married?” Mary smiles and says; “I didn’t want to spoil our marriage.”

Needless to say, Larry had less than a good time in Hawaii. Larry confided in me that he wanted to “choke the shit out of her” but he didn’t, because he wasn’t about to let his ignorance of her true self turn into bellicose stupidity.

Here’s another story of jealousy:

Jack and Tami met at the office where they both worked and were on and off again lovers over several years. Tami was always trying to get Jack to commit to marriage but since Jack was several years older (about 40) and been divorced with two kids, he was pretty gun-shy about jumping in again. Jack wanted to take his time and see other people. Jack thought Tami should do the same because she hadn’t been married yet. “No hurry for me” Jack openly confides to Tami.

Over many in-between and different relationships, both Jack and Tami kept in touch and often had sex. Sex was easy for each of them, with the understanding they would see others. Tami however, would often slyly tell Jack about her several different men-friends, where they went, how much fun they had and how nice they were to her. Jack however, was reserved about talking about his various lady-friends. Jack played it more discreetly but Tami would always tell Jack that she wanted him on a permanent basis and the other men were just “friends.” Jack felt he understood this. He too had many women “friends.”

Sometimes however, Tami would try to make Jack jealous by bringing some of her friends around to meet Jack, while he was working. Jack felt he knew Tami in different way than the other guys did and understood that Tami was a sexual animal. It was one of the double reasons why Jack liked her in the first place, but Jack was forever doubtful of Tami, because deep inside himself, he didn’t feel that she would ever be truly loyal to him, especially if they got married. And to Jack, Tami never appeared to be the good mother type and never overtly demonstrated an understanding of Jack’s need for loyalty.

Well, one night after Jack and Tami were finished rolling around in the sheets, the subject of commitment came up again. Tami launched into her regular routine about getting beyond just sex. She started to remind Jack how good looking the other guys are that she was also dating. She did it just to see if she could make Jack jealous and perhaps trick him into a commitment. Jack, not being totally stupid, asked her why she didn’t marry the cutest guy she says was at the top of her list of nice friends, and who, according to Tami, was also wanting to marry her. Tami, in all of her blissful stupidness and with a smile, softly tells Jack that the reason why she didn’t want to marry the other special fellow, was because “His dick was too big.” Jack blurts out in total confusion; “You mean to tell me, that you prefer to me to him because you had trouble getting it in?” And, as Tami nods yes and sits there with a stupid smile on her face, Jack starts thinking to himself, “How can I get this stupid creature out of my face, without physically throwing her out the window?”

Yes, our friend Jack was on the verge of doing something very stupid but he let his inner voice of rationality come through and calm him, while he politely asked Tami to leave.

Well, I do not know about you, my special reader, but I for one, seriously doubt our fellow human because of the inter-linked concepts of jealously and stupidity.

*****

* A side note. If you have any “unusual” man-tales like this and you want to share them, jot it down and email it to me. It might be great example and content for our website or my next book. I’ll keep your name confidential if you wish.

The Male’s New Normal Jealousy of Women - Part One

“On average, men are more competitive than women, so it’s definitely possible that men would respond in a self-negative way to anybody’s success.” – Kate A. Ratliff, University of Florida. 

––––––

(A chapter from the book New Power of American Women - The Essential Survival Guide)

The Great Recession of 2008 has highlighted some serious, long range problems for most American men. That recession also highlighted the increasing new power of American women in the “new normal” economy. 

In Rosin’s well publicized The End of Men and The Rise of Women book, she does a pretty good job of interviewing several people who were caught in the new economic reality and how men are losing the battle and women are the new breadwinners doing most of the work. She gave a few facts and examples of how the guys in the family were stuck by refusing to change their jobs and mentality. She began her book with examples of how girls in college were now more sexually aggressive while being kinda slutty. She says they were enjoying it and also graduating, seeking to take over in some industries. The pharmacy industry in particular. She also showed how women were marginalized in the past (like victims of course) but were now on the rise. She got into some core economic issues and several chapters really took me by surprise. In them, she caught the essence of the dangers women can do to men while they are “rising.” Besides the new sexual attitudes about being endorsed by feminists, her chapters about the new wave of female violence and how Asian women will take over the world, were what I thought most American men needed to pay close attention to. 

If you haven’t yet read the End of Men, I’d like to suggest you do. If you do read it, pay special attention to the chapters “A More Perfect Poison - The New Wave of Female Violence,” “Hearts of Steel - Single Girls Master the Hook-up” and “The New American Matriarchy - The Middle Class Gets a Sex Change.” Good eye openers for slackers and/or traditional thinking guys.

––––––

“Trifles light as air, are to the jealous, confirmations strong as proofs of holy writ.”  – William Shakespeare

_______

An interesting study titled; “Gender Differences in Implicit Self-Esteem Following a Romantic Partner’s Success or Failure,” was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, by Kate A. Ratliff, from the University of Florida and Shigehiro Oishi, from the University of Virginia (2013). This clinical study got together several groups of young, college age adults to find out how a woman’s success is taken by a male, if the female is more successful than he. 

The summary of the study was this:

“In sum, men’s implicit self-esteem is lower when a partner succeeds than when a partner fails, whereas women’s implicit self-esteem is not. These gender differences have important implications for understanding social comparison in romantic relationships.”

What I found most interesting is in what these researchers left out. First of which, they didn’t specify if the participants in the study were married and why they were just considered “romantic partners.” The age of the participants - with which one might want to question the “maturity” level of the different groups - was also not available. 

However, they also wrote: 

“Even partners in committed relationships experience negative feelings when their partner outperforms them in a domain important to their self-concept.” 

One might want to assume they meant marriage but since this was a college-age group of people, I’m guessing it was actually people living together. 

Now keep in mind, this is a college research paper and there were’t a lot of divorcees or “previously initiated” in this group. Mature, senior opinions were absent. They go on with: 

“In addition to gender differences in including one’s partner in the self, we believe that the success of the partner might harm men’s self-esteem more than women’s in part because men tend to value agentic traits (e.g., competence) more than women do (Guimond, Chatard, Martinot, Crisp, & Redersdorff, 2006; Helgeson, 1994). Researchers have found also that men tend to exaggerate their agentic traits, whereas women tend to exaggerate communal traits (Paulhus & John, 1998). To the extent that competence is a more central to men’s self-perceptions than to women’s, men’s self-esteem is more likely to be negatively affected when their competence is in question.

Relatedly, men tend to be more competitive than women (Buss, 2004; Maccoby, 1998). Maccoby (2002) argues that, from a very young age, boys’ playtime interaction tends to be marked by dominance-striving. Competition within social groups is a way for boys to “prove their worth.” Young girls also pursue individual goals within social groups, but tend to do so while simultaneously striving to maintain group harmony. Liening, Mehta, and Josephs (in press) argue that men’s greater competitiveness arises from a combination of patriarchal social structures, evolution benefitting aggressive men, and differences in the underlying biological mechanisms that drive men’s and women’s behavior.

Further, gender is strongly associated with widely shared stereotypes. Men are typically associated with success and competence; women are largely assumed to be less competent and less achievement-oriented; even when women are successful, their abilities are often downplayed by others (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Gender stereotypes would therefore suggest that it is more acceptable for a woman to have a successful male partner than it is for a man to have a successful female partner. Having internalized such stereotypes, men’s self-esteem might be particularly threatened by a female partner’s success.”

Got that? I couldn’t have said it better myself. However, note how both genders exaggerate their so-called normal traits, which could also mean lying about it. Also note that none of these research studies mentioned how bogus beauty might be or is being used competitively or perhaps intrinsic to this basic psychological or equality problem. 

In other words, they didn’t include how and why increasing feminist competition, with bogus beauty, may cause much greater economic upheaval, violence and mental problems further down the road.

Special note** If you want to dig into this study deeper google it. There is also another element of personalized jealousy that is coming up in the Power of Jealousy chapter. Therein are  some personal interviews about how the jealousy monster is actually being used one on one.

Also keep in mind, there are many other feminist writers such as Hanna Rosin and her “End of Men” book, which are prompting some men (me for one) to fire back and try to help men. I guess, deep down, I’m jealous of that particular book’s spin and it’s success. :-)

NOTE* - Part 2 of this chapter on Her Power of Jealousy coming next week. This is the funny stuff with  some of my interviews and real examples of jealous fools.

******

The Alternate Female Identity, Part 3 - Perversion

“Hard-headed woman, soft-hearted man, been the cause of trouble since the world began. 

Oh yeah! Ever since the world began.” – Elvis Presley

------ 

My wife and I went to see “Gone Girl” last Sunday. It was an interesting movie about the growing powers in American women and the increasing weakness of American men. Especially interesting to me because I noted how the media immediately jumps to conclusions if anything bad happens to a woman and that men are automatically assumed to be the cause of her problems. 

Another interesting aspect of this movie was, without giving away too much of the plot, the missing wife used her mass-victim mindset to justify her own death-wish and her wrath for his infidelity. She also used her ample feminine prerogatives to set in motion his crucifixion in the media. In her plan, she dyed her hair and quit using makeup to go unnoticed while hiding from the media. In different words, she dropped her established bogus beauty identity, or alternate ID and became real looking, in order to escape unwanted attention. It’s a great subjective power to have and American women can do this anytime they want in real life. It’s auto-accepted too for her but in fact, is a constant and effective tool for male manipulation. Her ability to confuse or beguile him, is a source of satisfaction for her.

Rampant Perversion Created by Her Alternate Identity

In my book Bogus Beauty & The New Power of American Women, I also show how the false faces women continually push into our lives, also negatively change the behaviors of American men and boys around them. This constant assault of feminine fakery has also created open and rampant perversion. The growing legions of “quasi men” or “drag queens” - men who act like women to other men - is, in my opinion, a direct result of this mind-warping, bogus beauty power of women in the media. Think I'm wrong? Consider this.

------

Also, and just FYI, I received the very first review of Bogus Beauty last week on Amazon. I'm struggling to get people to read something that is very taboo to women but luckily, I got the first one and it confirmed why I wrote it. I also hope you'll check it out and join me in this fight against make up use.

 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MC8GQOC 

Here’s what Roman A. had to say about Bogus Beauty:

Brilliant and Brave

“My wife read this book, here are her thoughts: 

"I loved it! He really hit the nails on their heads. I have watched women my entire life, often wondering why they do what they do, to each other and themselves. Richard breaks down the different psychosis into organized archetypes. His insights are thought provoking and he tempers the volatile subject matter with his brand of humor, which I appreciated also. Sadly I am sure many thin skinned PC femmes will be upset by the reading of this, but if you truly wish to be a better woman you will not prolong facing these dark parts of our gender any more than you must and stop the madness! It should be required reading in Women's Studies courses :) seriously. 

You are a brave man for writing this book and I think your insights are a valuable resource Richard, Bravo!"

The Alternate Female Identity Part 2

Why Women Hide

"I quickly discovered it took far more internal security to 

speak on behalf of men than to speak on behalf of women." 

– Warren Farrell, PhD. - The Myth of Male Power

At one of the live relationships seminars I attended, a middle-aged man stood up and posed a question to the psychologist Dr. Harold Bloomfield, author of “Inner Joy.” He asked Dr. Bloomfield:

“Why do women hide? I can’t figure any of them out any more. I have reached the point in my life where I cannot tell what it is, or who it is I am talking to when I speak to a woman. She has on this strange mask that she thinks is pretty. It looks stupid and she hides behind it. How the hell am I supposed to honestly respond to them? There are so many and they all do it.”

Dr. Bloomfield answered with one of the most profound statements I have ever heard. He said:

“View them as insecure creatures but love them anyway. They are not going to change and you only hurt yourself with any kind of negativity towards them.”

Smart response and very good advice in my opinion.

Acquiring Sensory Acuity About Women

Neurolinguistic programing (NLP) is the branch of linguistics dealing with the relationship between language and the structure and functioning of the brain. In a neurolinguistics seminar in Beverly Hills, California, where out of the 350 people attending, 300 were women, the guest speaker was the  noted female psychologist and NLP expert, Genie Laborde, the author of “Influencing With Integrity.” She spoke in great detail how we, as humans perceive even slight changes in facial cues, skin color, voices, and eye movements, with which - if we are very observant - we will know how the other person is immediately responding to our one-on-one communication. Laborde called this learning of how to pay exact attention to these details, as acquiring “sensory acuity.”

A well-dressed, grey haired man about 60, stood up and asked Laborde:

“If we are supposed to be able to communicate better with each other with neuro- linguistic programming and be able to read the inner responses of other humans with our increased ‘sensory acuity’ - just how can this be accomplished when women have covered their facial skin with cosmetics? And, just why DO women cover-up their true selves?”

As if all the air was just sucked out of it, the room went totally silent. Her candid response chilled the audience into recognizing just little we know about each other. She said:

“I don’t have an answer to that first question but women hide their faces, in the beginning stages of a relationship, because they simply do not trust men.”

Well, I was one of the few men in the group and noticed that Genie Laborde was the only woman in the audience without makeup. She was very plain looking and I thought her explanation of the question was a bit of a cover-up too, because to me, that means that a women is always trying to blame men for feminine actions. Laborde’s side-step did not fully answer the question about how overcome this cosmetic-communication blockade. Moreover, as a professional psychologist she continued to defer her own reality and responsibilities to better communication. She wouldn’t even try. It appeared to be too sensitive an issue because the majority of the women in the Beverly Hills audience looked just like a Barbie doll’s older sister. It wasn’t a cheap seminar either.

Bottom line: Using cosmetics simply works! And, that is the primary reason women use it. It allows women to escape reality, to compete with other women and it is the best and cheapest tool in our society for male-manipulation and female self-esteem.

In different words, women consciously and sub-consciously know this make-up power very well and they’ll be dammed to give it up for the sake of being “real” or honest. They simply cannot afford to let go of their grip on this form of visual-emotional power over men, because it has become an identity addiction linked to their main path to security and wealth. Hopefully, we can change this (are you listening Sheryl Sandberg?).

––––––

“Maturity is reached the day we don't need to be lied to about anything.” – Frank Yerby

––––––

The Omnipresent Feminine Addiction

This feminine predilection for fake beauty has become a financial-visual necessity the to self- esteem processes of billions of women and therefore has become an industry with major economic clout and knows exactly how to perpetuate the addiction. Even fake finger nails have become a multi-billion dollar industry with new licensing laws, trade shows and environmental regulations. Similar to what the tobacco industry did with advertising, the cosmetics industry hooks their future customers with fantasy and bogus images of beauty as the way to happiness and the good life. The manufactures know she must have it - to make herself feel good about herself or she cannot handle the world as it really is. Because society and American economics helps maintain her addiction - her bogus beauty kit is sometimes her only friend and mental crutch. When that doesn’t work, she might go nuts (I had two sisters and a crazy aunt Helen from whom I draw that conclusion). 

This was part of a chapter from in my books The New Power of American Women and also Bogus Beauty & The New Power of American Women. More on this coming soon

****** 

The Alternate Female Identity - Part One

“Plain women know more about men than beautiful one’s do.” 

– Katharine Hepburn

––––––

In her book: “The Secret Between Us - Competition Among Women” - Laura Tracy, wrote about the way both genders view and sanction the notion of bogus beauty. She wrote:

“Femininity and competition between women are tightly interwoven. It is the feminine woman who really doesn’t like other women. She can’t afford to. To this woman, all women are rivals, since she has been defined by men in her person and appearance. Women compete with each other when they put on makeup, when they wear high heels, and short, narrow skirts that constrict their movement, when they dye their hair, and when they starve themselves. Femininity means looking better than other women - femininity means competition between women to look better to men. The problem is we all do it.”

On computer, movie and TV screens and millions of American magazine covers, women are producing billions of dollars for themselves as well as many others with a dual or alternate identity. It is an automatically assumed alternate identity as well. This dual identity is much like that of a performing actress or masked robber. They can put it on and take it off at will. Most women do it everyday.

Indeed, some American women are constant, ubiquitous actors who automatically and sincerely believe their alternate identity is actually real. They know it isn’t but they have been using their fake ID for so long and there are so many of them that do it everywhere, they have actually trained themselves and everyone else as well, to actually believe that this dual identity is who they really are. But again, everyone know it isn’t. This insecurity has been programmed in from day one by older women, although when asked, they typically blame it on men, saying they do it “because that is what men want.”

I queried a female psychologist about this touchy subject and she responded saying it was actually a medical/psychological term called “distancing,” meaning denial or running away from the truth. She said:

“Most women do not want to acknowledge that they have been programmed to need faux looks in order to survive in our society. They like to think makeup isn’t necessary - but for them alone. Most think other women may need it but not really her. The denial also comes in the use of words she is attracted to when she buys cosmetic or other retail products. She’s attracted to marketing words such as ‘natural.’ In many ways, she can’t help herself - much of it is subconscious.”

Literally, bogus beauty is a continuous cover-up of a deeply rooted distrust or denial of a woman's own looks and abilities. We all know this and all of society is at fault. Cathy Newman, wrote an article for the national Geographic Magazine titled: The Enigma of Beauty. She wrote:

“Beauty discriminates. Studies suggest attractive people make more money, get called on more often in class, receive lighter court sentences, and are perceived as friendlier. We do judge a book by its cover. We soothe ourselves with clichés. It's only skin-deep, we cluck. It's only in the eye of the beholder.”

Cathy Newman didn’t really address the totality of effects of dual ID in her National Geographic article but it was extensive enough to show how our society is complicit in this problem. She also failed to address the need to get away from it’s over-use and why women should stop being so shallow for her own health reasons. Instead, Newman gives an example of how her 100 year-old mother still wants to go to the beauty shop to get her nails done in the latest fashion.

Another distinct part of this power of the dual identity is in the automatic assumption of another name, that is, if she chooses to get married and use her husband’s last name. Often, the financial power associated with the male name is what attracts her in the first place. If you consider the inherited wealth factor of American women, and for example, think of money and power Sam Walton left his wife and his children, then you can better understand this power of dual identity is for American women. Four of the five wealthiest women in America, the Walton ladies, didn’t earn a penny of it. They married it. Same with dozens of other wealthy American women. I know this isn’t anything new.

However, it’s important to understand that this auto-assumption of identity and dual-name ability is becoming less common because America’s “indie women” are choosing to not drop her maiden name and instead put in a hyphen between her former name and new last-name of her next husband. She’s also being coached to think along the lines of temporary husbands and prenuptial agreements (also see the chapters Power of the Mass Victim Mindset, The Housewife Hangover and The New Alpha Bitch). She has the choice to keep part of her past identity, perhaps for future legal reasons. If you consider the 50 million indie-women in America and the growing divorce rate, you’ll also note the clear trend of power of the alternate identity, with or without a man.

And by-the-way, I’ve never heard of a man ever taking his wife’s last name. He’s stuck with who he is unless he adopts a pseudonym. 

The Female Power to Cast and Deflect Guilt

(A chapter from The New Power of American Women - The Essential Survival Guide. newpowerofwomen.com)

“Women have more strength in their looks than we have in our laws, 

and more power by their tears than we have in our arguments.” – Saville

––––––

These many innate powers in American women are very strange and interesting phenomenons. One of the most incredible and least understood, is the power of women to cast guilt onto others as well as deflect any blame upon themselves. Perhaps it stems from their beliefs about themselves and that from day one, think of themselves as “little princesses.” This mindset is because American moms are typically great builders of conscience, even if they themselves are flawed. The power of American women to cast as well as deflect guilt, stems from childhood programming and it runs deep in our collective subconscious.

From the enhanced lips of millions of American mothers, comes the continuous “Don’t do this and don’t do that” commands to her growing children. “Awww, that’s OK, come to mommy, she’ll fix it for you.” While the constant TV innuendo is that dad’s either missing or has an erection problem or perhaps is the bumbling fool, criminal or sex-crazed politician/beast, it seems mom always has the righteous plank. Daily news continually remind us of how women are leading the family financially and/or perhaps the woman who brought a politician or an army general down by his zipper. There is no escape from this in the zeitgeist.

Certain types of single moms, who have been dumped by a passing lover (or two or three), can get proficient in guilt-throwing and guilt-deflecting. They learn early-on that they have to somehow justify their own sexual appetites by making the missing or part-time dad, look like the lusting beast or “typical man” who isn’t anything good in life without her. Even though he may be an idiot, drunkard, casanova or worse, the child doesn’t realize yet that mommy was the chooser of daddy, by allowing him to have her in the first place (if she wasn’t raped). The child may learn much later in life that one of the real reasons daddy didn’t want to stick around was because daddy didn’t want to be there when the beast in mommy came all the way out (also see Her Power to Create Step-People).

Also, some kids may notice that when mommy got fatter and started to incessantly nag daddy, she started to demand that daddy change himself. Some ladies on the TV talk-shows also showed how swollen moms can rationalize and profit from their girth and still blame it on their scared and escaping husbands. American kids learn early in life that some mommies get to play victim if and when any daddy bolts, even if mommy evolved into a slob, a nag and/or huge porker. Mommy was very good too, at making daddy feel guilty and that he did indeed, make a very big mistake by bringing her some wine and roses in the first place. That’ll teach him.

Meanwhile, if a daddy stuck around awhile, the daddy soon realizes (to himself of course) that he could turn into some kind of neutered, henpecked, fat couch potato if his life is left up to mommy’s sense of what is right for daddy. Now too, in the 21st century, millions of American mommies have learned how to search the Internet or call the 800# on the TV for an attorney who will take her hubby-problem on contingency, depending of course, on how much daddy makes. Mommy sees many other American women doing it too and also learned that it doesn’t have to be the real daddy either, because any man with money or “earning potential” will do. All she has to do is somehow trick or entice him (whoever he is) into acting like the sexual beast he is anyway and mommy can have him legally by the balls for many years. Even if he didn’t do it.

These are the typical, every-day subconsciously coded messages that are passed on to American girls and boys. These everyday, guilt-throwing moms reinforce their words and actions with never-ending TV commercials and movies, which are literally soaked with fake tits, lips, eyes, butt-lifts, tummy-tucks and feminine bizarreness. This is continuous, narcissistic bogus beauty combined with copious violence and fake notions of a woman’s innocence. But all that is OK though, because mommy does it, it works and that’s how she rules and also got daddy in the first place.

On a lighter note, an empirical study of “Murder in Families” conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice contained some very revealing and shocking statistics. It showed that in over 10,000 cases, women kill their spouses far more than previously thought. Women were responsible for 40% of all spousal homicides and “among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to kill their husbands as husbands were to kill their wives.”

Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor and a consulting attorney to O.J. Simpson, used that study and expanded one on his own with the help of the Justice Department’s author of the study. He published his combined findings in the Los Angeles Times.

The study showed; “Wives who kill their husband were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases studied while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted in only 1.4% of the cases. Women who were convicted of killing their husbands were sentenced to an average six years in prison, while men received an average sentence of 17 years for killing their wives.”

––––––

Women Get More Mercy

“Public opinion is a second conscience.” – William Alger 

––––––

Women also get more mercy when it comes to probation for killing and 16% of women killers get probation while men get only 1.6%. Boiling it all down, the conclusion of the federal Murder in Families study showed that for all family murders, which includes killing of parents and children as well as spouses – “55.5% of the victims were males and 44.5% were females,” and that “female defendants were more likely than male defendants to have murdered a person of the opposite sex” (men kill each other more often).

Mr. Dershowitz summed it all up by noting the feministic slant of the study;

“Despite the unexpected data, the Justice Department press release buried the politically incorrect information under the following headline: ‘Wives are the most frequent victims in family murders.’ However, “misdiagnosing this psychological problem to fit into a political agenda will delay its proper treatment and cure.”

––––––

Sliced Penis Anyone?

Another infamous example of the way guilt is deflected from American women and their criminal actions is in the Lorena Bobbitt case. This is the case where Mr. John Wayne Bobbitt had his penis removed by his wife Lorena. With a quick flick of her wrist, his boner was a goner but her premeditated act wasn’t considered an attempted murder and she literally became a feminine folk heroine because of it.

The story goes like this: Mr. Bobbitt came home drunk one night and sexually assaulted Lorena. However, immediately after she cut off his penis, Lorena drove to a dark highway and threw it out of the window. Several hours later, the police found it and surgeons reattached it (lucky Mr. Bobbitt).
They hauled him off to jail but it became a charge he always denied and was subsequently acquitted of.

During the trial, Lorena also testified that she didn't remember cutting off John's penis. Her defense team argued “temporary insanity” and claimed she was the victim of long-term physical and emotional abuse.

"In her mind, it was his penis from which she could not escape which caused her the most pain. The most fear. The most humiliation." Lorena's lawyer said.

The jury found Lorena NOT guilty by reason of insanity. However, several years later and on an Oprah TV show, the “new Lorena” tells the mostly female audience; 

“Thanks to therapy, I’m a much different woman now. I evolve as a woman and it's wonderful to actually learn from your mistakes and to apply it into your life."

I don’t know about you but what this suggests to me is, that the power that women have to deflect their guilt, as well as hide their true identities, is so hermetic that it has us all deceived even in our courts. So well hidden is her power to shift blame and guilt, the courts and media automatically re-writes and offers up copious, pseudo-truths for her. Juries suck it all up too. It seems we always want to believe a woman’s innocent even when we know she’s not. An extraordinary power indeed.

As an aside: I’ve always thought this was sadly humorous and wondered what a strange coincidence Bobbitt’s last name was. It would be hard to make that up (another pun?). I also wonder how Mr. Bobbitt, the police, the doctor and nurses felt while they were reattaching his penis. Were they all smiling or perhaps, just the female nurses? Surely Bobbitt wasn’t laughing. And, just how did he pee for the next year or more? I’ll also bet Mr. Bobbitt constantly rethinks ever having sex again. :-)

****** 

The Increasing Political Power of American Women

“An era passes without notice. Suddenly however, you realize that it’s gone.” – Clarence Page, PBS News

––––––

(This post is taken from a chapter within The New Power of American Women ebook).

American women won the right to vote in 1920. And the new political reality is that they are now the majority of registered voters, with an incredible 57% of the total. No one, especially men, should take for granted, what the emerging political power in women means. Female Senators, Congresswomen, councilwomen attorneys, mayors and judges everywhere are mentally pulling together through all kinds of empowerment networks to make changes which insure their power must be recognized and dealt with. It makes no difference whether Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Independent, American women are coming into tangible and explicit global power and they are coming into it, individually and typically, with a mass-victim, feminist mindset and incredible new technologies.

However, women are still fragmented in different networks and have yet to fully coalesce into a major single voting bloc. What unites as well as divides are major issues such as “Pro- choice” (abortion), crime, sexual harassment and “equal pay for equal work.” You, whatever your gender, must have your eyes wide open to what is the ultimate truth.

The equal pay agenda is probably the most current and common flag American women rally around since women generally are paid less than their male counterparts doing the same work (at this time). Together they typically promote the premise that the patriarchy is at fault for their current situation and are demanding special treatment from business and local, state and federal government agencies. Unfortunately, it seems that women must collectively bring some men down, in order to lift themselves up. However, many women are starting to get it and acknowledge it isn’t really a man’s fault for a woman’s lack of success, but that it is up to the individual woman. Just like a man, she has to empower herself.

In her nationally syndicated column, Mona Charen wrote a 2011 article titled: “It’s Not the Men’s Fault.” 

Paraphrasing she said;

“According to Pew Research Center, three-quarters of the jobs lost during the ‘Great Recession’ were lost by men and on college campuses women outnumber men by 57 to 43 percent. But economic analysis can take you only so far. Men’s capacity to insist on promiscuity rests completely on female cooperation. And women have been foolishly compliant for decades. They’ve (women) conspired in their own disempowerment, not because love their sexual freedom (though a few may), but because people like Gloria Steinem convinced them that the old sexual mores, along with marriage and children, were oppressive to women.”

In other words, many feminists typically won’t admit to the fact that men have put it all here with very real contributions in science, hard-labor and real blood and real sweat. And they did it as loving fathers, husbands and bothers. But now American women, in general, realize that their time has come to reach for more power than they have ever had in the past and men are confused as to what a man should be to a woman.

It’s also very hard to deny a mother’s contribution to society and that any woman, mother or not, can have her special needs met, regardless of how much it may cost men in general. This type of equality means that employers may not be able to choose another man for a job, without carefully considering the female’s political-legal-morass potential. Moreover, women as voters are being catered to in every race for political office and there is no way they can lose in the long run because of their new voting-lobby-networking potential.

In still different words, if you don’t give her what she wants, just because she’s a woman, you’d better factor in a potential lawsuit somewhere in the equation for denying her “rights.” Conversely, this also means that the free choice rights of men to ultimately decide how to run their own life and business, is being diluted via new regulations which may favor American women. I’m not saying it’s wrong or right, but just what is.

Powerful political groups such as the National Assn. for Women in Education (NAWE), with their 3,000 teacher-members, is networked to hundreds of other feminist organizations and is also providing them ongoing slanted feminist research for lawsuits. NAWE is deep into the sexual harassment survey business and funding studies to find out whether or not male professors are using their status to intimidate and exploit female students, regardless if the student consented and took full responsibility for his or her actions. Most political movements typically start on college campuses.

In the book “The Lecherous Professor” (University of Illinois 1990 edition), the co-author Billie Wright puts forth the premise; “Where power differentials exist, there can be no ‘mutual consent’.” The NAWE study focused primarily on cases where sobbing female students became “open” about their affairs with their male teachers but only after they were dumped. Barry Dank, a professor of sociology at Cal State Long Beach, is an outspoken critic of frivolous harassment suits. He sites several cases where students openly claimed they were at fault for leading the teacher into an affair and blames much of the anti-fraternization activity on the campus on the “hypocritical authoritarian feminists” who ‘take a motherly image’ toward all female students. Dank says, they take the ‘We’ll protect you whether you want our help or not’ attitude. 
He continues; 

“I’m alienated from the idea of putting women back into the category of as victims. 

This is an attempt of older females trying to control younger females.”

Throughout all of corporate America, feminist-lesbian groups are groping around to identify more of themselves. Some groups are even setting up awards for companies that take the initiative coming out as lesbians or in shattering the glass ceiling. One such award is the Catalyst Award that Coca-Cola, Unilever and Alcoa received in 2013. Catalyst researches and monitors other organizations that identify barriers to advancing women. An ex-Catalyst president, Sheila Wellington, told corporate American CEOs, “By investing in women, winning companies foster leadership by the most able and insure their organizations’ economic viability.”

My main point in these insights, is for you to be very aware of the increasing political power of American women and to note that it is growing very fast around the globe. You must also be very careful of everything you say or do which may provoke a unfavorable feminine or gay/ lesbian response in any workplace. If you do not support the feminist and/or homosexual movements, you may get sued, slandered or physically attacked. This is yet another hazard of being a normal American man. You are being forced into being silent on this gay political issue.

And also remember clearly: Gaining the power to control the American voting booth is equal to getting the key to the U.S. Treasury and Fort Knox.

******