What this means is that those captains, men (directly chauvanistic for the purpose of discussion)establishing the market as a necessity have missed to the equation of the purpose. The purpose of the market is for survival. We require the market to cover all of our needs. It is at this point of recognition that those captains must think about what you have said Martin.

Your second point is an advanced observation of what happens when that demand in human function gets out of control. We have placed too much emphasis on teh market and its development for the markets sake, losing the reason behind why we have a market. Self interest has become the primary motive for the maintenance of the market.

Markets are necessary to protect its immediate community, yet when this self interest becomes so extreme that that community is directly exploited to furnish those most succesful in the market, the areas where the commnunity suffers are where the problems begin to become extreme. Women complain tha their men spent more time in the market than at home in their nest. They picked up their instruments of challenge (their ability to make men different from how they want to be) and entered into the market, to compete.

This theory isn’t really that old and the reasons why we are having such significant problems in society is that the roles of naturality are now deeply mixed.

Your second point isn’t anything but reality of a future if my theory is correct. So it isn’t a case of the necessity for change to occur to have to occur it is more that the damages that are being done are undone. To think that men will simply let women overtake themm in every area of their human function isn’t just hopeful, it is dangerous as it is ridiculous.

Our problems now are that this thinking is heavily mature and there is apparently very few in bureaucracy who are willing to recognise these truths. Men have just watched as their role in society has been challenged and marginalised. The new legislation of the Care of Children Act allowing children to be born to a single woman a naked and appalling manifestation of this corruption in thinking.

I don’t disagree with your views yet am publicly engaging in a third option. That government starts to institute into its practice a way to measure against women who want this power that overrides the equality of every human who isn’t a woman. If you read the terminology used for women to champion their status the word and its danger is absolutely clear. Political women say they want “equality”. Its the wrong word. It is an absolute impossibility. Women cannot be equal with men.

That’s the first part. The diffuculty these women have in their view to this end is that if they do not have children then they are disadvantaged as being “unequal” where and when in fact they argue they would work as hard, if not harder in any market as any man. This might be right. Yet in order for mankind to maintain its necessary numbers of procreation these women have to be in minority. And you cannot develop any kind of human direction that says this woman will be childless and this woman will breed. This point hasn’t been taken into the calculation of the feminist wave. Women have progressed and our problems have advanced at the same rate of imbalance in society. So this is the demand of my third point. That this is recognised publicly.

How we recognise this publicly is for women like Helen Clark to own up to this truth. Presently they are blind to it championing what they would call rainbow politics, developing a comunity where freedom to be who you are and what you want to be is the highest of high in principle. With this comes the release from oppression claimed by the homosexual community and liberalism is exonerated. Sexual variance is accepted into society and there really isn’t any problems - as everyone is equal.

Which is most obviously wrong. The necessity for humans to function as they are made is not a preference it is a natural demand. now I know what John Potter said recently about this not being a site to discuss homosexuality so I need to be very clear here (for a range of reasons) that his discussion is not about homosexuality. Nor does it in anyway act to be aggressive toward homosexual people, because I’m not. It is a cnoversation about men needing to be aware and cautious. This is the problem it is not a symptom that can be ignored.

So the third point is to apply pressure on the kinds of thinking that says it is OK to term women as equal incorporating into that view that childbirth and child raising is not a necessary factor to consider. Because to think like this is a pretence.

At this point those who believe they have already considered this problem and have developed laws like splitting income, and parental leave in order to overcome the inequalities between the sexes, really need to slow down their rejection of what I have said, because they are in serious danger of missing the point again. To miss the point again is only to infuriate a problem that is very real, as Martin’s second point describes. It is either this or the truth of the events would be thing that would effect the transformation not the words that describe it could be an eventuality.

This brings us to today and the Terrorism Suppression Act and the application of how these changes for point three can be brought about and there is no need for anyone to do anymore. We have already done al of the work that is required. Everything is in place.

So from this point forward what men need to do is to start being men again. Rather than just market junkies. But this time around what we need to do is to think about how to support other men. How to eductate our young men so that they are not neglected as they grow up trying to figure out who they are and what the word testosterone might mean. We need to start giving our children goals to grow into, removing from their view as they mature this abyss of freedom and market security. This means that we need to be better organised and where better to start than getting the acrimonious circumstances of a separation out of arbitration and into community support and development? Where better to start than supporting the basic family unit to be protected from market force, that which so indiscrimnately executes a family?

What will happen, I allege almost immediately is that girls will start being girls again, because that is what they want to do best. And if the men don’t hurt them, then the nests will be stronger and the men will be better equipped to provide.

The extreme feminists will balk at this “if the men don’t hurt them” as if this is a thing of possibility. Of course it is possible. You just have to give the youth a plan. You have to give them something to work toweards because they have no option but for being human to advance. And if they for some reason cannot meet with those high expectations where the goals of that plan may not suit them then the goals of that plan must suit them. So they know what is going to happen as they grow up. So they know where they are going. At present the vortex of the gurgler seems to be more the probability.

When I say we have done enough I mean exactly that. My letter to Peter Dunne establishes the ground necessary before the edge of any abyss can be reached. Politicians are now under a demand that they will pay attention to what the public is telling them. Our children need better protection from a society that struggles against their policies. Our child abuse figures are too high and “it is not alright”. It is not alright for parliament to neglect that they are overlooking the violence of alienation. It is not alright that the Courts are running an independent instiution that is beyond criticism when fathers like Vince Seimer directly prove impropriety. It is not alright. It is time for this to change.

Respectfully,

Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers coalition.

1. If or When Employers are affected, and the “captains of industry” ask the government to change the bias against fathers, to stop fathers going underground and dissappearing from the censuses

2. There is a sudden spate of men killing their former spouses after being deprived of their kids. It would definitely bring attention to these evil laws

Third world countries have no such laws only custom. So in this first world country, how do we set the principle first to see the day?

We need to justify our sexuality and why it is naturally damaging to promote or to engage in sex with a child as a child. We need to reform our education system so that our children can understand the damage they influence over themselves if they seek to engage in their sexuality to a degree of procreation before society can support the birth of any child. We need to be sure that every child has an education that allows them to trust teh adult world that they will be assisted into their maturity when they reach the age of consent. In order to do these things, we muust be disciplined - honest and brave.

Men should not be demonised but should be supported to institute responsibly against any adversity for the naturality of their function.

Since when has it been acceptable for a 30 year man to fuck a 13 year old child???

Actually some states in the US have a consent age of 14 for females.

Spain is 13 years of age.

Please note I am not advocating lowering the age of consent I am just pointing out that our view is very much shaped by the culture we live in.

Regards

Scrap

Attrition rates mean nothing. They do not support your myth.

You cannot quantify your claim and relying on self reporting rates is laughable.

Self reporting is notoriously unreliable.

Self-Completion components

All respondents were asked to complete the three Self-Completion components. Interviewers gave the laptop to the respondents to key in their responses directly (a procedure called CASI). CASI was used because the topics asked about were of a sensitive nature, and the more confidential nature of CASI can improve the information respondents will give. It also reduces the chance that they miss answering questions.

Its an officials report and calling it a well established national survey may suit spin doctoring but its still nothing more than an officials report.

No doubt you believe in the all men are rapists myth also.

Scrap

Well done Judge Boshier you slime ball twisted corrupt snake .