it was VERY embarrassing ... I mean for one thing girls arent supposed to get hurt there, how the hell am I the one to feel immense pain! Seriously I felt like a guy and I have no balls! IT HURT SO BAD Does anyone know why it hurts THIS BAD?? Please... I want to know if there;s a way to protect my newly-found sensitive place!


Janna

Yes girls are supposed to hurt there if they get kicked. No there is no way to prevent it except to stay of out situations where it might happen. ANd if by chance you are one of those girls who kicks guys - then you have to expect to be kicked back.

A hard blow to the clitoris is just as painful as heavy impact is to the testicles, and the reasoning for this is simple:

1. The clitoris and the testicles contain an abundant amount of mechanoreceptors (pressure-receptors) that are extremely sensitive to pressure, and during impact the nerves are activated and the stimuli causes the person to react by protecting that region. In fact, the clitoris contains a higher population density of nerves than the testicles, and a hard blow to an exposed clitoris can be even more painful than heavy impact to the testicles.

(Information on Mechanoreceptors in Testicles) - http://atmizzou.missouri.edu/jul03/Neutering.htm
(Information on Mechanoreceptors In Clitoris) - http://www.biosbcc.net/barron/biosex/pdf/F…E%20ANATOMY.pdf
(Amount of Nerves in Clitoris) - http://www.tinynibbles.com/femanatomy.html | http://www.passionfires.com/achievin.htm | http://www.tantra.com/angier.html

2. The clitoris is a large sexual organ that actually extends into the body and contains a body and two arms that wrap themselves around the vaginal passages; meaning that the vast majority of the clitoris is innervated in the visceral region. This means that a blow to the clitoris will produce a large degree of visceral pain, which is dull, prolonged and throbbing in nature; the same type of pain that is felt when a man is hit in the testicles.

(Information - http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9825/clitoris.html)

3. The labia majora does offer a lot of protection to the clitoris, however if a woman has her legs spread apart and receives a blow to her vulva, then there is a very good chance that her clitoris will be impacted and this will cause the exact same sort of pain that a man would feel after a testicle kick. Actual examples of this can be documented by the various female sporting athletes who were kicked or hit in the vulva during competition, as they were severely incapacitated by the act.

- During the 2002 Women’s Football World Cup, an Argentine player was kneed in the clitoris by accident and the pain incapacitated her to such a large degree that she had to be carried off the field. Thankfully she did not suffer any long term problems, and was able to return to the field after a 10 minute rest.

- Lauren Burns was kicked in the vulva on two occasions during the Gold Medal Tae Kwon Do match for her weight group at the 2000 Olympics, and each time she had to take a time out and hold her clitoris in pain; even though she was wearing female groin protection.

- In a Women’s Football match between USA and Japan at the 2004 Olympics, one of the Japanese players was kicked in the clitoris and she fell to the ground in agony, and remained there for a long time.

4. The clitoris contains over 8,000 nerve endings (connected to the pudendal nerve) and is greater in number and density than any other region of the male or female anatomy. As a result, direct touch to an unaroused clitoris can be extremely painful, and that is why the labia majora extends to offer the region so much protection.

(Actual Testimony) - http://www.the-clitoris.com/f_html/qa_8/qa8_22.htm
(More Information) - http://www.tinynibbles.com/femanatomy.html

5. The penis contains a very scarce amount of mechanoreceptors, in fact only the sole of the foot contains a lesser amount of these pressure-receptors; therefore being hit in the penis is not very painful at all, and feels MUCH different to being hit in the clitoris or testicles.

Are you all saying that if a female is kicked in the groin it hurts just as much as the same impact on a male? A little hard to swallow, but I will because if people knew this [I didn't until I stumbled upon this site], there wouldn't be as many women kicking men in the balls. Well, now when a girl decides to kick me there, I will know just what to do.

When did all this kicking start? It seems to be such a common occurance from what people post. If someone kicks you deliberately in the the genitals - consider it sexual battery and call the police.

The only difference bwteen men and women being kicked is that men have a target that is easier to see and make contact with.

The reason that the majority of people are unaware of the fact that the clitoris is extremely sensitive to is due to the implementation of political correctness, as the feminists and socialists in general do not want boys to learn that women have a *weak-spot* as well; just like they will not allow boys to say that girls are physiologically weaker but will then say that women should not have to perform as many push-ups to gain acceptance into the military or police force.

If the populace were aware of the fact that the clitoris is just as sensitive to pain as the testicles, then the boys wouldn't feel so vulnerable and the girls wouldn't feel so superior. The feminists have used political correctness to prevent this information from being made public, because they WANT boys to feel as if they're inferior and useless (look at the claims they make about men being stupid and useless eventhough 90% of inventions have been created by men and the vast majority of persons who possess an IQ over 170 happen to be male).

Recent evidence shows that during a *Street-Fight*, a testicular kick wouldn't work against a man in most situations as his adrenaline would be so high that it would block the pain and the Government ARE AWARE OF THIS, yet they STILL fund the feminist campaigns that teach women to kick men in the groin in *Self-Defense*. The feminists are aware that a kick to the groin will not disable a lot of men during a street-fight as (i) he will be aware that she's going to attack that region and he will be ready to defend it and (ii) his adrenaline will be so high that it will block most of the pain and (iii) a man's testicles actually retract during a state of fear.

All the *Self-Defense* classes that promote Testicle Kicking are merely a form of anti-male propaganda that are meant to emasculate the male youth and make the female demographic feel as if they're Superior.

In fact, there have been MANY feminists who have performed ceremonies on University Campuses where they talk about Castration and they wear scissors around their necks and sings poems about the act and declare it as acceptable.

The youth are extremely trusting and easy to brainwash, and the feminists have inserted the ideology of feminism into the curriculum of Universities, and that leads to the female youth thinking it's COOL to kick men in the groin, to call themselves a perpetual victim, and claim that all men are evil just because the feminists use FALSE STATISTICS and INSANE PROPAGANDA to suit their anti-male agenda.

You can learn more at my site www.mens-rights.net

Chris,

I've debated what to say to this post- so have delayed approving it a bit. Your experience is not mine.

I do consider myself a feminist, But I also do not approve of testical kicking except in self-defense when oral communication does not work. Because tesical kicking is effective - but it can be harmful - so should be used with discression.

When women/ the medical profession say that the clitoris has more nerves than the penis and is the most senstive part of a woman's body - etc.- it only makes sense it would hurt to kick and make impact with it. I don't think this is any secret.

I looked over your website - not all of it- there is a lot to it. I agree with some of it, but I also disagree with other parts of it. Raising a male child to adulthood I have been very conscious of some of the restrictions placed on men that are not on women, but conversely men also have freedoms women do not have.

Your site reminds me of early feminism when hatred of men ran high. Remmants of it remain, but thankfully much has changed.

Susan

Susan,

In all honesty I cannot think of a single freedom or right that is denied to the women of the Western World. The vast majority of laws are written in a manner that ensures that women are given a large degree of legal impunity that is NOT offered to men. This can be identified by the fact that female criminals tend to receive very light sentences compared to their male counterparts.

In fact, it is fair to say that the Western world is matriarchal in structure, as the mothers of society are far more likely than the fathers to obtain custodial access of their children; even though there is a wealth of scientific evidence that proves the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women.

In order for this society to be *patriarchal*, then the men would need to have full control over the household as that is the definition of the word, however that does not apply at the present. In fact, the industrialisation of the world saw the household become matriarchal in structure, as men were working in the factories that were located in the suburbs, and that meant that the children were raised by their mothers. Prior to the industrialisation of the world, children were raised by both their parents on the farm.

The vast majority of state-funded services are only available to women, and very few are offered to men. The vast majority of murder victims happen to be male (around 70%), and men are far more likely to die from the 10 most common natural causes of death, yet the state offers very little funding and to Men's Health.

Eighty perfect of suicide victims happen to be men, and they are usually aged from 25 to 44, yet there is little to no help offered to this demographic; but there are a lot of services available to women.

Women are given far more opportunity and privilege in the workforce due to concepts such as Affirmative action. The concept of Affirmative action is meant to ensure that a certain quota of employees MUST be female, regardless of whether they are more qualified than their male counterparts. This means that a woman can gain employment over a man who is more qualified and competent than her. In my opinion, this is a clear example of sexism and discrimination against men, as it's stating that the sex of a person is of more relevance than their actual qualification and skill.

The education system is highly favoured to suit the needs of females and NOT males, and this is why a lot of men are not furthering their studies at University. It must also be noted that while female students outnumber their male counterparts at University, the majority of persons who study courses that involve mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology tend to be male.

This indicates that the majority of female students usually study the courses that are based on ideology (Women's Studies, Arts, Film etc) and do not require the ability to think in an analytical manner. In other words, the intellect of men and women has no correlation to the fact that the majority of students are female; it is due to the manner in which they are treated.

Down here in Australia I was not allowed to have long hair at high school because I am male, and I know for a fact that the women of Australia were NEVER prevented from having long hair.

Sexual Harassment laws are written in a manner that ensure that impunity is given to the women who are found to have made a false claim of such a crime.

In my opinion, the sex of a person should not even be taken into consideration when they are seeking employment or are reviewed by the law.

A lot of freedom and rights that women like to talk about are really just privileges that were NEVER offered to any other demographic of the Human species.

Women also seem to refuse to acknowledge that any given right also comes with a LOT of *responsibilities*, and this had led to a large number of women who REFUSE to take accountability for their actions.

An example of this can be identified by the manner in which women believe they are entitled to having the option of living like men when it suits them yet being treated like women whenever it is convenient.

In the 19th Century, the women of society were able to spend their husband's money, and if a man fell in debt due to such an action, then HE would go to jail even though his wife spent HIS financial assets. This is because the law system at the time declared that women were not held to the same rights, therefore they shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities. At the present, the women of society have MORE rights than men, yet the concept of responsibility is only applied men.

Until women are held responsible for their actions, then they will have no idea of what it is like to suffer from oppression or discrimination.

Biological differences between the sexes cannot be declared as freedom or *rights*, as men and women have no control over either. If the biological structure of a woman prevents her from performing the same activities as a man, then that cannot be labeled as a form of *oppression*, as it's something that Humans cannot control.

Men and women are different, and that is something that people need to accept. The women of society are able to use their sexual attractiveness to gain money, favours, attention and societal status, yet this option is not available to men and it's just something that everyone has to learn to live with as it's part of nature.

Usually the men are trying to gain the attention and approval of the women and this ensure that the power remains in the hands of the females, as THEY are able to make the final decision. Again, this is something that people need to live with, as it is just nature and NOT a Men's Rights Issue.

There seem to be a lot of parasitic men on other forums who incessantly complain about their inability to obtain sex. In the process they make a lot of misogynist comments, and I will stand up and say that those type of men really anger me, as they're no better than the radical feminists who think they're entitled to everything, yet don't think they need to offer anything in return.

If a man cannot obtain sex, then that's his problem and NOT a Men's Rights Issue. He has no right to sit there and condemn the female populace as it's just his way of trying to shame them into meeting his sexual demands.

There's a lot to respond to- and I will.

Suffice to say at the moment - I agree with much of what you say, but not all.
And I think you are missing some very key points about what women struggle against.

Susan

Chris -

Whoa man you got some real issues there. What if the societal preference toward hitting males in the groin vs. females doesn't have all that gender-based baggage? What if it is merely that it is kinda funny when a male gets hit in the groin (though not hard enough to cause damage, that isn't funny). What if the reason we don't hit women in the groin for comic relief (though it is kinda funny) is for the same reason we hold doors for them, and don't belch when a woman is present? That reason is: common tact. Does everything need to be purely true and equal between the sexes? Are we so politically correct that we cannot accept the fact that some things are indeed gender based?

As a fellow male, I can tell that you probably have some issues regarding getting hit in the groin. For that I am sorry. However, I think it may be a good idea for you to relax a bit and allow playful groin hits to be funny on the male end, and who knows? Maybe in 20 years the height of comedic genius will be hitting women in the breasts! If it is, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it is because of some deep seated sociological sentiment. There are some issues where the more you explain them, the more rediculous and arbitrary your point seems.

Whitman Said - "What if the societal preference toward hitting males in the groin vs. females doesn't have all that gender-based baggage? What if it is merely that it is kinda funny when a male gets hit in the groin (though not hard enough to cause damage, that isn't funny)."

Chris Key Says: In order for there to be no correlation between the societal credence of testicular kicking and sexism, then an irrefutable amount of evidence would need to be offered in order to prove that the general perception of clitoris kicking as a form of misogyny is not derived from the fact that the law system in general gives women a greater amount of rights than men; a process you have failed to perform.

It is erratic and bigotry to condone a specific action when it is performed against a person while condemning the very same act if it's performed to a member of a different demographic. It is similar to a person saying that it's acceptable for women to molest children, but unacceptable if men do the same (a lot of sex-obsessed men seem to hold this view).

Now, could you please explain how the credence of an act that causes a man to suffer an immense amount of pain and humiliation can be viewed as a form of *acceptable humour*, while the action of a man slapping a woman across the face (which isn't that painful or dangerous) is considered a form of misogyny and evilness, yet is not derived from a societal view that is sexist in nature?

A rational person would be able to understand that it is derived from the implementation of *Political Correctness*, which basically states it is acceptable for women to inflict a severe amount of pain and suffering upon men (IE. testicle kicking, paternity fraud, domestic violence, false sexual harassment accusations, false rape accusations, etc), while the moment that a man performs the very same act against a woman , it is considered a form of *violence*, misogyny and unacceptable behaviour.

You seem to refer to this as *Common Tact*, however you failed to mention that the very definition of the word tact is based on the following;

"tact
Noun: tact takt
1. Consideration in dealing with others and avoiding giving offence"

Could you please explain how it cannot be considered even remotely offensive to portray the act of testicular kicking as acceptable, considering it involves a man/boy enduring a severe amount of pain and humiliation that has been linked to causing depression, social phobia and PSTD when it is performed against young boys?

Now, could you please explain how it's not offensive to declare that the act of clitoris kicking is unacceptable because it's extremely painful and humiliating, but then declare such an action as being acceptable if it is performed to a man in the form of testicle kicking?

The underlying theory of the message is simple; instill the belief that it's acceptable to inflict pain on men but not women. Can you now see why I believe that the act is sexist and offensive?

Does your definition of Common Tact involve the consideration of *women's feelings* and not those of men? If so, then you're most likely a very ignorant man that does not question the general ideology of society and unwilling or unable to engage in critical thinking.

From Whitman - "What if the reason we don't hit women in the groin for comic relief (though it is kinda funny) is for the same reason we hold doors for them, and don't belch when a woman is present? That reason is: common tact."

Chris Key Says: The concept of tact applies to all demographics of people and NOT JUST women, so if you're using the reason that there is a credence for testicular kicking but not clitoris kicking, then you have only confirmed that men are viewed as second class citizens who are not worthy of the same amount of respect or rights that are given to women; which is a form of sexism and discrimination.

From Whitman - "Are we so politically correct that we cannot accept the fact that some things are indeed gender based?"

Chris Key Says: The concept of political correctness states that certain demographics should be given more rights and privilege than others through concepts such as *affirmative action*, therefore if you're claiming that it's OK to offer credence for testicular kicking and not clitoris kicking, then you have shown that you are a conformist to that ideology.

From Whitman - "As a fellow male, I can tell that you probably have some issues regarding getting hit in the groin. For that I am sorry. However, I think it may be a good idea for you to relax a bit and allow playful groin hits to be funny on the male end, and who knows? Maybe in 20 years the height of comedic genius will be hitting women in the breasts! If it is, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it is because of some deep seated sociological sentiment. There are some issues where the more you explain them, the more rediculous and arbitrary your point seems."

Chris Key Says: The hypocrisy of your argument can be identified by the following.

1- You're encouraging the implementation of a sexist ideology that you admit allows the sexes to be treated in a different manner.

2 - HOWEVER, you then claim it isn't a form of discrimination, but a method of tact.

3 - HOWEVER, you fail to mention that the concept of tact applies to all demographics and NOT JUST WOMEN.

4 - In other words, you have used the concept of tact as the defence of the credence of groin kicking, however you only apply it to ONE of the sexes and claim it is acceptable if the other is not held to the same moral standards.

Could you please explain how the entire ideology be built around the implementation of tact if it only applies to one of the sexes, when the actual definition of tact applies to every demographic of society?

Aren't you a member of a forum called --------? Doesn't the -------t Forum contain images of women being kicked, kneed, punched, shot and stabbed in the vulva, with a couple of the members actually drawing those type of pictures? If so, then could you please explain how such content can be considered as tactful? Do you feel guilty for being a member of such a site, and if so are you trying to ease your grief by defending the concept of testicle kicking so that you do not portray yourself as a hypocrite?

Are the men from the -------- Forum keeping an eye on this entire thread due to the fact they are aroused by kicking women in the groin, and the fact that the title of the thread happens to be; "OMG I got kicked in the pussy and it hurt... BAD!"?



SORRY edited - but I am not going to allow a link to another forum that displays violence towards anyone. Susan

I do not think kicking anyone male or female is right, except in self-defense.

But lets go to some of your other points....

I cannot think of a single freedom or right that is denied to the women of the Western World.
------women because they bear children do not have the same choices about their bodies that men do.
------the assumption that mothers will care for children may seem to be prejudicial against men (which it is), but it is equally against women who may not have the same opportunities that men have to stay the course of their careers
------women who do choose to let their husbands/partners raise the children or have primary custody of children are thought to be bad mothers because they prefer to work more than their husbands, or their their childs other parent is the better parent.

Eighty perfect of suicide victims happen to be men, and they are usually aged from 25 to 44, yet there is little to no help offered to this demographic; but there are a lot of services available to women.
--------there are not enough services for women, and men have not utilized well the services that have existed for them, nor have elderly women - so money is put where we know the services will be utilized. Men don't go to doctors and don't use counselors as often as women do - even when clear reason to do so exists.


The education system is highly favoured to suit the needs of females and NOT males, and this is why a lot of men are not furthering their studies at University. It must also be noted that while female students outnumber their male counterparts at University, the majority of persons who study courses that involve mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology tend to be male.
-------It is a very recent phenomena that women outnumber men at universities. I think there are many things going on. Babyboomers decided to have kids first and delayed their careers are now going back to college for further training/younger women are going to colleges part-time as mothers so they will be able to plu into careers later - and younger women are delaying when they have kids - so women are going to college at all stages of their life - men go to college after high school and then work their lives. So yes, more women are at college than men are - but men are taking more classes than women are when they go to college.

Women are given far more opportunity and privilege in the workforce due to concepts such as Affirmative action. The concept of Affirmative action is meant to ensure that a certain quota of employees MUST be female, regardless of whether they are more qualified than their male counterparts.
-------that's the theory yes, but what about the fact that women who accomplish the same work do not get paid the same? Women still make .60 for every 1.00 men make.

Down here in Australia I was not allowed to have long hair at high school because I am male, and I know for a fact that the women of Australia were NEVER prevented from having long hair.
-------Yes, but women have been required to wear bras, nylons/tights, skirts of a certain length because of another dress code - this used to be in all schools but now very few, and still is in many workplaces
-------When it is hot men can bear their chests in public, women cannot

How about all the money spent on men's sports in schools and colleges and the lesser amount spent on women's sports? And the free rides sport stars get to go to college?

How about the fact that a woman who goes to buy a car no matter how knowledgeable she is about cars is found to always be given higher prices for the purchase of a new car, a used car, and for repairs. Bring a man along- even one who knows nothing about cars and you get a better price?

Why is it that when a high school guy has sex he is a stud, but when a girl has it she is a whore? Why is there so much talk about how women should be virgins when they marry, but not how guys should be? Who is it that these guys are supposed to be having sex with?

Why is there so little research into men being the person in control of fertility? Men need to have the capacity to make an equal commitment to preventing pregnany as women. The lack of research in this could be perceived as anti-male as no male oriented research, but also anti-female - as keep her as the one who has to play with her hormones levels to prevent pregnancy. She is the one who risks her body being pregnant for failed contraception not him.

I do believe that men have been given a bad rap lately. I am tired of sitcoms that portray men as buffoons. I am tired of jokes about men that are demeaning. I am tired of commercials that portray men as clueless as to how to run a household or to care for children.

Ido think there s a reason for a men's rights movement, but like the early women's rights movement you to me have gone way over the edge.

Susan

From Susan - women because they bear children do not have the same choices about their bodies that men do.

Chris Key Says: Could you please elaborate as to how the bodies of women could even remotely prevent them from having as many choices as men?

In terms of the law system, women are the ONLY sex who are given a large degree of reproductive rights, therefore I cannot understand the underlying theory of your claim.

If your concern is based around the fact that women cannot walk topless, then you may have a point, however I do not think it would be liberating for women if they were to engage in such an activity.

It wasn't that long ago that it was considered a taboo for women to show their legs, and during that time it allowed the women to gain the attention of a man by just showing their legs. At the present, men look at a woman's legs and do not think much at all, and while they may find them attractive, it does not send them into a huge state of excitement as it would have done in the 19th Century.

This makes it harder for women to manipulate men by just showing them their legs. Therefore, if women were to walk around with their bare-breasts exposed, then over time the men would lose excitement over them, and women would find it harder to use them as a form of manipulation.

Based on that, I think women SHOULD be allowed to publicise their bare-breasts in public, as it would ensure that the ability to manipulate a man would be far more difficult. Such a concept would be in the best interests of everyone, as it would mean that women are viewed for their minds and NOT their *bodies*; the very thing that the second-wave-feminists claimed to have wanted.

Women can fall pregnant, and if they do not wish to have the child because it's a huge responsibility, then they can obtain an abortion (which is known as a *choice*). If a man has sex and his sexual partner falls pregnant, and he doesn't want the child but she does, then he HAS to pay child support whether he likes it or not, and the feminists call this responsibility. Based on this alone, women have far more choices over their bodies than men.

Now I am not going to even state whether I believe abortion is right or wrong, as this site is not based on gender issues and I don't want to discuss such a subject on here (the only reason I have discussed the subject of feminism is because you specifically asked why girls kick boys in the groin, so I gave you some information as to why they do so). However I will say that the sex-obsessed women who lead a reckless lifestyle are in a far better position than their male counterparts, because the former can obtain an abortion if their reckless habit cause them to fall pregnant, while the latter are FORCED to pay child support for 18 years.

If you do not believe that the concept of being able to abort a pregnancy is an extremely powerful choice (an option that is unavailable to men), then could you please explain why the feminists are doing everything they can to prevent the male contraceptive from being released to the public?

Perhaps you could explain why the feminists would feel so threatened by a male form of birth
control, considering it would only give men the very option that has been denied to them since the evolution of hominidae, but has been available to women for many decades? Could it be that the feminists do not want men to have any control over their own bodies, but wish for women to have as much control as possible?

Surely if the concept of an abortion is not even remotely empowering, then the feminists wouldn't feel threatened by a similar device that allows me to control their own bodies. That is if their intentions were to obtain equality and NOT the subjugation of man via the implementation of a socialist system that extracts money from men, and redistributes it to women through Government Agencies (IE. Child Support Agencies, Domestic Violence Shelters, Single Mothers Pension, etc).

It would be quite difficult for women to extract money from men if the male contraceptive were available, as the men who wish to have as much sex as possible would finally be able to control their reproductive system; therefore they will not be impregnating any woman by accident and will NOT have to pay child support.

From Susan - the assumption that mothers will care for children may seem to be prejudicial against men (which it is), but it is equally against women who may not have the same opportunities that men have to stay the course of their careers

Chris Key Says: Women have just as many opportunities to dedicate their entire lives to their careers, however the vast majority of them tend to develop an urge to have a child when they enter their 30's, and they are very likely to exit the workforce for that very reason. In other words, the women who tend to exit the workforce are doing so because they no longer wish to be there, and a lot of the female youth have admitted that they do not intend to work once they are in their 30's.

This is not a form of discrimination, as it's a luxury that allows women to exit the workforce whenever they please (an option that is unavailable to men). There are a lot of men who would LOVE to have the option of quitting work and staying at home, but they cannot do that whenever they please as they cannot fall pregnant.

A woman can gain employment through the concept of *affirmative action*, and this is an option that is unavailable to men, therefore I still cannot understand how women can claim to be have less rights than men.

From Susan - women who do choose to let their husbands/partners raise the children or have primary custody of children are thought to be bad mothers because they prefer to work more than their husbands, or their their childs other parent is the better parent.

Chris Key Says: ALL men are perceived to be poor parents due to feminist stereotypes, and as a result the women of society are far more likely to gain custodial access of their children than the men, however you have failed to acknowledge this fact. If you believe it is bad for a career oriented mother to be perceived as a poor parent, then try to put yourselves in the position of a man who is always viewed as an incompetent carer of his own child because he is male.

It must also be stated that there is a lot of evidence that shows the children who are raised in a stable father/mother household tend to be less likely to engage in crime or become mentally ill than those who are raised in a single-mother household. Children who are raised in a single-mother household are far more likely to be the victims of child abuse and sexual abuse. A lot of the single-mothers tend to focus their life on their *careers*, so maybe that demographic of the female populace are not as competent as those who stay at home.

From Susan - there are not enough services for women, and men have not utilized well the services that have existed for them, nor have elderly women - so money is put where we know the services will be utilized. Men don't go to doctors and don't use counselors as often as women do - even when clear reason to do so exists.

Chris Key Says: The services that are available to men tend to offer VERY LITTLE help to them. For example, MOST domestic violence hotlines have been known to insult and belittle the men who have contacted them for help, and they often turn away any man who is looking for shelter. Police officers are known to have arrested the men who were the victims of domestic violence, even with the fact that it was the man who contained the physical injuries and a collaborating story from a third witness.

Therefore a lot of men are SCARED of calling the police for help, since laws such as VAWA usually mean that the woman's accusation is given preference over his.

There are VERY FEW services that are available to the men who are most likely to commit suicide. If there are any services available to those men, then their very existence seems to be kept hidden from the vast majority of the populace - therefore how can they know where they can obtain help?

Are there advertisements on television and out on the streets that offer help to men who are victims of domestic violence or suffer from depression? I have never seen one, nor has anyone else that I know (I speak to Men's Rights Activists and feminists from all around the world and they haven't seen one either).

Men aren't looking for help because they are usually ridiculed for doing so by the women of society. Women in general are not interested in sensitive and feminine men, as can be confirmed by the fact that the men who are found MOST attractive by the women tend to be reckless, uncouth and irresponsible in nature. As a result, the quieter men feel that standing up and admitting they have a problem will lead to persecution, so some of them try to repress their problems.

From Susan - It is a very recent phenomena that women outnumber men at universities. I think there are many things going on. Babyboomers decided to have kids first and delayed their careers are now going back to college for further training/younger women are going to colleges part-time as mothers so they will be able to plu into careers later - and younger women are delaying when they have kids - so women are going to college at all stages of their life - men go to college after high school and then work their lives. So yes, more women are at college than men are - but men are taking more classes than women are when they go to college.

Chris Key Says: That does not explain why the majority of high school students who further their education tend to be female.

From Susan - that's the theory yes, but what about the fact that women who accomplish the same work do not get paid the same? Women still make .60 for every 1.00 men make.

Chris Key Says: There is not a single shred of evidence that can substantiate the claim that the women are paid less than the men for performing the same work.

The figure of women earning only 60 cents to every dollar that is made by the men is derived from the calculation of the the median average salary of the sexes. This is NOT a comparison between the men and women who are performing the exact same job, and CANNOT be used to claim that women are paid less for performing the same type of work, as I will explain:

- Men and women tend to dominate different sectors of the workforce, and each section offers a differing amount of pay based on qualification, experience and the availability of employees.

- Men tend to dominate the sectors that require a high level of academic qualification in the scientific and mathematical fields, and these jobs tend to offer high salaries due to the fact there are so few people who possess an in-depth knowledge in these subjects.

- 24 of the 25 most physically demanding and hazardous industries happen to be dominated by male employees, and these fields offer a high amount of pay due to their nature of the work.

- Women tend to dominate the industries that are based around the care of children and the elderly, and these industries do not offer high pay as they do not require a huge amount of academic qualification or danger to their employees.

Therefore, when you compare the median average salary of men and women, you will find that men tend to earn more as they dominate the higher paying industries.

If you were to compare the amount of money earned by men and women who have the same qualification, and are performing the SAME job in the SAME field, then you will find that they earn the same as each other.

Warren Farrell has a video clip on the subject, where he offers scientific evidence to prove that women are NOT paid less than men for performing the same job. You can view the video at http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1834

From Susan - Yes, but women have been required to wear bras, nylons/tights, skirts of a certain length because of another dress code - this used to be in all schools but now very few, and still is in many workplaces

Chris Key Says: The point is they are able to remove such clothing as soon as they are finished school/work, and it does NOT affect their fashion OUTSIDE of school/working hours. It takes many months and some times years for a man to grow his hair to the length he desires, and that is why the rule that PREVENTED me from having long hair is FAR MORE DISCRIMINATORY than those that force women to wear bras and specific clothing. You're comparing clothes with hair, and that is entirely different as Humans are NOT born with clothing, it's NOT part of their body. The hair of a person IS part of their body, it's attached to them, and when they are FORCED to cut it against their own will, then that is a violation of their very own rights, because they cannot grow it back as soon as school/work is finished.

From Susan - When it is hot men can bear their chests in public, women cannot

Chris Key Says: Not if they are at work, or wish to enter a resturant or any other private owned facility. Female employees within the corporate world DO NOT need to wear long pants, or a tie or any other form of restrictive clothing.

From Susan - How about all the money spent on men's sports in schools and colleges and the lesser amount spent on women's sports? And the free rides sport stars get to go to college?

Chris Key Says: The majority of people are far more interested in the male sporting competition that are professional than those that exist for females, so there is less profit to be made in female sports and therefore a lesser amount of schoolarships for women who possess a reasonable amount of athletic ability. Unfortunately the money has to come from some where, and the actual popularity of the sporting competition will determine the level of funding of the sport at University level.

The physiological differences between the genders mean that the men are more powerful, faster and durable, therefore that means the majority of people will be interested in male sporting competition. Even the very best female athletes struggle to compete against the average male competitors. Whenever a woman does defeat a man, it is usually when the best female performer is placed against a man who is either very poor at the sport, or a complete novice.

Whether it be cricket, rugby union, rugby league, tennis, football, or basketball, the men will possess a greater amount of strength and endurance than the women and THAT is why people do not watch female sports.

The high demand for professional male athletes by the various sporting competitions around the world mean that there is a greater amount of funding for male-orientated sporting competitions.

If you wish for women's sports to be given a greater amount of funding at tertiary level, then the female populace will need to start taking an interest in female sports and actually attend the events, otherwise the major women's sporting leagues will fail to obtain a decent amount of profit that could be used to fund a greater amount of future athletes.

I heard some where that the WNBA hasn't made a profit in years, and if that is true then it would explain why so little funding is given to the female basketball competitions of that sport that are held at the various Universities in North America.

From Susan - How about the fact that a woman who goes to buy a car no matter how knowledgeable she is about cars is found to always be given higher prices for the purchase of a new car, a used car, and for repairs. Bring a man along- even one who knows nothing about cars and you get a better price?

Chris Key Says: If that does occur and I assume it would in many areas of the Western World, then it is definitely a form of sex discrimination. Perhaps the reason that the price tends to vary when a man is brought along is because there is a third-party to witness the transaction, and it would no longer be the car dealers word against that of the woman if she were to file a complaint, however that does not excuse the issue for existing.

But it is definitely a form of discrimination, however there are laws in place to prevent it from happening. If women are willing to use the law system, then they can prevent it from happening to them, however they need to obtain some sort of proof to substantiate their claim.

From Susan - Why is it that when a high school guy has sex he is a stud, but when a girl has it she is a whore? Why is there so much talk about how women should be virgins when they marry, but not how guys should be? Who is it that these guys are supposed to be having sex with?

Chris Key Says: This is indeed a legitimate issue, and you have a right to be angry. A lot of men in society tend to be hypocritical, as they will ridicule any woman who tries to lead a promiscuous lifestyle, yet the cheer the men who do the same. The other day I stated that a lot of men in today's society are sex-maniacs, and I said that I hate them to the extreme because they're the cause of a lot of problems that exist today. Their very attitude is contradictory in nature, because they wish to obtain a perpetual amount of sex yet they condemn the women who do the same. They are dependent on a female sex partner in order to have sex, therefore it's absolutely illogical and hypocritical for them to condemn the women who are promiscuous.

While it is true that women tend to hold the majority of the power in the Dating Sphere of the world (it's usually men who have to gain the women's attention and her approval), that still does not justify the hypocritical and sexist double standard of condemning promiscuous women while condoning the actions of their male equivilents.

So in regards to this issue, we are in aggreance. I don't like those type of men, in fact I hate them to the core as they're just parasitic in nature.

From Susan - Why is there so little research into men being the person in control of fertility? Men need to have the capacity to make an equal commitment to preventing pregnany as women. The lack of research in this could be perceived as anti-male as no male oriented research, but also anti-female - as keep her as the one who has to play with her hormones levels to prevent pregnancy. She is the one who risks her body being pregnant for failed contraception not him.

Chris Key Says: Actually there is a company who have claimed to have produced a male contraceptive, however the feminists in general claimed that such a product is sexist and oppresive to women, so the Government are unsure as to whether it should be made available to the public. The amount of research that is performed on the control of Female Fertility is based on the funding from the state, and that means that the Government are responsible for not trying to develop a male contraceptive. The Government are VERY lenient to the liberals, and they support MOST of their demands, so if you are looking for some one to blame for the lack of a male contraceptive then that party is known as feminism.

From Susan - Ido think there s a reason for a men's rights movement, but like the early women's rights movement you to me have gone way over the edge.

Chris Key Says: You claim that the early Women's Rights Movement went too far over the edge, yet you were citing the unsubstantiated and fraudulent claim that women only earn 60 cents to every dollar that a man makes for performing the same job; a claim that was made by the second-wave-feminists of the 1960's. It seems as if they have have brainwashed you to a degree, as you still believe the very ideology that was promoted by second-wave-feminism.

Are you aware that feminism dates back to 1848? If so, then are you comparing the Men's Movement to that of the early Women's Movement?

First let me say that I wish you would stop citing feminists as if they were a specific defined ideology that people ascribe to. There is no "Internation Organization of Feminists" group (or atleast none that has any recognition as such) - there are multiple organizations that embrace what they consider to be feminism. Some are in great conflict with each other. I am a feminist and I am not 100% pro-choice as I believe that the child and the father do have rights that can be equal to that of the mother. When you swipe at feminism in this way you make your arguments vacuous.

- Women tend to dominate the industries that are based around the care of children and the elderly, and these industries do not offer high pay as they do not require a huge amount of academic qualification or danger to their employees.

That is your opinion and I disagree. I have a career that requires an advanced degree (in human services) and I make the same as the manager at McDonald's - perhaps less.
My significant other works in the computer field with no advances degrees and makes 10 times what I do with equal years in our fields. I could do the work he does with some training - and he readily admits that he could not do what I do because some of the skills required are not teachable skills.

I also often work in areas that are extremely poor and so my vehicle and my person risk their safety. I often work with people with mental health issues and there too I have often risked my life. I once sat at a kitchen table counseling a women while watching rats scurry under the table where I sat. I have returned to my car after a home visit and found my windows broken out.

Teachers are required more and more to have advanced degrees. Teaching presents a physical risk. When I taught in an inner ciry school 30 years ago my arm was broken, and I suffered significant bruising more than once from attacks by students.

My brother works as a prison guard with no college degree what-so-ever and makes 4 times what I do. The work he does although presents considerable risk - is always within the protected environment of the prison.

Some forms of nursing require advanced degrees and these nurses often do some of the same work doctors do and yet they are paid a miniscue amount in comparison.

The largest class action suit to ever be filed in the US was against Walmart for paying its female management significantly less than it male management when they had equal or more experience.

Yes, I am in error when I said you are similar to early feminists when I should have said second wave. That is not a terminology I choose to use for early feminist as I see them as more human rights activists. These women are my mentors - Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller, Dorothea Dix, Jane Addams, and many others. Second wave feminism as you choose to call them do not have anyone that I considered my mentors - my peers possibly.

Susan

From Susan - First let me say that I wish you would stop citing feminists as if they were a specific defined ideology that people ascribe to. There is no "Internation Organization of Feminists" group (or atleast none that has any recognition as such) - there are multiple organizations that embrace what they consider to be feminism. Some are in great conflict with each other. I am a feminist and I am not 100% pro-choice as I believe that the child and the father do have rights that can be equal to that of the mother. When you swipe at feminism in this way you make your arguments vacuous.

Chris Key Says: However you fail to mention that the National Organisation for Women (a radical feminist group) are the leading feminist-party in the world, and they have more power than any other cabal of feminists. These are the feminists who have a LOT of power over the law-makers and they ARE the leaders and representatives of the movement.

You also fail to acknowledge that the very ideology of feminism in general is similar to that of National Socialism (Nazism), and the term Feminist refers to a single demographic and can be compared to the White Supremacists. Feminist ideology basically states that women should be given a greater amount of funding from the state than any other demographic (child support, welfare for single mothers, paternity fraud, domestic violence shelters, health resources, etc) and that their rights are more important than those of anyone else; the very same beliefs that were held by the Aryan Supremacists in regards to how they viewed the Slavs and the Jews.

Look at how the feminists believe that it's acceptable for women to infiltrate male-only sectors of society such as Public Toilets and *Sporting Clubs*, yet they then claim the men must be PREVENTED from even attending anything that is *female-only*. Again, just another example of how the feminists think that women are to be given MORE rights than men.

Due to feminism, men are not allowed to sit next to children on an airplane in New Zealand, and in USA there are now programs that allow female students to obtain work experience at a young age, but prevent their male counterparts from doing the same. Instead, the male students are forced to listen to Feminist Ideology about how they can be better to women when they grow up.

If you wish to call yourself a feminist, then you are no better than the White Supremacists of society, who believe that Caucasians should be given more funding and opportunity than blacks.


From Susan - That is your opinion and I disagree. I have a career that requires an advanced degree (in human services) and I make the same as the manager at McDonald's - perhaps less.

Chris Key Says: Human services is based more on ideology than actual necessity, and the high amount of employees within the field along with the fact that is does not play any crucial role in the sustaining of an industrialised society is the very reason why it offers a lesser amount of pay than those who work in the computer field. An advanced degree in Human services is worth less than any form of qualification that is required to obtain a job in the computer fields, as the latter requires a greater amount of analytical thinking than the former.

It must also be stated that an advanced degree in today's society can mean just about anything, however it does not correlate to the ability for a person to perform a job that requires a great amount of skill and intellect. A lot of jobs that exist today can be performed WITHOUT a degree, however the state has ensured that a greater amount of academic qualification is required as they benefit from the University tuition fees that the students have to pay to obtain the education that is usually based on ideology and NOT on reality.


From Susan - My significant other works in the computer field with no advances degrees and makes 10 times what I do with equal years in our fields. I could do the work he does with some training - and he readily admits that he could not do what I do because some of the skills required are not teachable skills.

Chris Key Says: If your skills are unable to be taught, then could you please explain how you were able to acquire them?

If you are able to perform the same job as him after obtaining some training, then that shows you do not possess the knowledge that is required to excel within that field at the present time.

The reason that your significant other is not required to have an advanced degree is because in computer field, the technology is constantly advancing and the skills that are required range from a strong ability to analyse and interpret data from the outside world (analytical thinking), to knowledge of mathematics.

In other words, his job would require a greater amount of concentration, problem solving ability, and innovative thinking, and that is a skill that people either do or do not have, and a degree will NOT make them any more competent than their biological structure allows.

There is also a greater demand for employees within the computer field, as the technology is used to power many sectors of the workforce (including the one you are working within), and without it the industrialisation of the world wouldn't be at it's current level. In other words, his job contains a greater amount of importance to society, and THAT is why it offers more pay than you.

He is also working far harder than you, as his job requires the ability to concentrate, solve problems, and think in an innovative manner. Your job does not require the ability to solve advanced mathematical problems, as it's based more on ideology than anything else, and that means you're not placed under as much psychological stress as those who work in the scientific or mathematical fields.


From Susan - I also often work in areas that are extremely poor and so my vehicle and my person risk their safety. I often work with people with mental health issues and there too I have often risked my life. I once sat at a kitchen table counseling a women while watching rats scurry under the table where I sat. I have returned to my car after a home visit and found my windows broken out.

Chris Key Says: The risk you are placed under is not even comparable to those who are required to extract and refine the minerals from the Earth (a procedure that requires them to be around heavy machinery that is dangerous and requires a greater amount of skill and responsibility to operate), or those who are working on a building site (where they are exposed to dangerous heights and are required to work with heavy objects that deteriorate their health), or those who are logging trees from the forest (a very dangerous job) or fishing the oceans around the arctic.

Also the exposure to a rat is not a form of danger, as they are closely related to Humans and are quite placid in nature. I have two pet rats and have had 5 in total over the years, and they were the most loving and caring pets I have ever had. Recently there were a family of wild mice living in my house, and they never attacked me, in fact they were quite friendly and would come up close to me and follow me around the house.

Rats are far more intelligent and humanlike than dogs, and they make the BEST pets in the world. Here is some information on them - http://www.stopanimaltests.com/feat/hiddenrats/


From Susan - Teachers are required more and more to have advanced degrees. Teaching presents a physical risk. When I taught in an inner ciry school 30 years ago my arm was broken, and I suffered significant bruising more than once from attacks by students.

Chris Key Says: The so called advanced degrees that they're required to obtain do not involve the same level of general qualification and knowledge that is required to work within the scientific and computer fields, and the high amount of teachers means that the demand for them is not as great.


From Susan - My brother works as a prison guard with no college degree what-so-ever and makes 4 times what I do. The work he does although presents considerable risk - is always within the protected environment of the prison.

Chris Key Says: The scarcity of people who wish to work as a prison guard means that the field is in high demand, and that leads to an increase in the wages that it offers it's employees. The job is VERY uncomfortable as the employees have to work in a hostile environment where they are constantly exposed to dangerous persons. A prison guard is far more likely to be attacked of murdered than a person who works within the Human Services field.


From Susan - Some forms of nursing require advanced degrees and these nurses often do some of the same work doctors do and yet they are paid a miniscue amount in comparison.

Chris Key Says: This is not a form of sex discrimination, as it applies to male and female nurses.


From Susan - The largest class action suit to ever be filed in the US was against Walmart for paying its female management significantly less than it male management when they had equal or more experience.

Chris Key Says: I remember hearing that about that, however the women refused to acknowledge that the men were usually assigned to perform a greater amount of physically demanding work such as lifting heavy boxes, while the women usually performed the lighter work such as working at reception.

Warren Farrell has a wealth of evidence that refutes the claim that women in general are paid less for performing the same job as their male counterparts, you should view the video clip he has on the following site - http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1834

I am finding now what you write to be offensive to me and will not be willing to engage you in conversation much longer if you continue in this vein.

First, I stand by there being no one set of values that everyone embraces as feminism. I know others who are feminist who I heartily disagree with on certain values. NOW once held the rein of what most people considered feminism, but it no longer does. I doubt many young women growing up these days even know what NOW is.

The skill I have in perhaps the greatest abundance for my employment is patience followed closely by empathy. I also have an excellent memory for facts and eye for detail. These are skills that can generally not be learned - you have them or you don't. You can learn to use them better, but you can't create an ability to be patient out of a vacumn.

The advanced degrees I have focused heavily on research - they required analytical thought, and statistical analysis.

Rats do make great pets - I used to have mice. But a pet animal is very different than a wild animal running about a tenament slum.

You have insider information about the Walmart suit? And you think that a person should be paid more for carrying a heavy box that requires nothing but strength versus a person who can order clothes on racks that makes sense? And do you think that no women do heavy lifting and no men are unable to?

You sound like a really angry person who must have been screwed royally by a woman. All women are not demons. I am a feminists but I am also for many of the men's rights you expose, simply not for the rreasons you cite.

Dude this site is so LOOPED up! HAHAHHAHA OMFG I CAN'T BELEIVE THERE ARE SITES LIKE THIS! IF I WAS A GIRL AND I GOT KICKED IN THE PUSSY, I WOULDN'T ANNOUNCE IT TO STRAGNERS! HAHA THIS SITE DOESN'T PWN!