By David L. Rose

Originally, when I contemplated an article for Men’s Rights, I focused on themes such as the “Divorce Industrial Complex” and “Governmental Kidnapping”. However, it occurred to me that, as with most of life, it is about economics.  By attacking men’s economic power through predatory legal attack—lawsuits, divorce and unsubstantiated sexual allegations—feminists and their male cohorts have effectively emasculated the rights of millions of men.  Further, by sowing the seeds economic disaster they have also bludgeoned non-feminist women, the poor and children.  With all the excesses and inequities feminists have sewn, their violations of constitutional and international law, one wonders, what would happen if men and their supporters suddenly fought back against all the wrongs done them?  What if we simply stopped cooperating with government and business?  Litigated for damages?

Over the past 40 years, knowing they are unable to compete on a level playing field with men, feminists have litigated for preferential treatment, for unearned compensation and for programs to handicap men, both as the means to their dictatorship in American culture. Through the use of litigation and divisive politics, feminists have managed to diminish men’s representation to well below the statistical averages in education, communications and employment.  Feminists are instituting female proxies in vital positions in business, government and even the military, lowering training standards of the latter, putting our national security at risk.  Feminists have also successfully lobbied for billions of tax dollars to fund for their blatantly discriminatory schemes.  The result has been gross overcompensation in salary and benefits that feminists are unable, and often unwilling, to earn through production of fair economy value.  Conversely, good and capable men have been forced to stand aside, forgoing education, management positions, and lucrative entertainment roles so that women may have first priority, as long as the latter tow the feminist line of course.

The result has been economically disastrous.  Companies have shed top management for less capable women and shelled out billions of dollars for lawsuits from which many firms never recover.  They have overseen the destruction of one company after another: HP, Sara Lee, and Zales to name a few.  The economy has been so bled by feminist entitlement and overcompensation programs that most firms are either shutting down or selling out to foreign firms, bringing the American economy to its knees, now seemingly unable to get off the mat.  They cry “privilege” and demand entitlement.  The difference between the two is accountability and life is now holding the American economy accountable.

This is my fourth recession, as an adult, and the harshest.  The severity of this one I believe is as much induced by feminist corruption anything.  Having worked with women in the workforce for many years I have no illusions as to what they can and cannot do.  Talk is cheap and meaningless if you cannot do the job.  Women often can perform the same quality as a man OR they can produce the same quantity—very, very few can do both.  Realizing this is why feminists have instituted “protections”, superior to that of men in complete violation of equal protection under the law.  They are permitted to litigate if they are not awarded their PHD or their dream CEO position, even if their dissertation would not paper a wall in Asia or Europe, and they cannot lead out of wet paper sack.  They cannot be fired AND they can litigate for things such as sexual harassment even if a man is merely asking for a date or she cruelly fabricates the charge.  Enriched, they are free to spend copious of ill-gotten loot, supposedly supporting our consumer-based economy, when in reality, if you do not produce, and just spend, you have no economy, which is where America now wallows.

The evidence is overwhelming.  I live in a city where 28% of the population reflects American-born males.  Yet virtually all visible areas, their representation is down to as low as 10%.  Labor positions typically go to foreign males and server positions to American females.  One example is man who I know is an excellent restaurant server. He is very popular for his jocularity and valued for his ability to bring into the restaurant repeat customers.   However, since the recession his hours have been cut.  When seeking additional work from another restaurant he was told by a male manager that they only hire female servers, despite the fact that his policy violates state, federal law and international law.

Other examples are from women, most of whom are not feminists and support me.  They understand this problem very well.  Women have confided to me that they are forced to work for unscrupulous and ineffectual women for no apparent reason.  One female payroll clerk, confided in me that her female H.R. manager, with a PHD, “did virtually nothing all day, that she had her do most of the manager’s work. When problems arose, asked the manager seemed incapable of understanding or solving them.  In another example, a man working in an international architectural firm faced meeting after meeting where a female manager berated her staff for failing to meet unrealistic deadlines.  All the while, this female “manager”, played on her computer working on drawings for her parents vacation home instead of contributing to the project.  Finally, her entire staff, male and female, summarily walked of the job.  Both firms to date are facing massive layoffs and possible shutdown.

The most blatant example of job was an advertisement on CNBC where a male CEO bragged that his was a minority-based business, when he breathed a thick accent from India.  We can extrapolate this over entire industries, where foreign-born males are in production, and females are in service.  Senior male managers often feel coerced to endorse these policies out of the fear of the onslaught of litigation by feminists and their legal henchmen.  Hence we have an intimidated domestic male population seems neither able nor willing to fight for their own rights nor the rights of their brothers, and the result is a virtual foreign takeover of American business.

However, if men were to fight for compensation for the damage done to their rights, either 1) predatory litigation would become extinct, or 2) the retaliatory litigation by men against firms and groups would be staggering in their scope and cost.

As we live with this enormous political giveaway economy, feminists get unearned jobs, without accountability, resulting in a devastating economic decline, adversely affecting the vast majority of Americans—men, non-feminist women and children.  Sadly, poor children are disproportionately affected, and their numbers continue to grow in number under the feminist dictatorship.  Finally, any who oppose the feminist culture are illegally excluded, intimidated into alienation, isolation and despair, with many driven to the point of self-destruction.

This ugly situation begs these two questions:  1) What might the results be if the male 49.5% of the population allied themselves with non-feminist women of say 30%, and simply ceased cooperating with the current political establishment, or 2) what if, all the people discriminated against by feminists and their unscrupulous male supports were to litigate for compensation?  Certainly our political landscape would change dramatically.  It behooves the disaffected majority to comprehend that they have the power to overcome the corruption of feminism and restore American society, and its economy, to the rightful prominence it deserves.

_____________________________________________________

Mr. Rose is a senior executive in the financial industry.

Tags: dave rose, feminist economics, feminist theory, mens rights, national coalition for men, ncfm, radical feminism