Equality of the Sexes for Dummies, Or Putting the Equality Issue into Perspective
                                                               Alan Millard

             A way of thinking lacks any sense of justice when it’s selectively applied to men in the mating process. For example, men are often considered ‘cheap’ who don’t pay for women’s way on a date. But if men are ‘cheap’ who don’t pay for women’s way, what’s that make the women who don’t even pay their own way? (This is a status below any friendship or one a person would otherwise—outside the dating arrangement—even consider a friend. Are we to lower the standards for dating that we would consider basic for creating a friendship and meeting anyone else? And why are laws needed for, and applied to mating, but not for creating friendships?) No matter how much money women earn many still think they are ‘above’ paying a man’s way, which is a disposition derived from women being elevated above men—on a pedestal. (Women are not to be automatically considered better or more valuable than men.)
          This is one of the many examples that reveal for women to ever acquire an equal status to men will require they lose their rating above men and relinquish privileges they already possess. And what comes with this relinquishment is an equal social responsibility to initiate mating behavior with men which is in direct opposition to the present-day laws that further oppress men and target male behavior in the mating process. The bottom line seems to be that women biologically do not desire to mate and express less interest in seeking men (other than for financial support), so financial resources indeed served in the past as the equalizer that evened-out the differences between the sexes compensating for sex, although even in the past sex was not a guarantee for men although paying for the date was. (Again, sad that women can’t meet men as they meet other women but with the friendship merely including sexual relations.) 
          But one thing is for certain and well revealed in this process and practiced arrangement. Sex is not the same need to women it is to men. And this commonly applied fact is defied when it comes to sexual activity between men and women, with women, despite needing to be paid to ‘compensate’, still expecting to be equally satisfied during sex which often takes more effort on the male’s behalf than vice versa. (And even that is the male’s fault if the female isn’t mutually satisfied!) The burden of imbalance always lies on the male due to the elevation of women above men in our society. And men, groomed from boyhood to be pawns as part of their ‘manhood’ identity, readily accept this role. Pathetic.
            Oh, and then when men are right and fail to patronize women, they supposedly hate women (are deemed misogynists) which assessment many in their intellectual ineptness would apply to me due to my truthful expression. If the equivalent definition supposedly qualifying as ‘hatred’ of women, commonly assessed toward men, were consistent in its application to men, a discrepancy would reveal, per the same terms, much more hatred of men by women. Therefore, what’s termed as “women’s rights” boils down to something no more than ‘Kill the messenger’. (The truth must not be known and suppressed.) Sad that exercising my right of free speech is deemed unacceptable if used to accurately assess the truth regarding women. What power, exclusively possessed by women, could ever surpass this?
            Societies that are exempt of the chivalry component are predominantly outside our otherwise intellectually advanced educational institutions. We can learn (intellectually prosper) from other societies that are exempt of this flaw.
            Most studies, especially history and the social sciences, have been hijacked and are built upon a false concept, one already previously conditioned by chivalry and yet further contaminated by feminist conjecture. This is certainly why men in most cases should never see a therapist, counselor, or anyone else deemed a ‘professional’--an educational product of feminist indoctrination. At a time when men are oppressed and persecuted few men have anywhere they can go (or anyone with whom they can confide) for help to cope, which more than likely contributes to their increased suicide rates. (e.g. Yet, even considering this, no Office of Men’s Health exists, although one exists for women.)
           This reveals The Flaw From Within. Read the book—a must for any genuine equality advocate.

                             
                                                                                Alan Millard

           Generally, compared to men, women are less objective. They enter personal interests, issues, selfishness, and favoritism into the occupational environment despite the best interests of goals set and tasks to be performed. This is why, with men being in charge, our society in the past was so successful per business and employment, military, and family. Now, all that men have created is being questioned, attacked, and destroyed. A segment of our society consumed by hate and selfishness (much under the protective shield of the P.C.) denies, and lashes out against, this analogy only because the truth serves to threaten an established power—one acquired at the expense of everyone continually draining life from humanity. Male employees have had to walk on eggshells in the workplace due to modern-day women’s volatile temperament and superior status—ironically one built upon being spoiled and entitled due to the success of men who elevated women above them.     

Modern-day Women and Objectivity