The Memucan Institute of Men's Studies

Website:www.mioms.com email: alanjb@mioms.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History will judge this generation most severely for making some critical errors regarding the over zealous pursuit of equality for women. Most gender "reforms" such as affirmative action were carried out on the basis of ideology rather than popular consensus or validated scientific research. The drive to equalise the roles of men and women is not a fight against perceived male bias, but rather presents a retreat from reality and common sense - a rebellion against the designs of nature. The `equality for women' jihad is in reality waging a war against the primacy and stability of family life - not to mention due democratic processes. Ultimately feminism is an open rebellion against masculinity and femininity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________________________________________________

* Men make up 74 per cent of those receiving unemployment benefits.

(Three plus decades ago women formed the majority of the unemployed).

* 64% of all females are in full-time work.

* 72% of all part-time workers are women.

* 67% of all new jobs are going to women.

* In the decade 1970 to 1980, the number of females working increased by 58% - men by just 20%

* Most women are employed in the expanding areas of employment such as the service industries. Men are in the shrinking areas such as engineering, etc. THIS MEANS THAT SOME 800,000 JOBS THAT WOULD HAVE TRADITIONALLY GONE TO MEN HAVE GONE TO WOMEN. (in USA some 15 million jobs lost to men. England, some 2.60 million+ jobs lost to men).

* World-wide unemployment rates for men are rising much faster than the female rate.

* Most government and semi-government departments and statutory bodies tend to favour women over men in hiring and promotion due to affirmative action legislation. This includes education, armed forces, police and fire fighting services.

* Men are now only 44% of all university undergraduates at (Down from 70% in the early 70s).

* Men are discriminated against in the workplace and in education by affirmative action for women.

* Men are often given a raw deal in the Family Court when they divorce (especially in terms of custody, access and property division).

* There is virtually no equal opportunity for men when it comes to the government's largesse. In Australia, some two and a half billion (not million) is spent on `women's ' policy initiatives by federal, state and local governments. Men? Hardly a brass razoo! Yet men contribute 70% of income tax! State and Federal governments in Australia spend over 1.25 billion on childcare alone.

* Stay at home mums penalised. The Federal Government pays working women almost double what it pays stay-at-home mums. Thus women are encouraged to enter the workforce at a time of high unemployment and to dump their children in child minding.

* Boys make up the bulk of remedial students at school.

* Men, on average, die 7 years earlier than women.

* Most of the homeless are men

* Young men commit suicide at over 4 times the female rate.

* Men are given more severe jail terms for similar crimes than women.

* Men still do most of the dirty and dangerous jobs, and still would be expected to go off to war should the situation demand it.

* Men are often wrongly accused of sexual harassment/crimes.

The Federal Equal Employment Opportunities Act (formerly Affirmative Action Act) requires all employers with over 100 employees to set up equal opportunities for women; with the CEO to be responsible for EEO. Each company must report to EEOA each two years. There are some 10,585 companies in Australia who have over 100 employees.

In addition there are over 6,900 government schools in Australia each with a dedicated EEO Officer seeking to advance girls and women's education. No wonder boys and men are being left behind in the workplace and education.

By our reckoning, there must be some 17,000 Equal Opportunities Officers (conservative estimate) across this nation all rooting for women. Our figures exclude private schools (over 2,000), the Union Movement - which is crammed full of femocrats - small businesses under 100 employees, political parties, and community groups and Churches.

Then we have the Office of the Status of Women with around 50 staff. (There is no equivalent for men). In addition they allocate over $1 million dollars annually to "women's" groups.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Finding roles for women isn't the problem; Finding one for men is." - Margaret Mead anthropologist.

Special spending on women runs into the millions. Examples:

(1) the Women in Business Trust get $500,000 from the federal budget to assist women establish their own business - nothing for men.

(2) `Women's Safety Survey' was allocated $1.3 million - nothing for men.

(3) The Federal Government also gives hefty handouts for things for women's only events like the International Women's Conference' held in Adelaide in 1996.

(4) Special employment and health programs for women. The government even funded a program for wives of unemployed men to help them find a job!

(5) All State Governments have their special programs for women, especially in education, employment and health. Example: In 1997/98 financial year the Victorian Kennett Coalition Government spent $50 million implementing its `women's agenda' (health and employment issues mainly).

(6) Australian Bureau of Statistics publish each year their `Australian Women's Year Book'. This is in addition to gender information in `Year Book Australia, Australian Social Trends'.

The cost of administering the plethora of `women's policies' at federal, state, and local levels, must be costing taxpayers a fortune. There has been many a forest cleared to print the copious amounts of `women's reports' published over the past three decades.

* Women- Shaping and Sharing the Future - The New National Agenda for Women 1993-2000 (162 pages, Office of the Status of Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 1993).

* Equity before the Law, Discussion Paper 54, Australian Law Reform Commission 1993, over 360 pages in 2 volumes).

* Half Way to Equal, (365 pages), House of Representatives Standing Committee on legal and Constitutional Affairs, 1992.

* Affirmative Action for Women, (Dept of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 1984 (2 volumes).

* 2 Year Action Plan for Women 1998-2000 (Victorian Government).

* Come on Girls, (Advisory Committee on the Post-Secondary Education of Women and Girls, SA 1985),

* Equal Employment Opportunity Action Plan 1986/87 (Rural Water Commission of Victoria).

* Managers Managing Equally, (SA Office of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity).

* Rural Women's Network Report (Vic Government 1998), etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

On top of this there are all those telephone listings. In checking the White Pages under Office of Women's Policy (Queensland), there were two extensive listings including toll free numbers (Australia Wide).

Women get squillions spend on them and men hardly a brass razoo. The need to spend money on men's issues is slowly dawning however. For example, the government is at last, going to spend a couple of million dollars on promoting men's prostate health.

What caused the equal outcomes revolution? - The changes in all strata's of western society especially in the political, social and work environments have been breathtaking. These rapid and far reaching changes have occurred in a very short space of time, in just three short generations. Social conventions which have well served Western culture for centuries have been rejected in favour of the brave new world of egalitarian feminism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me make one thing clear from the beginning. The vast majority of men do not feel threatened by women. Men see women as partners, as co-equals in life. We do not regard women as inferiors, nor do we want to deny them justice, the right of self determination, or to perpetuate discrimination against them, or any other group. We strongly defend the inherent worth, dignity and value of each human being regardless of gender, race, or creed. Women have been denied some basic rights in the past. Thankfully, these have now been corrected. (For historic overview, see Appendix 'A').

However the rapid, far reaching, wholesale implementation of the feminist agenda has led to widespread social dislocation and left many men, and women, bewildered and confused. To put it another way, (apologies to Sir Winston Churchill), "never in the course of human history has so much been squandered by so few on behalf of so many!" Therefore women are not the enemy - but feminism is - make no mistake about it. Feminism has arrogated to itself the mantle of women's advocate. It was not given this mandate but arbitrarily assumed it. Unfortunately our politicians in order to pamper to what they wrongly regarded as the "women's vote" have capitulated to the demands of a vociferous minority - feminism. But the alarming thing is that men's apathy and gross indifference to feminism soon, under pressure, gave way to tacit support for their agenda. Feminism has had its agenda widely accepted throughout the west, and many leading feminists are now openly gloating at the destruction of the patriarchy. For example, Naomi Wolf, writing in "Fire with Fire" (a sort of feminist manifesto) writes, "The patriarchists are withdrawing because they realise before women do that women have already begun to 'win' and they are frightened that women will do to them what men have traditionally done to women". (1)

Very perceptive. In face of constant agitation by angry 'wimin', men have retreated. Phyllis Schlafly calls this the "She-Bear syndrome". (A male bear usually takes scant regard of a she-bear. However if the she-bear has cubs its another story. A male bear is almost twice the size of a she-bear, but he will avoid - at any cost - a she-bear with young cubs as she will fight to the death to protect them). In two short decades, feminism has gained the ascendancy in the Western nations. Men have capitulated in the wake of the equal opportunity juggernaut. Parliaments have fallen over themselves to be the first "reformers" to usher in the brave new utopian world of feminism. No one section of society has dared fight against this new invader imported from the former USSR. The churches, unions, politicians, and businessmen were all conned into believing the feminist agenda was in the common interest of all women. Men would also gain, they would be 'freed' to explore their "repressed feelings". It all sounded so good.

Women are no longer a disadvantaged group

While certainly social reform was needed for women in terms of women's access to education and the workplace, the pendulum has swung to far in the opposite direction. All the changes that needed to be made have been made. A correction is needed. Professor Bob Birrell from Monash University says that the evidence, the realities of the 90's clearly show women are no longer a disadvantaged minority either in education or the workforce and one could add, in society generally. Rather it is men - and not women,- who are being disadvantaged by the matriarchal society.

* Men are two thirds of unemployed

* Most of the long term unemployed are men

* Men are located in shrinking areas of economy, women in expanding areas,

* Men are now less than 44 per cent of tertiary students and are being left behind in High School

The hard questions that were never asked

When politicians began to implement the feminist agenda (See Appendix `B' for overview of feminist philosophy) they failed to do their homework or to brush up on their sociology and psychology. They therefore neglected to ask some pertinent questions such as:

"Do the majority of women want these changes?"

"Are these changes necessary at this time?"

"Can our society safely accommodate radical changes to the role of women?"

"What will be the effect on family life by the altered role of women?"

"What will happen to the birthrate?"

"What will happen to men and their status in society?"

"Will encouraging women en masse into the workforce create an oversupply of labour to the marketplace?"

"Will it raise the unemployment rate?", were never asked.

* - It had well defined system of belief AND plan of action,

* - It arrived at a very opportunistic time,

* - It filled a vacuum,

* - Had a slick marketing strategy coupled with wide appeal,

* - No organised opposition to oppose it,

* - Dedication of its rank and file, sense of common purpose.

* - The majority of women wanted it,

* - It was superior ethically to traditional values,

* - The community was calling for urgent reform.

* - It had the weight of empirical evidence to support it,

The reason I think feminist myths are so entrenched in our culture is because they control education and academia. This gives their fallacious arguments an aura of respectability and status. Conservatives in response to feminism, did not have a well thought out 'statement of faith' if you like, or a plan of action like their opponents. Hence the feminist blitzkrieg swept all before it in the 60's and 70's. However there have been some encouraging signs emanating from the USA. Many now are openly rejecting affirmative action, and so called sexual harassment laws. Hopefully it will not be long before this opposition starts to build in this country.

Earlier this century Antonio Gramsci a Neo-Marxist, developed the idea of hegemony. Gramsci used the concept of hegemony to describe how the domination of one class over others is achieved by a combination of political and ideological means. The role of ideology in winning the consent of dominated classes could be crucial he argued. The reason why feminism has won the battle of the sexes is because it recruited men to fight its battles for them. In Marxist terms the subservient class, women using equality ideology, recruited men, the dominant class, to achieve 'liberation' for women.

We must ask, "Is society any better for implementing the feminist agenda?" If you listen to the government and the "spokespersons" from the Office of the Status of Women, you would think society, particularly women, have made great gains. There is apparently no downside to implementing "reforms" for "women" and there is say the equal opportunities Commissioners, still "a long way to go to achieve full equality for women". Anyone who opposes feminist reforms is called a reactionary, a chauvinist/pig, a Neanderthal, or all of the above. However, what do we see happening around us? We see a pattern emerging, a pattern which is virtually the same in every Western country. The implementation of equal opportunity has, and is, causing the gradual disintegration of our civilised Western culture. Governments of all political hues have implemented the entire feminist agenda in just about every western nation with disastrous results.

1 - The push to get more women into the workforce is causing the oversupply of labour to the marketplace. As a result, unemployment levels are at record highs. No free enterprise democratic country can employ all adult males and females, as feminism pre-supposes. Economies would have to expand a constant 5-6% to absorb all new job seekers - a big, big ask.

2 - The birthrate in all Western democracies (except Ireland) has fallen below replacement levels. Western women are failures as women in this respect. The average birthrate is 1.8 children per family which is well below the replacement level of 2.3 children per woman. It is estimated by Professor G.F. Dumond, Director of the Institute of Political Demography at the Paris Sorbonne, that if present population trends continue, i.e., declining slowly, then by the year 2070 the populations of the industrialised countries will "disappear" and fade into oblivion.(3) We don't have to worry so much about the depletion of the ozone layer, a nuclear holocaust, a worldwide recession, or a direct hit by a meteorite. By far, the most imminent dangers facing Western culture are its declining birthrates and the decline of a male friendly culture.

3 - Family life is deteriorating. This is evidenced by the fact that both women and men are marrying later and having fewer children. In addition, our youth have been denied a future as married women have squeezed them from the job market. It comes as no surprise that youth suicide and juvenile crime such as car stealing, drug taking and alcoholism is so high. Subsequently men, children and the traditionally minded women have lost out - big time. Abortion is commonplace as is the use of informal childminding and the divorce rate has skyrocketed to one divorce for every two new marriages. Pornography is rife as is cohabitation and experimentation with alternative lifestyles and drug taking. All this with the blessing of our political masters and mistresses who think nothing of meddling in the private affairs of its citizens to usher in the brave new world of `non discrimination'. George Orwell got it right - and wrong! Big Brother government did subtly arrive in '1984' (Australia passed its equal opportunity law in this year). However, it wasn't "Big Brother" which arrived so much as "Big Sister"!

It is ironic that the drive to equalise the role of the sexes is creating the unequal society. Many families (40%) have two incomes, (the "have's") others have one breadwinner, while many others have no breadwinner at all, (the "havenots"). Thus poverty levels are rising and not decreasing. In times past, when both men and women accepted the view that the man should be the principal (but not necessarily the only) breadwinner and women be the chief carer of the children, wealth was spread more evenly throughout society. Today this is not the case. More and more income is being concentrated into fewer and fewer households, thus exacerbating differences between social classes. Many women work because they are lead to believe that this is their major purpose in life - and not looking after their own children at home.

However, McKay Research in Australia has done surveys which show that 70% of women who work full time would prefer to be home or to work only part time so that they can spend more time with their children. If America, Australia and other Western nations followed the lead of France and paid a reasonable family/child allowance, and encouraged women to not feel guilty about being "unproductive" by caring for their children, then many mothers would opt out of the workforce, and thus free up the labour market. Therefore, the men's movement must push for a higher rate of child allowance to be paid to the principal care giver rather than building, funding and subsidising child minding centres. Professor Blitchington put it well when he wrote; `That sexual roles - mother and father, husband and wife - are not just arbitrary categories into which people are squeezed; they are broad patterns and principles of behaviour which define the optimum ways in which men and women can relate together, enjoy intimacy, and provide a context in which children can grow up healthy and strong. The maternal role is more than just one component in this pattern of complementary roles. It is the crucial pivot - the foundation - upon which both family and society revolve. How women fill that role determines the potential happiness and fulfilment of all of us." (4)

We must also encourage employers and governments to allow job sharing and to make part time work much more widely available. This would give women the flexibility they need in order to balance work and family responsibilities.

Today feminist control and presence is all pervasive. No teacher or public speaker dares use "he". Critics must apologise before praising books, movies, or ideas that deviate from the party line. Feminist doctrine now shapes to an unprecedented degree the rights and duties that govern institutional and social life. Once in place, hiring quotas, textbook censorship, court jurisdiction over private association, and all the other travesties of liberalism to which we all have become numb are likely to stay in place, long after they will clearly be seen to have failed to achieve the unachievable - unless we take action.

Feminist doctrine has severely limited civil and personal freedoms. (See Appendix 'B' - The Philosophy of Feminism). Employees must report the progress of affirmative action programs to bureaucrats each year, and laws and literature are censored to eliminate 'sexist' language. Men now must be careful about what they not only say and do in public, but also in the privacy of their own homes. Men's sporting and private clubs are compelled to admit women as members, places are reserved for women at university, in the public services and the military. The Australian Government spends over $1.2 billion on implementing its "women's initiatives" including health care, implementing non-sexist education and so on. Men got zilch - nothing - not even a brass razoo.

Self-centredness - Feminism has a very serious weakness. It actively encourages individualism and self-centredness. Women are being told to "fulfil themselves", to "find independence", to "achieve their career goals", etc. Feminism glorifies self. Encouraging women to place their own quest for a career in the paid workforce as their main priority, has mitigated against the taking up of other responsibilities, namely to their spouses and children. In fact, children are seen as an encumbrance to a woman finding fulfilment and reaching her "full potential" in the workforce. However, the design of nature is to avoid self-sufficiency. Everything about our earth and its inhabitants is designed to promote harmony, interdependence and unselfishness.

Affirmative action - Many gender equitists argue that the idea behind affirmative action is to make up for the past injustices committed by men against women. However, in times past, both men and women acquiesced in the traditional arrangement of men as breadwinners and women as mothers and chief nurturers. Times have changed. However, there is no excuse for punishing the innocent (the present generation of men) or rewarding those who do not necessarily deserve it (the present generation of women), as affirmative action does.

It is doubtful whether men have fully understood the real purpose of feminism, and that is to destroy male power - or "patriarchy" and to disempower/disenfranchise men. And they have largely succeeded. The feminist revolution is not about equality but about power. Feminists did this by gaining control of the political process and through this means establishing the "high moral ground". They then by sheer weight of numbers took control of education, academia, the unions and the media. The churches, which once were the custodians of social conventions and morality, were compromised and hence neutralised by ordaining women as clergypersons, in direct contradiction to their own Scriptures and traditions. No one section of society defended with any vigour the traditional roles of the sexes.

When organised religion vacated the position of moral custodians and gave way to secular humanism, post-modernism filled the gap created. This was soon upstaged by militant feminism. The only movement teaching anything about the roles of the sexes was feminism, so it filled the void left by the churches. Soon traditional social conventions were being swept aside by the feminist avalanche. Through education, feminism also controlled the use and direction of language.

If you control the language and invent a whole new vocabulary to not only articulate your grievances but to label each peccadillo of your opponents, then victory is assured. Being the age of postmodernism, the gender debate has moved on, but as usual the politicians haven't caught up yet. All points of view must be represented and not just working women. We should also include traditional woman, and of course men. Professor Michael Levin, writing in "The Feminist Mystique", says, "It is tempting to think that feminism in its latest version will collide with human nature once too often and then just go away. A collective cry of 'enough' will arise and, magically, girls will no longer be made to feel foolish about wanting children, men will no longer have to worry about 'offending' their dates, and freedom and rationality will return to the occupational marketplace." (5) No such luck Michael. We must take the bit between the teeth which brings us to the next section.

The so-called battle of the sexes hasn't been so much a battle as a massacre. However, let's focus our attention on the future and develop some rationale for our recalcitrant platform! As George Gilder in "Wealth and Poverty", and Professor Steven Goldberg in "The Inevitability of Patriarchy", point out, feminists never ask why it is that, despite the great divergence of human societies, the same pattern emerges. That is, why is patriarchy so universal? Quoting statistics showing alleged female disadvantages only reinforces what feminists are trying so desperately to avoid - male dominance is due to ineradicable social and biological factors. Even in the animal kingdom, male dominance is a given in nature, there aren't too many exceptions. Has male dominance in Western culture been that bad, particularly for women? Even a cursory glance at the development of Western history reveals how beneficial male dominance has been for both men and women. Male inventiveness has given society all the whiz-bang electronic gadgetry which has taken the drudgery out of housework, i.e, the washing machine, vacuum cleaner, microwave oven, mixmaster, dish washer, refrigerator, space heater, air conditioner, not to mention running water, electricity and the telephone (and the host of services one can utilise on it).

While women have made a magnificent contribution to the development of Western culture in all areas including literature, the arts, music, science, architecture and anthropology, yet much of this development - by and large - has come to us through gifted men, as has those things which have enabled women to control their fertility by developing the pill and other contraceptive devices. The tampon - which was invented by a male doctor - has taken away the embarrassment of menstruation, and given women a greater degree of self-confidence. However, feminists claim men have, and are, "oppressing" women. But hang on a minute! Haven't male dominated parliaments passed into law ordinances like affirmative action, maternity leave, and generous divorce laws which heavily favour women? Governments spend fortunes on women's health and educational initiatives. When you look at the status and comforts enjoyed by women in the west it becomes clear that women in the west are far in advance of their sisters in the third world or anywhere else, including that bastion of egalitarianism, the former Soviet Union.

In the west, male dominance (the iniquitous W.A.S.P.'s) has built the most advanced cultures ever recorded in human history. Not only the most advanced, but the most democratic and compassionate. This fact seems to have escaped feminist apologists. The advanced culture built by the patriarchy did not happen randomly. Western development was planned and executed by male dominated societies, basing their philosophy on the Judaic-Christian ethic. This ethic developed over time. It sought and achieved a balance between personal responsibility and civil duty, of balancing executive power in government to thwart the development of monopolies of power, the 'Protestant work ethic', of doing a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, of maintaining integrity in all business dealings, of encouraging the best in people through taking responsibility for one's decisions. We need therefore to promote the positive virtues of male dominance at every opportunity.

This is fundamental. Destroy the family unit and you destroy patriarchy. (See Appendix C, "Undermining the Male Role in the Home and Society"). In 1979 Australia signed the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Principle 2 stated: "The best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration." Principle 6 stated: "A child of tender years shall NOT save in exceptional circumstances be separated from his mother." Now the Australian government spends $460 million every year funding child care centres, thus depriving over 500,000 children of their mothers' full time care and devotion. It just goes to show how much water has flowed under the bridge since 1979.

Mothering, by definition, can only be done by mothers. Marriage has been devalued because governments have elevated 'de facto' and homosexual relationships to the level of legal marriages and, indeed, in many cases given them more welfare support than traditional family units. Promiscuity, pornography and homosexuality have all played their part in breaking down the sanctity of the marriage bond. It seems the trade off for men in granting equal opportunity for women is that men want sexual licence in return. Sex has now been divorced from marriage and familial responsibility. Nearly every picture produced by Hollywood has scenes with single men and women having great sex. Films like War of the Roses and Fatal Attraction depict marriage as a battleground or as a trap for women as men go out and sow their wild oats. Enough of the problem, let us now turn our attention to finding solutions to modern feminism.

The first thing which must be done is for men to take the "high moral ground." We must reclaim the language - invent words, phrases, a "systematic theology", a polemic which defends the traditional role of men and women. You can't defend what you can't define. This is why, so far, the feminists have been successful. We must insist on a return to dictionary definitions of words. Feminists often say that "men oppress women". But are women "oppressed" in Western culture? My Oxford Concise Dictionary defines "oppress" / "oppression" as: "Overwhelm with superior weight or numbers or irresistible power, lie heavily on, weigh down, govern tyrannically, keep under by coercion, subject to continual cruelty or injustice." None of the above descriptions fit women in Western culture.

Men have not been able to develop their own epistemology. We must develop, use and promote vigorously, our own vocabulary. The list following is an attempt to start the ball rolling.

The equal outcomes philosophy is based on a myth. It says that is there are no differences between men and women and that abilities intelligence and attributes are randomly spread throughout both sexes, so given a level playing field, outcomes should be equal. Empirical evidence suggests that there are real differences between men and women. Most of these differences are located in the brain. And while gifts and abilities may be randomly spread throughout the population, things like aggression, the drive to excel are not, as generally speaking these are found in men rather than women. Sex hormones also determine choices with female having a propensity to people orientated vocations such as mothering, teaching, nursing and social work. If women aren't achieving equal outcomes in terms of numbers with men in the workplace, politics or whatever, then this is not due to "glass ceilings" but the choices women make for themselves. According to feminist theory there should be as many female leaders and decision makers as there are male ones. But are leadership abilities equally distributed between men and women? In my view the assumption that leadership abilities (and desire for leadership) is equally distributed between men and women has no scientific basis, nor is it supported by the realities of life.

Research into biological/psychological differences between the sexes has concluded, on many occasions, (Moir and Jessel; Brain Sex, Steven Goldberg; The Inevitability of Patriarchy.) that there are differences, and that some differing patterns of male/female behaviour are biologically determined. Male leadership is normative in nature. Without too many exceptions, in nature, the role of the male is to lead and to protect the female. Human beings, in this respect, are no different from other species. Males, because of certain biologically propensities then, gravitate to positions of power and leadership more than females, (the key words here are `more than') - all things being equal on a level playing field. Gender, therefore does - to a significant extent - determine leaders. However, in a world dominated by feminist thought, affirmative action can be used to tilt the odds in women's favour, and results manipulated to achieve equal outcomes for women. This is why policies like the Labor Party's 35 per cent affirmative action quota for women will inevitably mean many men will be brushed aside in order to try and achieve equal outcomes. To say such things of course is not politically correct, and while biology may not be destiny, it is statistical probability.

To get to the top takes more than just qualifications, intelligence, hard work, people skills and dedication. (I freely grant women, as well as men, have these abilities). But it also takes assertiveness, risk taking and a willingness to negate some family responsibilities. These characteristics are more common to men than to women. Research shows that even if a woman is career orientated, she will still want to spend some time with her family (Dr Catherine Hakim), and women generally have a greater reluctance to brush aside their fellows in order to reach the top.

Some may object and say, well that's precisely the point! Women in management is desirable because females bring a different style of leadership; that is, it is argued, women bring a less aggressive, more intuitive style. It is also alleged that women tend to govern by consensus rather than favour the alleged authoritarian masculine style. These softer skills, it is claimed, are more in demand today rather than the aggressive, dominating style of men. This is true, aggression is generally speaking, found more in men than women. However, an important element in the ability of a company to stay ahead of its competitors is its ability to be innovative and to take risks (fortune favours the brave). Some women have what it takes, good luck to them. However, men have, generally speaking, greater assertive skills so necessary in today's competitive marketplace.

Capitalist economies are driven by risk, entrapeauneurship and the need to find and develop new products. Men also tend to be more innovative as 99.8 per cent of the world's inventors are male. It so happens that most of the entrapeauneurs and top business people are men no matter where you go on the globe. Affirmative action policies then for women are counter productive in the long run.

Male unemployment and suicide rates are up as men are squeezed from jobs and management positions they should have held. Male status continues to take a battering in popular culture as the virtues of femininity are extolled daily while masculine values are undervalued. I believe that the drive to equalise the roles of men and women in leadership positions in senior management is not a fight against `male bias' as such as a retreat from reality and common sense, a rebellion against the designs of nature, and is not only waging a war against men, but by so doing is not improving efficiency and productivity, but is in fact reducing them. We must vigorously defend the concept that male domination/patriarchy is part of the natural order of things. We do not have to be ashamed of it, deny it, or try to eliminate it by unnecessary restrictive laws. Male dominance is not only natural, it's good, positive, benign - not malignant! Women have nothing to fear from a compassionate patriarchal society. (Note: I am not defending all patriarchal societies, particularly in the third world. Some of these are brutal and do treat women as second class citizens and we in no way condone these practices.)

Modern education is a real worry. Feminism conditions young women (and men) that a career in the paid workforce is everything. Mothering is, at best, a second-rate option. In 1975, The Bulletin magazine in Australia ran a survey of 16-year-old school girls. 75% of respondents said they saw mothering/having a family as their main career in life. In 1992, a similar Bulletin survey found the percentage of girls who saw mothering as their main career in life had dropped to just 25%. So long as education/society encourages the view that women have as much right to work as men, and that women should see a paid career in the workforce as normative, then we will NEVER see a return to full employment, stable marriages or arrest the declining birthrate or growing marriage dissolutions. Young men are only 44 percent of undergraduates at Australian universities because they are severely disadvantaged by an educational system zeroing in on girls's educational performance.

Late November I attended a Symposium on `Educational Attainment and Labour Outcomes - factors affecting boys and their status in relation to girls' in Melbourne. It was opened by the Federal Minister for Education, the Hon David Kemp. The Minister said the performance gap between girls and boys especially in literacy where boys are at a significant disadvantage. Being behind in literacy meant that this was a significant handicap as modern education was centred around reading, writing and the ability to express oneself in an articulate manner he said. Dr Kemp outlined some possible causes of action to help boys educational performance. These included improving the quality of teaching, improving boys literacy skills, and developing special programs for boys in under-performing areas. He's right about the latter two, but I have my doubts about the former.

Most of the speakers concurred that boys were at some disadvantage in education today. There was some consensus as to what should be done about it. Boys are more active and like things to do and learn better if there is some sort of physical activity argues Dr Peter West from the University of Western Sydney. He said part of the problem is that modern education does not expect much from boys (but it does from girls). He said we need to raise boys expectations so that they will want to do better. He also felt that boys need an active curriculum to help them learn and good quality teaching which understands their emotional and social needs. He also suggested that boys need ongoing assessment to help them stay on track.

Professor Faith Trent from Flinders University South Australia, made a very pertinent point. She said that teachers need to value boys as boys. Too often today maleness is seen as being somehow deficit. (She's absolutely right about that). She said maleness should be affirmed as a positive thing and that there is nothing wrong with boys. Modern education she said tends to see boys as `a problem which needs to be fixed'. They don't need fixing she said, just understanding and to be listened too. Boys are told to be adults, yet they are not treated as adults. There needs to be a re-evaluation on how education treats its male students she said.

There was much discussion about why boys felt they were disadvantaged by modes of communication, that is language and policies were not boy friendly. Much is done to make the curriculum user friendly for girls but not so for boys. Also, in the classroom boys felt intimidated by girls because girls, maturing faster and having better verbal skills, can express themselves better than boys. This tends to intimidate boys into silence or to see education as irrelevant and so become disinterested in their own education.

And also do boys and girls learn differently? What works for whom and why? The evidence would suggest boys and girls learn differently. The present system has a universal approach and this is clearly not helping boys. If this is the case then there should be different ways of teaching boys and assessing their performance. For example boys do better at the end of year exam than girls who do better with the written assessment tasks throughout the year.

It was also mentioned that the evidence suggested that boys range of subject choices was narrower than girls. It was therefore argued that boys choices should be expanded in order to help them feel more at ease with the academic environment. Many speakers pointed out that boys are the ones most likely to be disciplined and/or expelled from school. In addition 84 per cent of remedial students are boys. Some boys find it difficult to learn so they want to drop out of a system which brands them as backward for not keeping up with the others. Research would indicate that boys rebel because they do not believe the educational system is interesting to them, or is relevant. They feel alienated by the constant stress on the need to discuss and articulate their feelings. These things girls do, but not boys. Some felt that teaching is female dominated, especially in primacy schools and that boys lacked role models and have difficulty relating to an educational system run by women for the educational benefit of girls. To help address this more male teachers should be employed in primacy schools. It was felt that male teachers would have more of a teaching style suited to boys. Some primary schools have over 90 per cent female teachers. This cannot be good for the boys because they have no adequate role models to learn acceptable and appropriate male behaviour, especially if they come from a single parent (female) household. The general consensus was that even in co-ed schools, a single sex class for certain subjects improved the outcomes for both boys and girls, such as science and maths and was highly desirable. In order to help boy's, the stranglehold of feminism over modern education must be broken. That is going to take some doing and a great deal of patience.

Replace equal opportunity with `fair opportunity'

It seems to me that no society can be simultaneously committed to equal opportunity for women, and the concept that the family is the basic building block of society. In times past society favoured the latter. Today, working women are favoured. Equal opportunity has, and is, means favourable treatment for women. In short discrimination against men is acceptable - the price men pay for equal outcomes, and that's precisely the trouble. Equal opportunity is always interpreted as equal outcomes and affirmative action for women. This is why equal opportunity is unacceptable to men and must be replaced by `Fair Opportunity.'

With all the push to get women into the workforce and to expand the opportunities available to them, family life and men's attachment to it has suffered. The simple fact is gentlemen the more women are employed the less jobs there are available for men. Professor Daniel Amneus in his brilliant work, 'The Garbage Generation' (a must read) quotes feminist Barbara Ehrenreich, "Women were, and to a large extent still are, economically dependent on men...So what is at stake for women in the battle of the sexes, was, crudely put, a claim on some man's wage..." (6)

In my view, equal opportunity laws should be replaced by fair opportunity laws which do not equate equal opportunity with equal outcomes. In my view, equal opportunity laws should be replaced by fair opportunity laws which do not equate equal opportunity with equal outcomes. Under "fair opportunity" women and men would be given the same freedoms they currently enjoy, WITHOUT affirmative action policies, equal opportunities officers ensconced in every government department constantly striving to recruit more women, now would there be a push in education to eliminate "sex-role stereotyping".

Young girls would be taught mothering, too, as a valid career in its own right. Under "fair opportunity" there would be no tax penalty for mothers who stay at home to care for their own children. Standards in the military, police, fire department or ambulance or any other instrumentality would not be lowered to make entrance requirements "fairer to women". There would be no strong push to get women into the workforce nor, conversely, out of it. Genuine freedom of choice and rationality would, hopefully, be returned to the occupational marketplace.

When laws are passed which prevent individuals having a sufficient freedom to find their best fit in the environment, we are in serious trouble. Our way of life is based on individuality, personal freedom, and the freedom to find expression of one's abilities. Personal abilities are related to sex identity: there are fundamental differences between men and women. When the process of selectivity between the individual and society is seriously interfered with by law, an eventual decline is the result, simply because people will be forced to fill positions which would be better filled by others. We, as individuals and collectively, must fight back immediately and vigorously. The key link in the whole chain is the pivotal point around which all societies turn, namely the family. Everyone must turn attention to the task of making it flourish. Then you must make your voice heard as individuals and as organisations, or as coalitions of organisations. We must fight back against the social movements which are destructive to our way of life. We must preserve the vitality of our people and provide these vital and vigorous people a context, that is, a society in which it is possible to find the freedom to express their individuality.

This means, above all, preventing the passage of laws which ignore the differences between people, in particular the difference between a male and a female, and which undermine the security and stability of the family and by extension, the nation; not to mention due democratic processes. Strong pioneer families created this country; strong families, strong leaders with the right policies will save it.

(1) Use every available means to get our message out - Men must be persuaded about the justice of their cause. They must know what they want. They must muster courage. Men then must be prepared to make a stand! Speak out! Lobby politicians! Go on talk back! Send a letter to the editor! Cultivate the media! Form lobby groups! The thing to keep in mind is professionalism at all times. A hot headed or embittered person running off at the mouth can do great damage.

(2) Professional approach - Men must stay calm, be informed, articulate and thoroughly professional in their approach. Let us take the advice of the good book. As much as we can, we should love our enemies as much as we love ourselves. When society sees that men are people of good will and are reacting out of concern and not out of bitterness or from a misogynist standpoint, it will take notice. Change takes time. We are looking at a couple of decades at best. We must set short and long-term goals and not grow weary.

Feminism is based on falsehood (the sexes are equal and the same, therefore outcomes should be identical).

Truth will eventually triumph over falsehood. The thing is not to lose heart or to lose sight of the goal, the restoration of rationality and truth to society. Without this restoration, Western civilisation will slowly sink down the gurgler. We owe it to ourselves, our sons and our daughters to succeed. The important thing is to get started, and to continue to strive for victory!

(3) Be united and encourage one another - Men need to take a leaf out of the feminist book. We must network, build up each other's confidence, encourage each other at every opportunity. We must work together. United we stand; divided we fall. Divide and conquer has been a very successful feminist ploy. Sometimes it takes all of our best intentions to work together and to keep motivated. Success will come if we don't lose heart but stick together.

(4) Show courage - How many times have you heard men say, "Oh, I agree with you entirely! But I don't want to speak out. It may impact on my job situation." It is not fashionable to speak out about men's concerns or to go on the public record as being anti-feminist. However, if we are to make progress we have to make waves - big waves! And at all times be professional and courteous. The time has come for men of goodwill to make a stand. Western culture is in such a mess because men in the past have not had the courage of their convictions. In fact, when it comes to "women's issues" men seem to suffer from a massive dose of "invincible ignorance". This culture has to change. Men must take the bit between the teeth. Maybe we should say to women, "Look! O.K.! You've proved your point! We don't want to hold you back! It's up to you know. You can't blame the system. Relax, enjoy being a woman and delight in the uniqueness of your being!"

(5) Work with conservative women - Of paramount importance for the men's movement is to link in with conservative women's groups. We don't want to be seen to be just a male 'backlash'! There are plenty of women's groups who are opposed to feminism. We must change the perception that feminism speaks for all women. IT CLEARLY DOES NOT. Also, I do not see why the men's movement could not be open to women as well. We are not engaged in sexual warfare but we are in the battle of ideas - and the future direction of society.

Remember, only two things are inevitable -

I believe that history will judge this generation most severely for making some critical errors regarding the over zealous pursuit of equality for women. Most gender "reforms" such as affirmative action were carried out on the basis of ideology rather than popular consensus or validated scientific research. The drive to equalise the roles of men and women is not a fight against perceived male bias, but rather presents a retreat from reality and common sense - a rebellion against the designs of nature. The `equality for women' jihad is in reality waging a war against the primary and stability of family life - not to mention due democratic processes. Ultimately feminism is an open rebellion against masculinity and femininity and the Divine Will.

When it's all said and done, we could philosophise all day long and get nowhere. Only actions will change things. Actions speak louder than words. As a general guide men, as a matter of urgency, must seek to do the following things:-

(2) Replace the above with The Office of Human Rights which looks after the needs of men, women and all sections of the community;

(3) Retire all equal Opportunity and all affirmative action laws, and replace these with laws based on fair and just opportunity which looks after the interests of all and not just the female half;

(4) Remove all requirements to use `gender inclusive' language;

(5) Remove all special programs and funding for women and girls in all areas including education, health and employment and training;

(6) Remove all discriminatory policies which exist in all major political parties which have special measures for women including having set quotas for parliamentary representation;

(7) Introduce policies which uphold the importance of marriage and family life.

(i) Welfare payments to reflect the importance of marriage and family life. This includes paying stay-at-home mothers a generous childcare allowance.

(ii) Remove all subsidies for full-time working women who use full or part-time childminding. Remove childminding as a tax deduction.

(8) Remove the feminist influence in decision policy making in the government and the public service;

(9) Retire all equal Opportunity and all affirmative action laws for girls and women, and replace these with laws based on `fair and just opportunity' which looks after the interests of both sexes;

(10) Remove all special programs and funding for women and girls in all areas including academic performance, hiring and promotion of staff, and things like the woman's room/lounge and all other female only privileges;

(11) Get rid of all `Women's Studies' departments,

(12) Remove all requirements to use `gender inclusive' language;

(13) Introduce special temporary measures for boys to address their present educational disadvantage in appropriate fields of study;

(14) Introduce affirmative action to increase the male percentage at our universities so that they rise from the present 44 per cent to 50 per cent in the next 5 years;

(15) Hire more male teachers especially in primary schools. The number of teachers in the profession must not be allowed to fall below 50 per cent;

(16) Remove the feminist influence in decision policy making in the government, public service and Unions;

(17) Retire all equal Opportunity and all affirmative action laws for girls and women, and replace these with laws based on `fair and just opportunity' which looks after the interests of both sexes;

(18) Remove all special programs and funding for women and girls in all areas including equal opportunity advisers, the hiring and training of female apprentices in non traditional areas, appointments to statutory bodies and in boardrooms etc;

(19) Remove all requirements to use `gender inclusive' language in job advertisements or any where else;

(20) Remove any incentives for employers to provide work based child-minding;

(21) As men make up the bulk of the unemployed, special measures are needed to reduce male unemployment;

(22) Remove the feminist influence in decision policy making in the government, employer bodies and trade unions;

(23) Introduce policies which give credence to the primacy and importance of marriage and family life;

(i) Welfare payments to reflect the importance of marriage and family life. This includes paying stay- at-home mothers a generous payment that will enable mothers to stay at home and look after their own children;

(ii) Remove all subsidies for full-time working women who use full or part-time child minding. Remove childminding as a tax deduction.

(24) Limit abortion on demand. Before any abortion can be carried out, the father must agree; if no agreement, no abortion. Abortion only permissible if the mothers life is in danger or in the case of rape/incest;

(25) The media depictions of men and women should reflect the realities of life and the complementary relationship between the sexes, and recognise the contribution made by men to the wellbeing of society;

(26) Encourage the use of traditional language and to eschew gender inclusive terminology (`chairman' is gender inclusive);

(27) Stop sensationalising gender issues, and presenting women as the victims, men as the oppressors;

(28) Stop favouring women in hiring and promotion;

(29) Producers of programs/films/videos be encouraged to give credence to the primacy and importance of marriage and family life for both sexes, rather than pushing for female `equality' and presenting the feminist autonomous working female as the norm;

(30) Remove the feminist influence in decision policy making in the film/video industry, and the bureaucracy;

(31) Funding parity for men's health needs to that of women's - same priority level as women's health needs;

(32) Policies to focus on women's and men's health needs -inclusive policies where possible;

(33) Remove the feminist influence in decision policy making in the government, and the bureaucracy;

(34) Remove `no fault' divorce. Existing laws to be remodelled;

(i) Custody of children not to automatically go to the mother but rather the capacity to support, the desire of both parents to be considered, and the preference of the children to be taken into account;

(ii) End compulsory 50/50 split. Property settlement must be on the basis of need (both still share in child expenses) and must provide for both partners to be financially compensated - given that both have separate lives to lead and the need to provide for the future. Settlements can also be based on either pre-nuptial agreements, or what both partners have contributed before and during marriage;

35. Make the Family Court and welfare system male friendly;

(36) Retire all equal outcomes and all affirmative action policies for girls and women;

(37) Ensure that men are at least 50 per cent of students in law undergraduate courses at universities;

(38) Stop affirmative action for women in judicial appointments;

(39) Remove all requirements to use `gender inclusive' language in job advertisements or any where else;

(40) Remove the present anti-male bias especially in the Family Court;

41. Challenge the legal system which tends to give women leaner sentences, and tends to acquit women more often than men;

(42) Retire all equal Opportunity and all affirmative action laws for girls and women;

(43) Women to be banned from all dangerous work - including combat and combat related roles. No women on ships, submarines, Navy SEALS, or pilots;

(44) Remove all special programs and funding for women and girls in all areas including the hiring and training of females, apprentices in non traditional areas;

(45) Maintain high standards of training, no watering down of physical standards to accommodate women;

(46) Restrict female access to officer training institutions;

(47) Remove all requirements to use `gender inclusive' language in job advertisements, promotional material or any where else;

(48) Remove the feminist influence in decision policy making in the government, public service and the Unions;

(50) Limit the ordained ministry to men. Women not to hold the office of Pastor/Minister/Priest, Bishop or Archbishop - as per the Bible;

(51) Gender inclusive language to be removed and replaced by traditional Biblical (masculine) language;

(52) Remove the feminist influence in decision policy making in the Churches and their hierarchies;

(53) All community, sporting, cultural or private clubs and organisations which want to remain, or want to become single sex outfits, be allowed to do so.

Conclusion - Thank you for reading this document. Hopefully it has broadened your knowledge and alerted you to the dangers facing men and boys in today's world besotted with androgynous intent. Together men and women of good will can make a positive and powerful contribution to improving the quality of life for all. As Edmund Burke once well said: "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." Let us be active in doing good.

Appendix 'A' Historical overview

Earlier this century, men were the undoubted masters of their own destiny. They controlled and enforced the social conventions which governed society. Men saw themselves as protectors of women and benefactors of society. A woman's role was seen as housewife and mother. This role enjoyed high status. Women were denied the right to vote. They were unable to obtain a loan in their own name and forced to retire from work when they married. Women were denied access to many courses at higher learning institutions and denied fair treatment before the law, especially in sexual assault cases. In the early 1900s some Marist academic women decided it was time to fight for women's rights. At first, the women's movement was small and uninfluential. The trickle of protest over time has turned into a tidal wave demolishing all before it. The pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other.

Today, in 1994, women have come a long way, baby. Not only have women won the vote but many countries have affirmative action policies to ensure that by the year 2,000 women will be 50% of all elected representatives to parliament. (7) Women can now obtain loans and from women-only banks at low interest. Married women can work (up to age 65, the same as men), and not only work but be made first in line in hiring and promotion, thanks to affirmative action policies masquerading as equal opportunity.

Women were once less than 20% of all university enrolments. In most Western countries women now make up the majority of enrolments with affirmative action policies favouring women in traditional male areas of learning, e.g., engineering, law and medicine. In the courts, women fare better than men in the settlement of property in divorce cases and are generally favoured in the granting of custody of children. In some countries, a man convicted of rape/sexual assault can receive a longer jail term than a convicted murderer.

1 Humanistic socialism - Many early feminist leaders of the first and second waves were Marists (Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg, etc). Many modern feminists see the answer to patriarchal capitalism in socialism. Democracy would be brushed aside in order to usher in the brave new authoritarian world of feminist socialism.

2 Unisex society- Feminists want a society where equal opportunity means equal outcomes. If outcomes aren't equal then equality would be legislated for. Feminists want a genderless society. They want to obliterate sexual differences as well as national loyalties.

3 Child care - Feminism wants to free women from 'biological enslavement'. Governments would assume the major responsibility of child care. Most feminists are pro-ZPG.

4 Abortion on demand/birth control - Birth control is exclusively a woman's issue. The denial of abortion means women are 'denied' equal opportunity. (Fathers have no rights in abortion).

5 Freedom of alternative lifestyles -Alternative lifestyles should be accorded the same status as marriage. (Single-parent families, homosexual couples, etc.)

6 Affirmative action - reverse discrimination against men -Seeing equal opportunity does not always guarantee equal outcomes, affirmative action policies to ensure equal outcomes.

7 Sex education- Feminists demand the educational system be used to eliminate 'sex stereotyped roles'. The State, and not the parents, should inculcate values, especially 'non-sexist' ones.

8 The ordination of women - Women should be ordained, the Bible rewritten to make it 'non-sexist' including the Godhead.

9 Admittance of women to combat and combat-related roles in the military and policing

10 Environment - Strong push to save 'mother earth'. Most feminists are anti-development.

1 Capitalism/ democracy - Capitalism leads to class inequalities and it allows patriarchy to flourish. Feminists favour heavy-handed government intervention to enforce equality on society.

2 The family unit - Women should be freed from child-bearing and rearing. Ulla Jacobsson, a leading Swedish feminist, has said, "Any thought of going back to the traditional family was going the wrong way".

3 Differences in sex roles - Differences are caused by socialisation (sex role stereotyping). Women and men should be free to choose their own lifestyles and so therefore (numerically) the sexes should be distributed somewhat equally throughout society.

4 Bible-based Christianity- Feminists see Christianity and, in particular, the Bible, as teaching the oppression of women.

Briefly, the family unit has generally been regarded as the basic unit of society with the husband as the provider and leader of the household since ancient times. In his book, "A History of Marriage and Family", Professor Willystine Goodsell takes the view that one of the main reasons which led to the collapse of the Greek and Roman cultures was the rise of a spirit of independence and self-sufficiency in Greek and Roman women. As the men of Rome marched off to fight the punic wars, women came into positions of authority and influence. Professor Goodsell comments, "such women will submit with an ill grace to the restrictions upon their daily lives and interests imposed by the husband on his return from the war." (8) Subsequently women were less inclined to stay at home and be mothers, the natural increase in the population began to drop and eventually Rome had to hire soldiers from subjugated countries to maintain her armies.

As a result, morale was lowered and dedication to the Roman cause waned. Women also became more promiscuous, which led to divorce and marriage dissolution which, in turn, caused lack of identity and purpose in the younger generation. Rome lost her vision and zeal as a nation united together for the common good of the Empire. But all the blame for the decline of the Roman family system cannot be placed solely at the feet of the Roman women. The men and fathers of Rome lost their high standards of fidelity, commitment and responsibility within the marital bond. As a result, concubinage and prostitution became rampant as men subverted their enemies by satisfying their every lust and passion without assuming the care of married life and defence of the state.

"Together," as Professor Blitchington comments, "the independence of women and the dissolution of men sent the Roman family system into a state of spiritual and more degeneracy from which it never recovered." (9). In looking at the Roman family system, we see the best and the worst. At its best, the Roman family system adhered to the same principles of family relationships as delineated in the Bible. At its worst, the Roman family was buffeted by the same philosophies and practises that we are currently hearing about and observing today, with the same tragic results. The one thing we refuse to learn from history is that history can teach us valuable object lessons. History is unfortunately repeating itself.

With the rise of Christianity the family unit gained in importance and status in the community. Mothering was once again given proper status and respect in the community. Coupled with the Church's strong emphasis on authority and maintaining order, the role of headship for men was considered as God-ordained and generally perceived to be of much beneficial worth to both men and women, and individual families as a whole, for it encouraged men to diligence in providing for their families, thus diverting their energies away from promiscuity and the pursuit of violence. At the time of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th Century, the family unit underwent profound changes. With the new mechanisation came a demand for cheap labour and women and children were recruited in large numbers to work in the factories. As a result, family life was severely tested and many mothers abandoned their young infants to die in the streets.

The widespread abandonment of the maternal role came to be seen as a very retrograde step. Moves were then taken to restrict the roles of women and, as a result, more women went back to being full time mothers and the quality of family and personal life increased enormously. Thus we can see the importance of maintaining family stability and the provision of employment for men. During the Victorian era the family came into its own. Perhaps neither before nor after has the status of family and maternal role been greater. However, all this was to change rather rapidly during the 20th Century.

_______________________________________________________________________

6 Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, Primrose Press, Alhambra CA 1991, page 45.

9 Ibid, page 179.