Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletins

logolittle.jpg (9114 bytes)

TiM Bulletin 2005/5-2

Dec 26, 2005

Feminization of America: All-out Assault on Males

When Genders Collide...

Dominate or Terminate - Feminist MO; Equalize or Neutralize - Man's Defense



When Genders Collide...

 Dominate or Terminate - Feminist MO; Equalize or Neutralize - Man's Defense

“Before I was married, I used sex to get what I wanted.  Now I have that I’ve always wanted and see sex as useless.  I have taken him (husband) for granted and pushed aside his emotional and physiological needs.” (Kim to Dr. Laura Schlessinger)

"If the relationship is not going anywhere, people split up.  Decent people do not PROFIT from it.  A decent woman's conscience would dictate what she should do, and will punish her more justly and swiftly than any judge or law could ever do." (Mira to this writer)


HONOLULU, Dec 26 – “Are Women Necessary?”  Of course, they are.  There would have been no males or life without them.  Yet I confess that I was initially contemplating that title for my piece on an all-out assault on males and manhood that’s taking place in America’s increasingly feminized society.  But then I realized that would be an insult to all the wonderful women I have loved and cherished in my life.  If I were to go for a bombastic headline like that, I would be stooping down to the level of that miserable, albeit beautiful brunette misandrist, the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd (right).  As a male and proud of it, I was offended by her book’s title “Are Men Necessary?”  So I fired back, Dowd: Endowed with Big Mouth, Small Brain” (Nov 2005). 

The Times never ran my piece.  Point made.  Only feminist views are welcome by the “liberal” media nowadays (there is nothing actually “liberal” about such media; the minds of these zealous bigots are actually closed shut as tightly as Fort Knox – see “Dancing ‘Round Golden Calves,” Washington Times, Aug 1997).  Because such media try to impose a “dictatorship of minorities,” they can be easily spotted and dismissed by the majority of the population. 

What’s scary, however, is that the feminization of America is much more subtle and pervasive.  An encyclopedic definition and description of feminism, for example, takes 6,474 words, more than double the verbiage expended on masculism (3,098 words).  A list of feminist organization is a "mile long."  None are mentioned on the masculine side.  Worse, the Microsoft Word software dictionary (just now, as I am writing this) even flagged “masculism” as an unknown term.

I also drew on another book for inspiration for this piece.  It was written by another beautiful woman, a blonde who is happily married, has a son, and is proud of both her husband and marriage.  Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s “The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands” is a powerful detox from the feminist propaganda.  It will be especially valuable to those “liberals” who claim to have an open mind and have read and liked the Dowd book. 

Together, the two books provide a yin-yang ( ) balance to opinions and life.  This idea – conflict providing balance - is the fundamental principle of the ancient Chinese philosophy.  Two mutually interdependent and constantly interacting polar energies sustain all living organisms.  Yin corresponds to darkness, coldness, dampness and Earth; yang to light, warmth, dryness and Heaven.  One cannot do without the other.  They are in constant conflict, but neither force can ever completely vanquish the other (also check out "Between Two Volcanoes," Jan 1, 2006).

But tell that to the American feminists.  Their MO seems to be “dominate or terminate.”  Which means the American male has but two choices: surrender to the forces of darkness, or fight back - "equalize or neutralize." Nothing less than the future of the Homo Sapiens species is at stake.  The ancient Chinese yin-yang principle demands it.  The Charles Darwin survival of the fittest theory compels it.  That’s what this piece is about…

* * *

“I’m Feeling Good”

For most of mankind, Dec 21, 2005 was just another winter solstice.  For me, it was the new dawn, my personal Freedom Day, the start of a new life.  That day, a court order officially dissolved my last marriage.

The next night, I had the best sleep I’ve had in months.  I woke up humming the “Feeling Good” tune from Michael BublÚ’s hit CD:

“It’s a new dawn,

It’s a new day,

It’s a new life,

For me…

And I’m feeling good!”

                                                          (From “It’s Time” album, 2005)

And then I felt bad.  I felt bad about feeling good.  For, the end of a loving relationship is supposed to be tragic.

“Is it bad that I am feeling elated?” I confided in a business friend who went through a divorce seven years ago.

“No, that’s normal,” she replied.  “Divorce is an emotional ordeal.  When it’s over, you feel relief.  Because you are free to move on.”

Even Waning Trends Can Inflict Great Damage

“Normal.”  The expression brought back unwelcome memories. 

“’Normal’ is a setting on a washing machine,” my former wife used to say, quoting a trite feminist friend, without bothering to examine the merits of the flippant line.  For, “normal” means "not deviating very much from average" (per the dictionary and encyclopedia).  And since feminists are far from average and are proud if it, that makes them “abnormal.”  Logic 101.

Indeed, feminists represent a tiny minority of the population, and even a small cross-section of women.  And their influence is declining. 

According to the Time/CNN poll (1998), only 32 percent of the population have a favorable image of feminism, as compared to 44 percent in 1989.  Overall, 37 percent of all women perceive feminists as man-haters, 44 percent believe feminists don't respect stay-at-home moms, and only 39 percent of all women feel feminists share their values.

But even though feminism seems to have peaked and may be on the wane, it is still a dangerous movement that has wreaked havoc in the society, and can cause great damage in the future, too.  The U.S. and other western countries may never fully recover from it.  One of them is that fewer people marry and fewer yet have children.  It’s a form of demographic suicide.

Singles Outnumber Couples

According to the 2000 Census, for the first time in history, American singles outnumbered married couples with children.  Single people now account for more than 40 percent of the population, up form 28 percent of all adults in the United States in 1970.  And single women outnumber single men by 1.3 to 1.  That’s one of the consequences of the feminist movement – millions of lonely hearts, especially among women.

Meanwhile, the percent of women who are divorced increased from 2.4 percent in 1950 to 10.3 percent in 1998, while the percent of men divorced increased from 2 percent in 1950 to 8.2 percent (see “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the U.S.”).

An upshot of all this are the declining birth rates and the aging population.  Undaunted by these facts, the feminists press on with their destructive theories.  As Ed of Long Island, New York, put it sarcastically, "don't let the facts stand in the way of the theories."  Especially when the facts get even worse...

In 2000, Europe's 47 countries had a population of 727 million (down from 728 million in 1995 - see UN statistics). By 2020, it will have shrunk to 695 million.  In 2000, 13.8% of the population was between 15-24 of age.  By 2020, it will be just 10.2%.  Similar trends are occurring in America.  The percentage of people between 15-24 of age will fall from 13.5% to 12.6% during the same time frame, buoyed only by immigration. Meanwhile, the percentage of people over 60 will jump from 16% to 23% in just 20 years. 

And who will pay for this carnage?  The likes of Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton, or Maureen Dowd will be long gone or retired by the time younger generations get to foot the bill the feminists' destructive and shortsighted theories have caused.  Especially to their female brethren.

Divorced women suffer a drop in income ranging on average from 30 percent to 70 percent, academic research shows.  More than half of all female-headed households with children live in poverty, compared with only 10 percent of all other families with children, according to government statistics.

“Sugar Daddies” and “Trophy Wives”

The preceding is true mostly with working class single Moms.  But  some women actually prosper from divorces, especially in upper social strata (as depicted mockingly in Sigourney Weaver's film “Heartbreakers?”, 2001).   Next to each “trophy wife” walks a “sugar daddy” husband.  Some women are actually remarkably candid about how they lured their "trophy husbands" into marriage, and then left him high and dry:

Kim, for example, writes in Dr. Laura’s book: “Before I was married, I used sex to get what I wanted.  Now I have that I’ve always wanted (kids, property and respect a married woman engenders) and see sex as useless.  I have taken him (husband) for granted and pushed aside his emotional and physiological needs.”

Lucky for Kim and her husband, she realized her wrongs, pulled back and changed her attitude toward her husband before it was too late to save her marriage. 

“Most women who complain that they are not getting what they want from their husbands should stop and look at how disrespectful and disdainful they are of them,” writes Dr. Laura.  “They should also look at what they put their time and energy into at the expense of him and their marriage.  It should be a stunner for them to realize that they try harder to impress strangers than they try to impress the person who is supposed to be the most important to them.”

“Gloria Steinem (a celebrated feminist and founder of the “Ms” magazine) wrote that, ‘women need men like fish need bicycles.’  More than a generation of women have foolishly bought that destructive nonsense and have denigrated men, marriage, familial obligation and motherhood – all to their own detriment,” Dr. Laura sums up.

Divorce Rates Decline

More and more people seem to becoming aware of the foolhardiness of feminism.  No wonder divorce rates have been declining in the last quarter century (see the chart):

Yet the United States still tops all other countries in the world with its annual divorce rates (see the next chart):

Notice that countries with strong family bonds, such as Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Sri Lanka or Turkey, have been the least susceptible to the feminist ideas.  Notice also that all these countries are considered “secular” by western standards.  In other words, women have the same rights as men, and are not considered oppressed by religious or legislative means. 

Notice also that the only predominantly Muslims country among them is Turkey.  Yet that’s the country for whose admission to the European Union the United States government has been fervently pushing, citing Turkey’s secularism and fairness to women, among other reasons.  

Cyprus, a recent EU addition, a small island country with a mixture of Turkish and Greek Orthodox Christian population, is also in the Top 10 lowest divorce rate nations.  Which suggests that religion, Islamic or Christian, has little to do with attitudes toward divorces.  A family orientated culture, on the other hand, makes the society less receptive to destructive feminist ideas.

As one might expect, there is a direct reverse correlation between low divorce and high birth rates.  The countries with high divorce rates have relatively low birth rates, and vice versa.

Self-Centeredness, A Double Standard...

“It may be a surprise for many women to imagine that their husbands are in pain because of their behavior toward them,” Dr. Laura writes.  “Men do tend do be more stoic than women; they try to be strong and carry on no matter what… That is a description of masculinity that has been under attack from a feminized culture that denies importance of such inner strength and fortitude… Women cry and talk… men try to do something about the situation.  Guess that makes the men lousy ‘girlfriends,’ but very helpful ‘partners’…”

(There is) “a double standard most women have about what they do and what their men do,” Dr. Laura writes. “If women change their minds, men must take it.  When men change their minds, they’re brutes.”

“What causes this double-standard mentality?  Self-centeredness," Dr. Laura answers her own rhetorical question.  "And what is the source of this self-centeredness?  …The women’s movement with its condemnation of just about everything male as evil, stupid and oppressive, and its denigration of (traditional) female and male roles in families.”

Speaking to a female caller to her radio show:  “You don’t call it control when you want something,” Dr. Laura said.  “You call it reasonable request which should be granted if he loves you.  But when he does the exact same thing, it’s control.  And you know that is true because you are worried about your girlfriends telling you that you have become an oppressed female.”  The caller agreed.

And what if they try to please and appease their feminist wives?  Things only get worse… 

“The sad thing is,” writes Charlie, “when a man falls for this type of manipulation, and attempts to smooth out the rough male edges his wife despises, she’s now even less attracted to the wimp she created!”

“Most married women make (an assumption) that their husbands are to serve them, and that any demands husbands make are insensitive and selfish,” Dr. Laura concludes.  “Too many men are living in this pain, having given up any hope of happiness after making every attempt to give their wives what they say they want.”

If "a picture is worth a thousand words," then the above is the image of what feminism has done to the American male's ego and self-esteem.  A once mighty lion is cowering in the corner of his room while the fierce female reads him the riot act.  "Emasculated," would be my caption for the cartoon.

This is not what happens in the real animal world, of course (this is a photo cartoon a TiM reader had sent to me years ago).  That's where the natural order of things still honors the male as the head of the family in most species, black widow spiders or queen bees, among others, excepted, along with the feminists, of course.

Dominate or Terminate

“Women overmarinated in the most negative beliefs of the women’s movement – that is, that society and men will oppress; they are the enemy; do not submit; terminate or dominate,” writes Dr. Laura.  

Dominate or terminate.  That’s the feminist cure-all solution?  No wonder marriages and birth rates are down, unhappiness is up, and psychotherapy business is booming.

Nor is the feminist “liberals” double standard and duplicity limited just to interpersonal relationships.  The upscale neighborhood in which I have lived for the last 20-plus years abounds in Moms that seemed perfectly capable of holding two contradictory views at the same time.  Most of them like to present themselves as being “tree huggers” (i.e., environmentally conscious).  Many of them have environmental license plates on their cars to prove it.  

Cars as in small sedans?  No, Sir.  Not for their size egos.  They require “mansize” (ouch!) vehicles.  Which happen to be the worst polluters and gas-guzzlers.  There is nothing more ridiculous than seeing environmental license plates on Hummers, Cadillac Escalades, GM Suburbans, Ford Expeditions, Nissan Pathfinders, Toyota Landcruisers, Jeep Grand Cherokees, or Land Rovers, to mention some vehicles these women drive.

European-born Mira eschews materialism in American women.  "If the relationship is not going anywhere, people split up," she writes to this author.  "Decent people do not PROFIT from it (as some American women do from divorces).  A decent woman's conscience would dictate what she should do, and will punish her more justly and swiftly than any judge or law could ever do."

True.  But what if she dispensed with conscience?  To amend Gloria Steinem's quote, "feminists need conscience like fish need bicycles."  Since they are at war with love and men, the end always justifies the means.  "All's fair in love and war," goes the old adage.  In our feminized society, spousal transgressions are not only considered fair, they are condoned by law.

Finding Fault with “No Fault” Divorce Laws

The “no fault” divorce laws, now present in all 50 states in one form or another, play into the feminist hands.  If the spouses knew that they would be eventually held accountable for their transgressions, many of them would think twice before abusing each other.  Instead, our legislators are letting “bad” spouses get away with such behavior without consequences.  Which only encourages abusive conduct. 

“The lawmakers don’t trust the judges,” said one divorce lawyer.  “So they are taking decisions out of the judges’ hands.  A ‘no fault’ divorce is a way to do it.”

The concept would be inconceivable in criminal justice.  In the case of Iraqi prisoner abuses, for example, a “no fault” approach would hold the prison guards and their victims equally responsible for the crime committed against the prisoners.  Only a confused or deranged mind would call that “justice.”  Yet in our family law, a wife can lie, cheat on her husband, steal from joint accounts (oops... the law doesn't call it "stealing!"), deceive her husband in any number of ways, and the law would still award her the kids and half of the joint assets.  That's legalizing robbery and immorality.

What’s To Be Done? Equalize or Neutralize!

So what’s to be done?  Well, it would be nice if the “no fault” laws were to be abolished, but the states that have tried it have run into tough opposition – from the feminist lobbies, among others (it’s interesting how they feel entitled to voice their views about an institution [marriage] that they generally oppose).  Nevertheless, changing or abolishing the “no fault” divorce laws would help.

Then there is always the ultimate solution - abstinence.  Men could just say no to marriage.  But that would be equally as irrational as the feminist “dominate or terminate” approach.  It is natural for a man and a woman to want to love one another and procreate.  So a “just say no” approach would play right into the feminists hands.

A more pragmatic approach would be never to marry without a prenuptial agreement, regardless of age or the asset sizes.  Prenups help keep greed at bay, and the focus on spousal love, trust and respect for one another, and not money.  They are an "equalize or neutralize" male response to a "dominate or terminate" female supremacy attempt.

An even more sensible approach would be never to make an important decision alone.  Why?  Because love is a form of insanity.  It clouds one’s mind and impairs good judgment.  Everybody knows that.  Yet few people have the foresight or the courage to do something about it. 

Yet we all have best friends, mentors, brothers, sisters, priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, financial advisors… some people we trust and know they'll be there for us.  We should go to them before making important decisions, such as remarrying or converting personal assets into community property.  We should ask them what they think of the idea.  And we should honor their opinions and recommendations.  Because their judgment is well-intentioned and free of love fog.

Lots of men and women look at horoscopes and astrological charts in order to predict their compatibility.  Many smart couples also get themselves tested for fertility, AIDS, or other types of medical concerns before they get hitched.  So why not undergo a leadership test?  For, everybody knows that a ship with two captains is likely to run aground, or that “too many chefs spoil the broth.”  Not everybody is suited to lead.  Throughout history, mankind has progressed by 5% or fewer people leading, about 25% to 30% following them, and the rest pulling the other way.

Still, a leadership test for couples?  Isn't that something only corporations do?  Of course, it is.  Because they don't want to fail.  It is a more objective way of assessing leadership qualities then just a hunch or a whim.  

The same thing could work for prospective married couples.  They could be asked to speak out, for example, about their views feminism versus masculism, and who they think should wear the pants in the family (notice that even that idiom is masculine in nature, even though some feminists have hijacked it to the point of literally wearing pants to accentuate their power).  A groom, for example, could observe if his prospective wife likes pant suits versus dresses.

Of course, none of it is a foolproof guarantee that lovebirds won’t do what lovebirds do – act stupidly and go against reason and warnings.  Before my last marriage, for example, my wife-to-be and I filled out a questionnaire given to us by the minister who was about to marry us.  It was quite clear from our answers that we were both headstrong and used to being leaders.  The minister questioned us about it.  “I can handle it,” I replied confidently, meaning actually, “I can handle her.”  The future bride smiled, nodded and said the same thing.  We were both wrong.  Just over three years later, our marital ship that both of us thought we could command, lies wrecked on the rocks.

"To Be Or Not to Be..."

Finally, masculinity may be under assault in America, but it is far from defeated.  The feminists may have crossed the line by raising questions such as "are men necessary?"  It's a wake up call for every self-respecting male.  "To be or not to be, that is the question" now.  Men who have been abused by their ungrateful spouses, whom the husbands have been trying desperately to please, should put their foot down, and "just say no" to servility and deference that such spouses expect.  Instead of getting mad, they should get even.  The yin-yang principle demands it. Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest compels it: Equalize or neutralize.  Or else agonize about "could have been's" or "would have been's."  And who needs that? .

But first men must try to be fair and level-headed.  And that's the hardest thing to do when you're in a loving relationship.  It's also against the males' nature.  As a Dr. Laura reader put it, if treated right, men will "lay the moon and stars at your (their spouse's) feet."  And that's a powerful incentive for women to reject confrontational feminist ideas, not just for the sake of their husbands, but for their own happiness and a sense of well-being.

* * *

P.S. I think it is a sweet coincidence and very poignant that I have finished the article in, and am sending you this message from, a totally pink room in a totally pink hotel, where even tiles and towels are pink, not to mention soap and shampoos.  And no, I am not wearing the pink robe that's hanging in the closet.  I am saving that for the beach tomorrow.  J

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bob Djurdjevic is a nationally and internationally published writer, columnist and lecturer on global business and geopolitical affairs. He is the father of two grown daughters - one married, one single - both fiercely independent and very successful in business. Bob was raised by a grandmother in a home in which both parents were working professionals.


(to "Nature's Galleries," added Jan 3, 2006)

MAUI, Hawaii, Jan 2 - "How was your day?" a pretty young blonde asked me this evening, after she and her male friend had joined me in the Jacuzzi at the Sugar Beach condo resort.  Both looked to be in their late 20s, early 30s.  As I had been "writing" the above story at the time, sitting alone in the spa, her question was very timely.

"It was great," I said.  "Just great.  The best day I've had here so far in Hawaii (also see "Between Two Volcanoes").  I expected nothing at the outset, and was overwhelmed at the end.  I even bought a lovely painting at a gallery in the middle of nowhere."

Guess she didn't expect a genuine answer to her small talk question.  "It was good," would have sufficed as a reply.  She looked slightly startled.  It's funny how people can get taken aback when they see and feel real emotion.  We tend to wear protective gear all the time, engaging in perfunctory exchanges with other people, especially the strangers, instead of meaningful interactions.  So we rarely get to know one another.  One of the things I had (subconsciously, until now) resolved to do in my "new life" is to try to be genuine again.  The mother of my children used to call me (endearingly) "Mr. Blunt."

"And how was your day?" I tried to get the conversation back to the small talk level.  Sometimes, you had to thaw people out at first before you can be blunt with them.

"Oh, it's okay now.  But we've had a 12-hour flight."

"A 12-hour flight?  Where did you come from?"

"Calgary.  But we had to fly to Phoenix first."

"Phoenix?  That's where I am from."

And that was it.  The protective barrier had melted away like an icicle in a spa. Make it the spa, in this case. J From that point on, the three of us had a wonderful conversation for almost an hour.  It ended when I finally got out of the Jacuzzi for fear of turning into a prune. J By then, we were "old friends."

She had been to Maui many times before, but this was his first trip.  "I have so many wonderful memories from here, so I am hoping we can make some new ones together," she said.

That told me immediately who was driving the boat in that relationship.  When the conversation shifted to day trips around the islands, they both basically confirmed it.  

I told them, for example, about my Lanai "Whale of a Trip" experience.  When I finished the part about the males fighting each other only to have the female tell the winner, "I just want to cuddle," the young man nodded and smiled. "Aha... where have I heard that before?" he said.

His fiancÚ smiled, too.  "I know," she said meekly, without elaboration.  She didn't have to.

Yes, fiancÚ, not a wife or a girlfriend.  In the meantime, she had told me that they were getting married this Thursday, right here on the island.

"At first, we were planning to get married at the Mayan ruins in Mexico," she said.  "But our trip was canceled, and so were our wedding plans."

"Weather-related?" I guessed.

"Yes.  Air Canada just told us they could not fly there."

I remembered something about a hurricane in Mexico in late November, so mine wasn't totally a wild guess.  "That's too bad," I said.

"Not at all," she replied.  "Then I started making some calls around here, and was able to get us a condo in Kihei for early in January.  That was my first choice anyway.  So I guess we were meant to get married here in Maui."

"That's wonderful," I said.  "Congratulations!"

We sat silently for a while.  The conversation then meandered all over... their home in Calgary, my former place in Australia, congestion in big cities.

"It's the same thing with the elks," the young man suddenly said.

"Excuse me?" I didn't understand what he was talking about.

"Your story about the whales.  The elks do the same thing.  My father filmed the elks in southern Saskatchewan.  The male elks also fight each other over females."

My whale tale had evidently left a lasting impression on the young man.  But his elk story also evoked long lost memories from my childhood. 

"Do the male elks cry out loudly when they fight?"

The young man nodded affirmatively.  "How did you know?"

I told them that my father was a forestry engineer.  And when I was quite young, maybe five or six, he used to take me with him to listen to the deer in mating season.  "The noise was incredible," I said.

"Well, they want the female to notice them," the young woman opined wearing a seductive smile.

"You would know," I thought but did not say anything.  There are limits to how much bluntness even friends can take, especially new friends.  "I am sure they do," I said instead. 

I also thought of my love s truck rooster-friend this afternoon, who was compelled to croon his tune in mid-afternoon (just realized I was thinking in rhyme).  He also wanted to get the hens' attention.

Whales, elks, roosters... sea, land, bird creatures - all exhibiting the same traits.  And the feminists think they can undo in a few decades what has taken nature thousands of years to create? Good luck!  

The following is an excerpt from a scientific essay on sexual selection that they can chew on.  It was written by Dr. M. Tevfik Dorak, B.A. (Hons), M.D., Ph.D., a professor at the University of Newcastle Medical School (Great Britain).  Some feminists may even choke on it, especially on the harem idea: J

Competition among males to obtain mates caused the evolution of intrasexual and intersexual selection... In some mating systems male aggression and female choice for male characters are both involved (post-copulatory counterparts of these mechanisms are sperm competition and cryptic female choice, see below). 

Elephant seals are polygamous; pregnant females arrive on the breeding ground and gather together, giving birth in September; within three weeks they are ready for mating again. In October, a single male, which can be three times larger than the female, will claim a harem of as many as a hundred females, and will fight any other male that approaches his territory, proclaiming his ownership with a loud cry. Only fully mature males have the size and strength to keep such a harem. When a male approaches a female, the female cries and starts a fight among males to be copulated by the strongest of them (Le Boeuf BJ, 1972; Cox & Le Boeuf, Am Nat 1977;111(978):317-35). 

This is an example of sexual selection enticed by the females. A female elephant uses the same tactic to make sure she is mating with the strongest male in the group. Wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) exhibit explosive, synchronous breeding on a spring night. They gather in thousands at ponds where males compete intensively for females and even attempt to dislodge the amplexing male. Females also show choosiness by physically dislodging weakly amplexing males from their backs, therefore showing their preference for larger males. 

Red deer is another polygamous species in which a few dominant males mate with most of the females. It has to be noted that the harem masters among elephant seals and red deer have very much shorter reproductive lifespans than the females they defend. In elks, during rutting, the larger males are preferred by females through the correlation between the body size and pitch of the voice (the larger the body, the lower the pitch).

To there you have it... science should have the last word on  "When Genders Collide...".

Also, clickhere for an Index of 911-related articles ... and for others, such as… "Plutocrats of the World Unite,"  "Bush League All-Stars,"  “Enronizing Pretzelitis:” New Alzheimer Strain Strikes Potus Potatus Primus Censorship Comes to AmericaGrotesque and Pathetic War,   Clash of GreensEnd of Folly, Not of WorldCollateral Damage Hits Home.  

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

Feedback:    Home:logolittle.jpg (9114 bytes)    Search:


Or Djurdjevic's WASHINGTON TIMES columns:  "Christianity Under Siege," "Silence Over Persecuted Christians", "Chinese Dragon Wagging Macedonian Tail,"  "An Ugly Double Standard in Kosovo Conflict?", "NATO's Bullyboys", "Kosovo: Why Are We Involved?", and "Ginning Up Another Crisis"

Or Djurdjevic's NEW DAWN (Australia) magazine columns: "Macedonia: Another Farcical American Oil War,"  "Anti-Christian Crusades,"  "Blood for Oil, Drugs for Arms", "Washington's Crisis Factory,"  and "New Iron Curtain Over Europe"