Men are defined by their natural ability to be givers/providers in society
Roger Eldridge, National Men's Council of Ireland

I would like to humbly offer my hypothesis about the fundamental nature of men and women and how this appears to unnervingly fit many of the facts that we have become aware of about the many differences between men and women that persist despite all attempts at 'equality'. It also goes some way to explain why we are in such a predicament and how we might begin to get out of it.

If there is broad agreement that there is some merit in my hypothesis and it can be further refined by the movement to the point where every man can empathise with its basic premise and start to act on the conclusions that can be drawn we can begin to bring our societies back into line with common sense again rather than all the time being surprised at the behaviour of women and expecting men to act in a way that is counter to their nature

My hypothesis, simplistic as it is, goes like this.

All we can predict about our existence is that we will die. Many of us perform one more significant act - we procreate. Our genes are the driving force behind this because it takes them into the next generation and so on towards immortality.

We call this act of procreation sex and we label the two sexual actors "men and women", based SOLELY by the role they each take in the reproductive act.

In that act MEN have sperm and need to find a willing 'woman' with eggs TO GIVE their sperm to so that the fertilised egg can become a new human being with the genes of both the man and the woman.

Similarly WOMEN with fertile eggs have to be found by a willing 'man' TO RECEIVE his sperm.

I believe this complementary act of GIVING AND RECEIVING shapes and differentiates at a very deep, unconscious level the basic nature and behaviour of men and women IN EVERY OTHER SPHERE OF THEIR LIVES.

I'm proposing that if we were to generalise we could say that MEN are geared by their biology to spend their lives with the impulse of TRYING TO GIVE Similarly WOMEN are programmed to spend their lives WANTING TO RECEIVE Of course these basic functions are hidden by complex social mores that have been developed over thousand of generations by succeeding civilisations as they attempt to survive physical, social and political changes but the basic underlying biological imperative of men and women remains.

In fact today with women closely mimicking men and the way they dress and 'social functions' becoming blurred it helps enormously to employ this method of looking at people using the COROLLARY of the hypothesis in order to define their 'sex'.

• Hence we can say that PEOPLE WHO SPEND THEIR LIVES TRYING TO GIVE can be DEFINED AS MEN.
• PEOPLE WHO SPEND THEIR LIVES WANTING TO RECEIVE can be DEFINED AS WOMEN.

Thus women are naturally 'dependent' - wanting someone to give them something and men naturally 'independent' - not wanting someone to give them something but being the giver.

From this it is easy to see how perfectly NATURAL it is for women to act in such a way as to ASK FOR HELP. MONEY ETC ie to RECEIVE something - anything!

And also it indicates how difficult and unnatural it is for men to do the same. MEN are THE GIVERS not the receivers.

Every act of LEGITIMATE mainstream 'men in power' has always been done for altruistic reasons, ie for the benefit of people other than themselves personally.

Whenever men have organised in the past - in unions, in war, in political movements they have done it for their families and for society, for women and children and the common good - never for anything specifically for other men that might be to the detriment of women and children. Our nature and biology  dictates that we give to all other humans who are dependent by nature - women and children.

The vicious feminist propaganda, the misandry that has been spread for the past forty years has sought to paint the opposite of this reality. They have falsely depicted men as the exploiters of women and children.

They have procured women in order to provoke a gender war. They have bribed women to do this by understanding that women's basic function is to receive and so the state has simply offered them more money and control in return for them to install the state in place of the role of their husbands as protectors, carers and educators of their families.

Men have never been controlled by physical means alone - not by imprisonment nor chains nor by giving them money FOR THEMSELVES. However, because men are givers, it is very easy to control them by making them feel guilty and ashamed of themselves and this is how the feminists have almost achieved the enslavement of men - by spouting propaganda that proclaims MEN ARE TAKING AND NOT GIVING.

Whenever a man hears about another man misbehaving by NOT GIVING he automatically steels himself to make amends for that man's misdeeds and shows it is not the natural state of men by redoubling his own efforts TO GIVE and condemning any man that has betrayed his natural instincts.

Men are currently enslaved - actually and emotionally - by the feminist subversives who have gained control by fomenting this phony war. Men are desperate to continue their role as the givers but are being prohibited from giving except in narrowly defined areas.

This is why men pay child support so readily even when it is unlawful and logically works against their children and their own self-interest. This is why they contribute 120% of government revenue through income tax even though they receive nothing in return and women contribute nett zero or a minus amount to the public purse.

This also explains, by the way, why 'equality' is such a farce. How can men and women be treated exactly the same based on their subjective 'needs' when only one group - women- naturally and biologically have needs to receive and the other group - men - want to give. You end up with the ridiculous situation at present where 'equality' in practice means the state endlessly trying to fill the bottomless pit of demands from women at the expense of men who can never compete in this game.

It also explains:

1. Why men only go to the doctors at a quarter the rate of women even though they die at a much higher rate and much younger than women. Men are the givers (ie the doctors not the patients)
2. Why men do not report 'domestic violence' committed against them by their partners even though everyone knows that women are the major perpetrators. Men are the givers (the rescuers not the victims)
3. Why men commit suicide at a rate at least four times that of women - men are the givers not the takers and they know there is no real help for them even though the going gets tougher and tougher for a man to survive.
4. Why God is a man. Christianity and other religions are based on the selfless act of giving, which comes naturally to men but has to be taught to women. Religions were developed to coerce women to give! contrary to their nature. This explains why feminism is so much against religion, especially Christianity. It also explains why we have FATHER Christmas - Christmas is a 'time for giving' - it will become a selfish 'time of receiving' if we allow the ridiculous feminist-inspired 'Mrs Clause' to become established.
5. Why men hate shopping and consuming generally and why, since the rise of feminism, our lives are dominated by an out-of-control materialism created by the transfer of wealth from men (who have traditionally increased the families assets to leave to the children rather than spend them) to women (who apparently can't help consuming).
6. Why husbands have always had custody of their families - because they naturally give to them of their own life - literally by going to war or on the Titanic and the everyday sacrifice of daily leaving the comfort of their children and the family home and working full time in often tedious, dirty and dangerous jobs; of making often 'unpopular' decisions which are in the family's long-term interest but which can lose them 'popularity' in the home (and now defined as domestic violence!)

Men will never organise themselves - if it appears to be against women, no matter how badly the women behave. 'Empowering' women on the other hand encourages them to do what comes naturally and they have responded by asking for more and more! and this reveals the fallacy of the early feminist  so-called aim of liberation which was supposedly to make women independent (of men).

Another corollary of all this is that if men were to start WANTING TO RECEIVE (be dependent or play the victim) instead of giving their sexual function and their ability to procreate would be diminished.

This is exactly what is happening and explains why feminism has been identified as part of the New World Order Eugenics Programme, the plan to reverse global population growth and breed selectively instead from the chosen elite so that they might enjoy the resources of the world unencumbered by the throngs of humanity.

There is an urgent need for men to collectivise and put their combined efforts into the focus of defeating feminism but men will only organise themselves to do this task once they realize that feminism is nothing to do with 'women's liberation' and nothing whatsoever to do with 'equality' but everything to do with the social engineers of the totalitarian state wanting to control our every movement and thought.

These feminists do not represent the wishes of the vast majority of women. Like true communists they work as part of well-placed cells of subversives in key government and state bodies.

They are intent on totalitarianism and so are preparing for that by destroying the men who represent the potential for any resistance against their imminent complete take-over of western societies. For obvious reasons those men that they have targeted are husbands and fathers.

Our great weapon is the Constitutions (Irish, US, British etc) which were given to the people after the overthrow of a tyrannical ruler to protect them AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF THE STATE BECOMING A TYRANT AGAIN.

Our united aim must be to use the principles of the Constitution to identify these subversives, expose them and their deadly game and weed them out in order to return to common sense and build a civil society where this is never allowed to happen again.

If we fail the only alternative is to build an Ark and, like the Pilgrim Fathers, set out for a new nirvana. Unfortunately we know that with today's communications capabilities nirvana can not exist in isolation so we must stand and face the enemy within.

As scientists we must seek to interpret everything we know about men in this new positive light and so test the hypothesis.

I feel confident that many will be surprised at how the hypothesis fits the facts.

Once men and women acknowledge and take pride in men's 'giving' nature men will be accorded true legitimacy once again and the moral high-ground that goes with it so that they can do their job of protecting their families and society from the power grab of statists/communists under cover of something called 'feminism'.

The feminists and social engineers will never be able to control us with shame and guilt again.

Roger Eldridge,  Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon Www.family-men.com Tel: 00 353 (0) 71-9667138 Email: familymen@eircom.net

[Back to Top]