Add to the incomprehensibly long list of stories that seem (!) to undermine the feminist theory that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, abuse, their weight, their age, the bank balance, etc. Just a year ago, Vanilla Ice had charges of Domestic Violence dropped against him in Wellington, Florida.
---------------
Prosecutors decline to charge rapper Vanilla Ice
April 29, 2008, 6:54 PM EST
WELLINGTON, Fla. (AP) -- Authorities decided against prosecuting Vanilla Ice for a domestic battery charge since his wife recanted her original statement.
The 40-year-old performer (real name: Robert Van Winkle) — who sold 15 million copies of the single "Ice Ice Baby" in 1990 — was arrested April 10 at the couple's home. Authorities said his wife called 911 and claimed he kicked and hit her during an argument. She later told deputies he only pushed her.
In an affidavit provided to Palm Beach County prosecutors, Laura Van Winkle recanted her original allegations. She now says any physical confrontation was accidental.
Prosecutors on Tuesday closed the case.
---------------------------------------
I love this story because it demonstrates that women DO, in fact, lie about domestic violence. It doesn't matter what you think happened here, the complainant is a liar.
After all, count 'em folks - there are no less than THREE different stories told by Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee here. Which one is true?
Maybe none of them are.
Thank God the feminists have assured us that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse - otherwise my very first thought would likely be that Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee has a problem with the truth.
Like Crystal Gail Mangum.
Oh, is that another lie?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Do Feminists Care About Equal Rights?
It is commonly asserted that feminism is simply about securing equal rights for women. That sounds an awful lot like "feminism wants the same rights for women as men already possess," doesn't it? But if "the same rights as men" is the standard of equality, then the answer is, No, feminists do not care about men's rights, in the same way that assassins do not lobby in behalf of the rights of politicians.
While it is a common mis-assertion that feminism is about "equality," this is the Goebbels-like lie that makes it easier to swallow the unpleasant truth: feminism exists to procure superior rights for women at the expense of men, children, other women, and indeed, of society itself.
The inarguably false assertion that feminism is "all about equality" has been made even in response to this question itself. However, feminism's PURPOSE is more accurately revealed in its GOALS than in its deceptive political speech. And what are the goals of feminism?
1) Feminism glorifies the autonomy of the individual woman to the extent that it even romanticizes the irresponsibility of women. The wedding vows of women are worth nothing in the feminist mind. The responsibility of women toward their own children is irrelevant if said responsibility infringes on the autonomy of a woman in any way. Even the stability of society itself is not to be valued if such stability depends on the subjective, perceived "happiness" of any individual woman.
2) Feminism wants women to earn the same wages as men without turning in the same performance as men. Because women work less time than men (for a variety of reasons, ranging from starting work later, to taking time off for sickness and pregnancy, to voluntarily taking time off for child care, etc.), the average woman at age 35 has worked a full 10 years less than men who are her peers at age 35. Yet feminists want all 35-year olds employed in similar occupations to make the same money, in spite of the fact that women bring much less experience, generally fewer accomplishments, and such risks as pregnancy or moving to the table.
3) Feminism says that women are equally capable as men in all traditionally-male professions, then lobbies to have entrance and promotional requirements lowered so that more women can be hired and promoted in law enforcement, fire departments, and the military.
4) Feminism says that women should have the RIGHT to fight on the front lines in the military, without having the OBLIGATION to do so - an option not available to male soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
5) Feminism says that women are equally as strong as men intellectually and emotionally, then claims that women are victims of "domestic violence" if a woman's feelings are not duly regarded by her husband and that women are victims of "sexual harrassment" if they happen to spot a bikini calendar in the workplace.
6) Feminism, while vocally maintaining that men and women are equal, in fact, considers women to be more equal than men. Feminism argues that women are morally superior to men and have propagandized the legal system to hold that women are the superior parent and that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse, although the evidence suggests that women lie about such matters a majority of the time.
The fact is, feminists realize that feminists (not women) are NOT equal with men, and they despise men for being able to stand on their own, resist the government, lead families, and blaze moral, entrepreneurial, and artistic trails for all the world. Feminists (not women) resent the obvious superiority of men (over feminists - not women) and have banded together out of hatred to harness the power of government to harm men - a concept rightly classified as "misandry."
No feminist anywhere can give an example in which feminism has actually LOBBIED for anything approaching "equality." While the mouths of feminists are filled with empty, meaningless sloganeering such as "equality" and "empowerment," the fact is that all of the ACTIONS of feminists are directed toward securing superior rights for women, regardless of the irresponsibility and immorality of the individual women involved.
Any talk of "equality" among feminists is misdirection. Don't listen to their words - watch their hands!
While it is a common mis-assertion that feminism is about "equality," this is the Goebbels-like lie that makes it easier to swallow the unpleasant truth: feminism exists to procure superior rights for women at the expense of men, children, other women, and indeed, of society itself.
The inarguably false assertion that feminism is "all about equality" has been made even in response to this question itself. However, feminism's PURPOSE is more accurately revealed in its GOALS than in its deceptive political speech. And what are the goals of feminism?
1) Feminism glorifies the autonomy of the individual woman to the extent that it even romanticizes the irresponsibility of women. The wedding vows of women are worth nothing in the feminist mind. The responsibility of women toward their own children is irrelevant if said responsibility infringes on the autonomy of a woman in any way. Even the stability of society itself is not to be valued if such stability depends on the subjective, perceived "happiness" of any individual woman.
2) Feminism wants women to earn the same wages as men without turning in the same performance as men. Because women work less time than men (for a variety of reasons, ranging from starting work later, to taking time off for sickness and pregnancy, to voluntarily taking time off for child care, etc.), the average woman at age 35 has worked a full 10 years less than men who are her peers at age 35. Yet feminists want all 35-year olds employed in similar occupations to make the same money, in spite of the fact that women bring much less experience, generally fewer accomplishments, and such risks as pregnancy or moving to the table.
3) Feminism says that women are equally capable as men in all traditionally-male professions, then lobbies to have entrance and promotional requirements lowered so that more women can be hired and promoted in law enforcement, fire departments, and the military.
4) Feminism says that women should have the RIGHT to fight on the front lines in the military, without having the OBLIGATION to do so - an option not available to male soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
5) Feminism says that women are equally as strong as men intellectually and emotionally, then claims that women are victims of "domestic violence" if a woman's feelings are not duly regarded by her husband and that women are victims of "sexual harrassment" if they happen to spot a bikini calendar in the workplace.
6) Feminism, while vocally maintaining that men and women are equal, in fact, considers women to be more equal than men. Feminism argues that women are morally superior to men and have propagandized the legal system to hold that women are the superior parent and that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse, although the evidence suggests that women lie about such matters a majority of the time.
The fact is, feminists realize that feminists (not women) are NOT equal with men, and they despise men for being able to stand on their own, resist the government, lead families, and blaze moral, entrepreneurial, and artistic trails for all the world. Feminists (not women) resent the obvious superiority of men (over feminists - not women) and have banded together out of hatred to harness the power of government to harm men - a concept rightly classified as "misandry."
No feminist anywhere can give an example in which feminism has actually LOBBIED for anything approaching "equality." While the mouths of feminists are filled with empty, meaningless sloganeering such as "equality" and "empowerment," the fact is that all of the ACTIONS of feminists are directed toward securing superior rights for women, regardless of the irresponsibility and immorality of the individual women involved.
Any talk of "equality" among feminists is misdirection. Don't listen to their words - watch their hands!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Women Abuse More Than Men: But Who Cares?
When it comes to alleged abuse of women by men, society has a "zero tolerance" philosophy. When it comes to women abusing men, which actually happens more often, "every person must perform their own calculus to determine whether to get involved."
Women abuse men more than men abuse women. Nobody cares. Not even cops.
So says this ABC News report.
The cult of the battered woman is a religion like all others, requiring only faith to be a part of it. However, it is a particularly vicious cult, in that it is based on absolutely no truth known to man, and it is devoted to the destruction of men through the use of false allegations in the legal system... and perhaps even greater destruction can be both encouraged and tolerated.
Mary Winkler, of course, whose false allegations of "abuse" extended to the sheer horror of her husband asking her to wear platform heels in conjunction with sex, was convicted of shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun, butserved only 67 days of a potential 60-year murder sentence.
Now, as the former judge states in the following video, any man who makes a woman "feel bad about herself" is apparently susceptible to murder, and the woman is certain to find great sympathy and serve only a token sentence. This is the real legacy of the "all women are victims/all men are abusers" lies told by feminism for going on 40 years.
Does it come as a surprise that there is a boyfriend?
There is nothing so evil as a woman convinced by our Oprahized culture of her own victimhood. Except, perhaps, those who defend such a woman. Notice how immediately, in the local news blurb below, feminist apologists begin making existential leaps and excuses, accusing the REAL victim, the murdered father, of crimes that even his own murderous wife did not imply.
... As if to say, "Well, if the female murderess' crime was not justified by the story she actually told, then there must be something even more sinister than the story she told. For we know, no woman would ever murder her husband without cause. Because everybody knows that all men are abusers, and that means all women are victims, and are justified in whatever steps they take to deal with their victimization."
Did I mention that there is a boyfriend?
For an extensive bibliography examining the incidence of female on male violence, click here.
Women abuse men more than men abuse women. Nobody cares. Not even cops.
So says this ABC News report.
The cult of the battered woman is a religion like all others, requiring only faith to be a part of it. However, it is a particularly vicious cult, in that it is based on absolutely no truth known to man, and it is devoted to the destruction of men through the use of false allegations in the legal system... and perhaps even greater destruction can be both encouraged and tolerated.
Mary Winkler, of course, whose false allegations of "abuse" extended to the sheer horror of her husband asking her to wear platform heels in conjunction with sex, was convicted of shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun, butserved only 67 days of a potential 60-year murder sentence.
Now, as the former judge states in the following video, any man who makes a woman "feel bad about herself" is apparently susceptible to murder, and the woman is certain to find great sympathy and serve only a token sentence. This is the real legacy of the "all women are victims/all men are abusers" lies told by feminism for going on 40 years.
Does it come as a surprise that there is a boyfriend?
There is nothing so evil as a woman convinced by our Oprahized culture of her own victimhood. Except, perhaps, those who defend such a woman. Notice how immediately, in the local news blurb below, feminist apologists begin making existential leaps and excuses, accusing the REAL victim, the murdered father, of crimes that even his own murderous wife did not imply.
... As if to say, "Well, if the female murderess' crime was not justified by the story she actually told, then there must be something even more sinister than the story she told. For we know, no woman would ever murder her husband without cause. Because everybody knows that all men are abusers, and that means all women are victims, and are justified in whatever steps they take to deal with their victimization."
Did I mention that there is a boyfriend?
For an extensive bibliography examining the incidence of female on male violence, click here.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Difference Between Men and Women Showering
I'm gonna confess that I a) dry myself completely, b) use the bath mat, and c) do try to wash the whole body.
The Biggest Feminist Lie: Domestic Violence
It is commonly stated by feminists that 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence. Remember, these are the same people that told us about 10 years ago that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman," because supposedly every woman's husband would beat her at halftime. That ridiculous assertion, after it had been used to raise money for femtard organizations for a few months, was disproven. And the "1 in 4" statistic is just as much a lie as the "Super Bowl Sunday" claim was. The "1 in 4" statistic is only true if you accept a feminist definition of what comprises "violence."
In the U.S., the Violence Against Women Act was changed by the Clinton administration as a payoff to the feminist lobby in the mid-1990s. Where the act had formerly dealt with instances of real violence, the feminists were not getting enough federal money into their women's shelters and academic programs to suit them. So they argued that the definition of the word "violence" ought to be changed. As a payoff for their support (and likely because Hillary - a flaming Marxist feminist to begin with - supported the idea), Clinton changed the VAWA to accommodate feminist notions.
Not only was the definition of violence itself significantly broadened, but the standard of evidence required was changed. In the English common law tradition, there have traditionally been only two standards of evidence: for criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt has traditionally been explained to mean something approximating "the evidence must be so compelling that no other explanation is reasonably believable." The preponderance of the evidence standard has variously been explained as "most likely," "51%," or "more likely than not."
However, given that many allegations of "domestic violence" have traditionally not occurred until a child custody, divorce, or alimony case has arisen, feminists became perturbed that women seemed to not "win" enough of these cases. Sometimes, the claims were so outlandish that the cases were not even heard - a situation which feminists likened to "squelching the voice of the victim!" [Keep in mind here that most of the "victims" of "domestic violence" in America these days are slightly less credible than Crystal Gail Mangum.]
So feminists decided that the standard of evidence for the issue of domestic violence was all wrong. The important question to ask was not, "Did something happen?", but rather the important question is, "Does a woman believe that something might happen?"
So the standard of evidence was changed to something brand new in the history of the common law tradition: the standard of the subjective fear of the complainant. If you can convince a judge that you are "afraid," then you can have that judge issue a DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order, a specialized form of restraining order that incorporates this new standard of evidence; traditional restraining orders required a showing of "likelihood of harm.") and deny a man access to his home, his savings account, his tools, his car, even his children.
"Domestic Violence" thus became an exercise in prevention rather than a claim to be made for someone who has actually done something wrong. Claims of "domestic violence" are based on what a woman fears a man might do, not what a man has done.
Imagine this ridiculous standard of evidence in any other case:
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, I am bringing a suit today for Breach of Contract against Defendant.
JUDGE: All right, tell me what happened.
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, we made this contract, see?
JUDGE: (waiting impatiently) Is there more?
PLAINTIFF: More what?
JUDGE: Where is the breach? What has the Defendant done that was a breach? Has he failed to pay you on time? Has he not delivered promised goods or services?
PLAINTIFF: Oh, no, nothing like that. It is just that I FEAR that he might breach the contract!
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are here, your honor, in the matter of State v. Jones, a case of first degree murder.
JUDGE: Very well, what are the facts of the case?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mr. Jones is very mean. Frankly, he is a prick. And he owns guns. And he yelled at his wife. And he got in a fight when he was 17. And many of his co-workers think he is quite odd. He is one scary dude.
JUDGE: Very well, now, tell me about the murder.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, your honor, the State FEARS that there might be a murder someday.
I have sat in on over 100 "domestic violence" hearings. In the 100+ hearings that I have witnessed, only 1 time was the man not found to have committed domestic violence (A "conviction" rate that is unimaginable with any other offense - even DWI convictions in which someone has blown above the legal limit have a conviction rate of only in excess of 80% in my jurisdiction.). But, in only ONE of those 100+ hearings has anything that approaches the layman's definition of "domestic violence" even been alleged - and then so incredibly that it was obvious that the woman was lying.
Rather, the following are allegations for which a man has been found liable for "domestic violence" in hearings that I have witnessed:
* A man threw a sock at his wife.
* A man pushed his girlfriend off of him to try to escape while she was beating him about the head.
* After being hit in the head by a candle thrown by his wife, a man picked it up and threw it back on the bed on which she was sitting.
* During an argument, a man ran into another room, and in a fit of anger, punched a hole in a window.
* During a disagreement over separation, a man threatened to use his family's extensive wealth to win sole custody of his children.
* A man who discovered his wife was an adulteress called her a c**t, a w***e, and a s**t.
None of these, obviously, are domestic violence. But under the redefinition of domestic violence enacted in the 1990s, each of these men were found liable for committing domestic violence.
"Domestic Violence" and "Violence Against Women" don't really have anything to do with violence in the traditional sense. Rather, these ideas are a part of a complex social engineering strategy designed by feminism to do three things:
1) To make men more willing to "settle" in a manner advantageous to women upon the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, so that women have a constant stream of money from ex-husbands and ex-lovers, increasing the assets of women without making them work for it.
2) Increasing the flow of federal dollars and private grant monies into ideologically-driven "women's shelters" where radical feminists are employed and where future feminists are recruited.
3) Undermining the stability of the family so that the feminist utopia of "independent" women who totally control the rearing of children without any non-monetary contribution from men is easier to achieve.
Doubt me? I encourage you to take a look at the University of Virginia's Sexual and Domestic Violence Services website, where you will learn:
1) Failure to listen to a woman's opinion is a sign of a relationship that is susceptible to Domestic Violence.
2) Holding strong conservative, Biblical, or traditional convictions about gender roles, such as those held by most deeply religious people, is an act of Domestic Violence.
3) Saying hurtful things is an act of Domestic Violence.
4) Threatening to kill HIMSELF is an act of Domestic Violence against YOU! (This one really puzzles me!)
5) Failure to acknowledge the "feelings" of a woman is an act of Domestic Violence.
Poke around the website (link provided below), and then ask yourself, "If this is what 'Domestic Violence' is all about, then is it really true that 1 in 4 women are victims?"
And the answer, of course, is no.
Just as a postscript - I am always entertained by the propensity of feminists to engage in sheer contradiction while never even suspecting that such lunacy is evidence that their silly little theorems are bogus.
Think about it - women are capable of fighting on the front lines in combat (a feminist axiom) but are being "sexually harassed" by a bikini calendar in the workplace and are victims of "domestic violence" if I fail to properly acknowledge their "feelings?"
My, my, my... feminism just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Source:
http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/
In the U.S., the Violence Against Women Act was changed by the Clinton administration as a payoff to the feminist lobby in the mid-1990s. Where the act had formerly dealt with instances of real violence, the feminists were not getting enough federal money into their women's shelters and academic programs to suit them. So they argued that the definition of the word "violence" ought to be changed. As a payoff for their support (and likely because Hillary - a flaming Marxist feminist to begin with - supported the idea), Clinton changed the VAWA to accommodate feminist notions.
Not only was the definition of violence itself significantly broadened, but the standard of evidence required was changed. In the English common law tradition, there have traditionally been only two standards of evidence: for criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt has traditionally been explained to mean something approximating "the evidence must be so compelling that no other explanation is reasonably believable." The preponderance of the evidence standard has variously been explained as "most likely," "51%," or "more likely than not."
However, given that many allegations of "domestic violence" have traditionally not occurred until a child custody, divorce, or alimony case has arisen, feminists became perturbed that women seemed to not "win" enough of these cases. Sometimes, the claims were so outlandish that the cases were not even heard - a situation which feminists likened to "squelching the voice of the victim!" [Keep in mind here that most of the "victims" of "domestic violence" in America these days are slightly less credible than Crystal Gail Mangum.]
So feminists decided that the standard of evidence for the issue of domestic violence was all wrong. The important question to ask was not, "Did something happen?", but rather the important question is, "Does a woman believe that something might happen?"
So the standard of evidence was changed to something brand new in the history of the common law tradition: the standard of the subjective fear of the complainant. If you can convince a judge that you are "afraid," then you can have that judge issue a DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order, a specialized form of restraining order that incorporates this new standard of evidence; traditional restraining orders required a showing of "likelihood of harm.") and deny a man access to his home, his savings account, his tools, his car, even his children.
"Domestic Violence" thus became an exercise in prevention rather than a claim to be made for someone who has actually done something wrong. Claims of "domestic violence" are based on what a woman fears a man might do, not what a man has done.
Imagine this ridiculous standard of evidence in any other case:
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, I am bringing a suit today for Breach of Contract against Defendant.
JUDGE: All right, tell me what happened.
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, we made this contract, see?
JUDGE: (waiting impatiently) Is there more?
PLAINTIFF: More what?
JUDGE: Where is the breach? What has the Defendant done that was a breach? Has he failed to pay you on time? Has he not delivered promised goods or services?
PLAINTIFF: Oh, no, nothing like that. It is just that I FEAR that he might breach the contract!
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are here, your honor, in the matter of State v. Jones, a case of first degree murder.
JUDGE: Very well, what are the facts of the case?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mr. Jones is very mean. Frankly, he is a prick. And he owns guns. And he yelled at his wife. And he got in a fight when he was 17. And many of his co-workers think he is quite odd. He is one scary dude.
JUDGE: Very well, now, tell me about the murder.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, your honor, the State FEARS that there might be a murder someday.
I have sat in on over 100 "domestic violence" hearings. In the 100+ hearings that I have witnessed, only 1 time was the man not found to have committed domestic violence (A "conviction" rate that is unimaginable with any other offense - even DWI convictions in which someone has blown above the legal limit have a conviction rate of only in excess of 80% in my jurisdiction.). But, in only ONE of those 100+ hearings has anything that approaches the layman's definition of "domestic violence" even been alleged - and then so incredibly that it was obvious that the woman was lying.
Rather, the following are allegations for which a man has been found liable for "domestic violence" in hearings that I have witnessed:
* A man threw a sock at his wife.
* A man pushed his girlfriend off of him to try to escape while she was beating him about the head.
* After being hit in the head by a candle thrown by his wife, a man picked it up and threw it back on the bed on which she was sitting.
* During an argument, a man ran into another room, and in a fit of anger, punched a hole in a window.
* During a disagreement over separation, a man threatened to use his family's extensive wealth to win sole custody of his children.
* A man who discovered his wife was an adulteress called her a c**t, a w***e, and a s**t.
None of these, obviously, are domestic violence. But under the redefinition of domestic violence enacted in the 1990s, each of these men were found liable for committing domestic violence.
"Domestic Violence" and "Violence Against Women" don't really have anything to do with violence in the traditional sense. Rather, these ideas are a part of a complex social engineering strategy designed by feminism to do three things:
1) To make men more willing to "settle" in a manner advantageous to women upon the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, so that women have a constant stream of money from ex-husbands and ex-lovers, increasing the assets of women without making them work for it.
2) Increasing the flow of federal dollars and private grant monies into ideologically-driven "women's shelters" where radical feminists are employed and where future feminists are recruited.
3) Undermining the stability of the family so that the feminist utopia of "independent" women who totally control the rearing of children without any non-monetary contribution from men is easier to achieve.
Doubt me? I encourage you to take a look at the University of Virginia's Sexual and Domestic Violence Services website, where you will learn:
1) Failure to listen to a woman's opinion is a sign of a relationship that is susceptible to Domestic Violence.
2) Holding strong conservative, Biblical, or traditional convictions about gender roles, such as those held by most deeply religious people, is an act of Domestic Violence.
3) Saying hurtful things is an act of Domestic Violence.
4) Threatening to kill HIMSELF is an act of Domestic Violence against YOU! (This one really puzzles me!)
5) Failure to acknowledge the "feelings" of a woman is an act of Domestic Violence.
Poke around the website (link provided below), and then ask yourself, "If this is what 'Domestic Violence' is all about, then is it really true that 1 in 4 women are victims?"
And the answer, of course, is no.
Just as a postscript - I am always entertained by the propensity of feminists to engage in sheer contradiction while never even suspecting that such lunacy is evidence that their silly little theorems are bogus.
Think about it - women are capable of fighting on the front lines in combat (a feminist axiom) but are being "sexually harassed" by a bikini calendar in the workplace and are victims of "domestic violence" if I fail to properly acknowledge their "feelings?"
My, my, my... feminism just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Source:
http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/
A Degree in "Women's Studies"
Someone once asked me what jobs would be open to them if they pursued a Ph.D. in Women's Studies.
I offered, "Assistant Manager at Burger King."
But that got me to thinking: Why are there no Men's Studies Programs in the universities of the world? There are Asian Studies programs, Queer studies programs, and of course, the ubiquitous Women's Studies programs. But never any Men's Studies!
I think I have it figured out.
There are no "men's studies" programs because, since the dawn of time, men have busied themselves with studying actual academic disciplines - such as engineering, psychology, medicine, military science, religion, architecture, computer science, language, history, and archeology (just to name a few) - and have used that knowledge to build civilization and revolutionize the world. All those bridges you drive over, and the car you drive in, and the house you live in, and the fridge you visit, and the TV you watch, and the computer you type on, and the internet you play on...?
Men. All of it.
Who has time to sit around in some bogus faux-academie snoozefest when there is a world to build and maintain?
I offered, "Assistant Manager at Burger King."
But that got me to thinking: Why are there no Men's Studies Programs in the universities of the world? There are Asian Studies programs, Queer studies programs, and of course, the ubiquitous Women's Studies programs. But never any Men's Studies!
I think I have it figured out.
There are no "men's studies" programs because, since the dawn of time, men have busied themselves with studying actual academic disciplines - such as engineering, psychology, medicine, military science, religion, architecture, computer science, language, history, and archeology (just to name a few) - and have used that knowledge to build civilization and revolutionize the world. All those bridges you drive over, and the car you drive in, and the house you live in, and the fridge you visit, and the TV you watch, and the computer you type on, and the internet you play on...?
Men. All of it.
Who has time to sit around in some bogus faux-academie snoozefest when there is a world to build and maintain?
Friday, April 24, 2009
What I Learned From a Feminist at FREE REPUBLIC
You hear things again and again, and their significance never really quite dawns on you.
Then one day you hear them and you see the multitudinous angles from which the statements that you have been hearing for years have just been wrong.
I have often likened feminists to Jehovah's Witnesses (without the attendant morality, of course). Both camps are essentially taught to argue defensively, giving trite answers to common questions, but if you ever stop to examine what they are saying, or ask just one further question, their entire logical edifice comes crashing down around their collective ears.
I once posted an article on Free Republic about false allegations. A typical whiney feminist pops up and begins to assert the normal feminist drivel: "women are afraid to report rapes because of the social consequences." "Men are abusers." "Men cover up for their buds." "Who do women have confidence that they can complain to?" And so as we were going round and round about various feminist irrelevancies, she posted this, and I quote:
Then one day you hear them and you see the multitudinous angles from which the statements that you have been hearing for years have just been wrong.
I have often likened feminists to Jehovah's Witnesses (without the attendant morality, of course). Both camps are essentially taught to argue defensively, giving trite answers to common questions, but if you ever stop to examine what they are saying, or ask just one further question, their entire logical edifice comes crashing down around their collective ears.
I once posted an article on Free Republic about false allegations. A typical whiney feminist pops up and begins to assert the normal feminist drivel: "women are afraid to report rapes because of the social consequences." "Men are abusers." "Men cover up for their buds." "Who do women have confidence that they can complain to?" And so as we were going round and round about various feminist irrelevancies, she posted this, and I quote:
"As only 10% of rapes are ever reported, there can be no valid % of false reports...
Given the unknown total of rapes...
The same goes for domestic violence."
And it hit me. I have heard this illogical hardscrabble a million times. I have listened with frustration and amazement at the irrelevance of it all, and the utter stupidity of it all, a million times. After all, how can anybody know how many rapes ARE NOT reported?
But then it hit me.
It hit me what is REALLY wrong with this statement that I have heard a million times from a half million different intellectually vacant minds spouting feminism.
1) These statements, taken together in context, are vicious. They are immoral because the implication of the statements, within a larger conversation about false allegations, is this: "It doesn't matter how many men are falsely accused because there are so many men who never get accused." The morality of the feminist soul is so lacking that they consider themselves to be approaching a rough approximation of justice if they are simply able to imprison MEN, regardless of whether or not they are guilty, on behalf of all the men who never were (perhaps) rightly accused and imprisoned.
That a woman is comfortable with a way of looking at the world in which the imprisonment of the innocent as a recompense for the non-imprisonment of the guilty reveals a streak of moral viciousness that is incompatible with anything other than the most hardened sociopath.
2) These statements are irrational. These statements display the tendency of those who know that they are wrong to cloud whatever issue is on the table by not only attempting to play BOTH sides against the middle, but attempting to play EVERY side against the middle. Instead of trying to have it both ways, feminists want to have it every which way....
For instance, the psycho-feminist poster asserts that "only 10% of all rapes are ever reported." OK. Despite that being a statistically dubious conclusion (though one that I have heard repeatedly), let's work with that. If I go to some objective source, like FBI crime statistics or what have you, and I learn that (for the sake of argument) there were One Million reported rapes last year (I have no idea the actual number), is it not relatively easy, given the number of reported rapes and the certain knowledge that this number represents only 10% of the total, to divine how many actual rapes there have been?
Yet invariably, the same feminist who tells you that the total number of reported rapes represents only X% of the total, will at some point also allege, as did the above-quoted mental midget, "The total number of rapes is unknown."
Well, if the total number is unknown, whence cometh our certainty that 90% are unreported? And if I know, and teach, that 10% are all that is reported, how can I, with a straight face, assert "The total number of rapes is unknown"?
I call this irrationality because I am being generous. But in fact, it is lying. Feminists quote statistics not because they are a reflection of serious scholarship or observation or of logic, but because they are convenient, and because spouting statistics gives the illusion of serious scholarship or observation or of logic. In other words, the fact is that feminists are liars, and are comfortable enough with it to perpetrate their easily-examined lies in the public arena.
3) These statements reveal an excessive distrust in the veracity of women as a group. I have often stated that the last sexists in the world were feminists and their intellectual (sic) fellow travelers. However, these statements reveal that feminists hate women just as much as they hate men.
Follow my logic:
Within the larger context of a discussion on false allegations, the mentally-challenged poster quoted above defends the current femmefascist system of false allegations with the statement that no undue concern is necessary for the falsely accused because 1) 90% of actually guilty men go unaccused and 2) Nobody knows the total number that we are dealing with anyway.
Now....
You may have to follow this closely.
But the entire discussion revolved around an assertion by me that 30%-50% of all allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, were false.
Based on several quoted studies, the femmefascist did not argue with this statistic, but rather began the "Woe is me! Women are afraid to report! Who can we turn to for help! Nobody knows how many rapes there are! But only 10% are ever reported!"
OK, let's work with both sets of statistics here, assuming both are true. Let's work with a theoretical number that I am going to call "discernible rapes." This is my term, and I made it up just now - it means this: all "rapes," actual and falsely alleged, reported and unreported, in a given jurisdiction. It means everything that a person might think of when they think of rapes: actual reported rapes, false allegations, and real rapes that are never reported. We will combine all of these to get our figure of "discernible rapes."
Let's assume that the total number of "discernible rapes" (not reported, again, we are making numbers up here) in a district are 100.
Plugging in our statistics: The femmefascist asserts that of these 100, only 10 will be reported.
Objective studies indicate that 30%-50% of all reports are false, however.
So of the reports, let's say that 5 are genuine and 5 are false allegations.
Now, 90 actual (?) rapes went unreported.
Out of 95 actual (?) rapes, only 5 were reported, while 90 went unreported.
Out of 10 reports, only 5 were genuine, while 5 were false.
The inescapable conclusion? Women are more likely to file a false report of rape than a true report of rape.
That the femmefascist is comfortable with this way of looking at the world demonstrates the extremely low opinion that feminists have of women as a group.
Should Women Fight in Combat?
No. Women should not fight in combat missions.
Women should stay at home baking cookies and washing diapers until they can look inside someone's cubicle, see a bikini-clad woman on the screensaver, and avoid either crying or bringing a sexual harrassment lawsuit.
Until women have mastered that skill, they should not be allowed into combat. I understand it is much more stressful to be in the middle of blood, explosions, and people who want to kill you than it is to see a bikini model on a screensaver, after all.
I'm just sayin....
Item 1:
During the United States' Panama invasion, a female truck driver taking troops into a combat zone started crying. Another woman who had been performing the same job also broke into tears, and the two women were relieved of duty. After reporters learned about the incident, the Army "took pains to convey that the women had not disobeyed orders or been derelict in their duty," reports The New Republic. "On the contrary, according to an Army official quoted in the Washington Post: "They performed superbly." Since men, too, have been relieved of duty after breaking down emotionally during combat, the point is not to single these women out. The point is that the Army was less than candid about the incident. As The New Republic commented: "To call the overall performance of a soldier who breaks down and cries during combat 'superb' is ludicrous and patronizing." ("Soldier Boys, Soldier Girls," The New Republic, February 19, 1990, cited in Congressional Quarterly Supplement, February 7, 1990, p. A14.)
And for the foolish individuals who say that women are capable of anything that men are....
Item 2:
In Canada, combat training was opened to women in 1987 as part of CREW Trials (Combat Related Employment of Women). The Canadian Defense Ministry had planned to form an infantry unit with 40 men and 40 women and compare them with a unit of 80 men. The experiment was never completed because not enough females volunteered, according to Commander Judith Harper of the Canadian Defense Ministry in Ottawa. (Telephone interview with Heritage Foundation researcher on June 7, 1991.) From 1987 to February 21, 1991, some 342 women were enrolled in Canadian army combat units, and 79 graduated. More than HALF the graduates were radio operators. Of 102 women who enlisted in infantry training, only ONE (less than 1%, for any math whizzes out there) graduated. That woman served her three-year mandatory term and recently left the army. (Ibid.)
Item 3:
Following the War of Israeli Liberation in 1948, women were never allowed into combat again (unless by accident). It has been Israeli law since 1950, for a variety of reasons, including underperformance by women and overprotectiveness to the jeapordizing of combat mission goals by men, that women are still drafted, but not placed into combat.
When women have been placed into combat they have underperformed, to the danger and detriment of their units. Nations that have allowed women into combat have done so only temporarily, and even the soldier-starved Israeli army will no longer allow women to fight in their combat forces (though they still fill many support roles, as they ought to, as long as they can meet the same requirements as the men who fill those roles).
The military is a very poor place to engage in social engineering. The purpose of the military is to kill people, break things, and subjugate the enemy - not to function as a testing ground for pink and blue uniforms. The inability of feminists to admit the truth, think rationally, and place the needs of their nation above their own personal whims is disturbing in this instance, but unfortunately, for them none of that is entirely out of character.
Women should stay at home baking cookies and washing diapers until they can look inside someone's cubicle, see a bikini-clad woman on the screensaver, and avoid either crying or bringing a sexual harrassment lawsuit.
Until women have mastered that skill, they should not be allowed into combat. I understand it is much more stressful to be in the middle of blood, explosions, and people who want to kill you than it is to see a bikini model on a screensaver, after all.
I'm just sayin....
Item 1:
During the United States' Panama invasion, a female truck driver taking troops into a combat zone started crying. Another woman who had been performing the same job also broke into tears, and the two women were relieved of duty. After reporters learned about the incident, the Army "took pains to convey that the women had not disobeyed orders or been derelict in their duty," reports The New Republic. "On the contrary, according to an Army official quoted in the Washington Post: "They performed superbly." Since men, too, have been relieved of duty after breaking down emotionally during combat, the point is not to single these women out. The point is that the Army was less than candid about the incident. As The New Republic commented: "To call the overall performance of a soldier who breaks down and cries during combat 'superb' is ludicrous and patronizing." ("Soldier Boys, Soldier Girls," The New Republic, February 19, 1990, cited in Congressional Quarterly Supplement, February 7, 1990, p. A14.)
And for the foolish individuals who say that women are capable of anything that men are....
Item 2:
In Canada, combat training was opened to women in 1987 as part of CREW Trials (Combat Related Employment of Women). The Canadian Defense Ministry had planned to form an infantry unit with 40 men and 40 women and compare them with a unit of 80 men. The experiment was never completed because not enough females volunteered, according to Commander Judith Harper of the Canadian Defense Ministry in Ottawa. (Telephone interview with Heritage Foundation researcher on June 7, 1991.) From 1987 to February 21, 1991, some 342 women were enrolled in Canadian army combat units, and 79 graduated. More than HALF the graduates were radio operators. Of 102 women who enlisted in infantry training, only ONE (less than 1%, for any math whizzes out there) graduated. That woman served her three-year mandatory term and recently left the army. (Ibid.)
Item 3:
Following the War of Israeli Liberation in 1948, women were never allowed into combat again (unless by accident). It has been Israeli law since 1950, for a variety of reasons, including underperformance by women and overprotectiveness to the jeapordizing of combat mission goals by men, that women are still drafted, but not placed into combat.
When women have been placed into combat they have underperformed, to the danger and detriment of their units. Nations that have allowed women into combat have done so only temporarily, and even the soldier-starved Israeli army will no longer allow women to fight in their combat forces (though they still fill many support roles, as they ought to, as long as they can meet the same requirements as the men who fill those roles).
The military is a very poor place to engage in social engineering. The purpose of the military is to kill people, break things, and subjugate the enemy - not to function as a testing ground for pink and blue uniforms. The inability of feminists to admit the truth, think rationally, and place the needs of their nation above their own personal whims is disturbing in this instance, but unfortunately, for them none of that is entirely out of character.
U.S. Air Force Study on Rape
The United States Air Force did a study during the mid-80s concerning false rape allegations within their own ranks. They found that 30% of all rape allegations were proveably false - and frankly if 30% are proveably false, we are safe in assuming that 35%-40% or even more are actually false.
Of course, feminist congresswomen found out about the investigation and demanded that the investigation be stopped for the usual political reasons. But the damage was done and it is now believed among non-ideological professionals (i.e., people that are not feminist lawyers or who do not work at women's shelters) that roughly half of all such allegations are false.
And since VAWA actually made filing false allegations easier than it was in the mid-80s, I am of the opinion that false allegations are probably a significant majority of all allegations today.
Human nature being what it is, we have no reason to believe the majority of allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, or even child abuse given the current legal and political climate.
We may never know the actual numbers on rape itself, but we can have a reasonable certainty that, among reported rapes, more than half are false allegations.
Read some comments on this subject appended to this article. Be warned - people often read the article at the top of the page and come away saying "This article supports feminist nonsense on rape." The top of the page represents the blog owner framing the issue, while the comments appended to the article are the real discussion. The Air Force article is mentioned a couple of times.
Of course, feminist congresswomen found out about the investigation and demanded that the investigation be stopped for the usual political reasons. But the damage was done and it is now believed among non-ideological professionals (i.e., people that are not feminist lawyers or who do not work at women's shelters) that roughly half of all such allegations are false.
And since VAWA actually made filing false allegations easier than it was in the mid-80s, I am of the opinion that false allegations are probably a significant majority of all allegations today.
Human nature being what it is, we have no reason to believe the majority of allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, or even child abuse given the current legal and political climate.
We may never know the actual numbers on rape itself, but we can have a reasonable certainty that, among reported rapes, more than half are false allegations.
Read some comments on this subject appended to this article. Be warned - people often read the article at the top of the page and come away saying "This article supports feminist nonsense on rape." The top of the page represents the blog owner framing the issue, while the comments appended to the article are the real discussion. The Air Force article is mentioned a couple of times.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
What's Wrong With Feminism?
A very foolish attorney recently remarked to me, "Feminism died in the 80's."
If only....
In fact, feminism is very much alive today. So alive that it is pervasive. So pervasive that we do not even notice it any more, much like our own living room furniture.
And feminism can be truthfully said to either be responsible for, or to have aggravated, every single social problem in the modern Western world.
It exists as both formal and informal feminism. Formal feminism is the feminism of the pro-abortion movement, NOW, and academe. It is the feminism of fascistic legislation and of political lesbianism.
But there is also an informal feminism - a watered-down version that is simply accepted unthinkingly by the consumerist mobs. It is a feminism of Oprah Winfrey, the feminism that believes domestic violence to be a serious problem (against all evidence to the contrary) and that votes for women "because they are women" and that participates in the cult of the child.
Both types of feminism are wrong. Both are wrong, and both are wrong propositionally and morally. And because it has now become an accepted part of our cultural furniture, we do not even realize that it represents a mild toxin that is slowly poisoning every institution upon which civilization has been constructed.
1) Feminism is wrong because it lacks virtue. Feminism is simply a movement built around the cowardice and avarice of women. Men, of course, are motivated primarily by principle. A man gets up and goes to work in the morning, not because he enjoys it, but because he recognizes his responsibility to provide for a family, his responsibility to his employer and fellow employees, and because it has been drilled into him since childhood that men are to make a positive contribution - even at the cost of their own lives - to society. Men go to war because they recognize that there is something that has more value than their individual wants, even more valuable than the life of an individual - matters such as freedom, security, and country. Men are capable of going and doing battle in both wartime and the workaday world because they are possessed of courage - the willingness to take risks.
Feminism, however, is based upon the neurotic fears of women. It is certainly not all women, but as feminism is woven more deeply into the warp and woof of society, there are certainly more and more women possessed of these neurotic fears. The fear of domestic violence, for instance, is a neurotic fear of women, conjured up in illogical and irrational skulls for political gain by the leaders of the feminist movement who are equally neurotic - though driven so more by hate than by fear. I have personally sat in on more than 100 domestic violence proceedings in my state - not one of them even alleged violence in any sense that the layman would understand it. The "violence" complained of was that a woman was being "controlled" by a man (and one of my friends has noted, accurately, that a man is guilty of being "controlling" only when he refuses to yield control to a woman), of "namecalling," or of "holding to strict gender roles," as many religious people do. I saw one man separated from home, children, and bank accounts for lifting his hands to absorb the blows thrown from the fists of his wife. I have seen a dozen men arrested on evidence that would get a mere contract case thrown out of court.
And I have noticed a strange correlation between the lodging of claims of "domestic violence" and the occurrence of divorce proceedings, alimony or equitable distribution actions, and child support or custody trials. Very convenient....
Of course, women are encouraged to lie about such things. They are teased by women's groups, the media, lawyers, and the state to skip their own responsibilities by leaving their husbands - yet maintaining their home, kids, and an adequate income without working in the form of child support and alimony. Feminism appeals to that vindictiveness that is so pervasive in the human spirit that the Ninth Commandment forbids it, and to that sloth so extreme in the modern world that more than 50% of all tax revenues are spent on social welfare programs in America.
Unthinking, illogical, and hormonal women are encouraged to break their marriage vows at eternal cost to their own character, to their own children, and at the cost of justice itself, in order to repay a man for what are usually only perceived slights and to get a second chance at life and love (a second chance that the vast majority of my female clients find is only illusory - guys really are not interested in neurotic women who don't keep marriage vows and who come with the baggage of a passel of kids and a pile of false allegations in their wake).
2) Feminism is wrong because it is illogical and anti-intellectual. Travel over to Yahoo! Answers any old time and surf over to the "Gender and Women's Studies" section. About once every two days or so (sometimes far more often) some FemiFascist will post something like this:
"Why do half the people who post in G&WS always have such hateful things to say about feminism? Don't they realize that this is our safe space? After all, we feminists do not invade their WWE Wrestling Forum, do we?"
Which is again a manifestation of cowardice, and the very cowardice which begat political correctness. People who know they are wrong, after all, are not likely to willingly engage in discussion with those who can prove them wrong publicly. So there is an anti-intellectual bent toward feminism. Any disagreement with the political movement of feminism is conveniently labeled "misogyny" and dismissed. Anyone too effective in combatting feminism on the public college campus is threatened with "sexual harassment" charges and "sensitivity training."
But the desire to squelch dissent is, of course, the first sign that someone realizes that their own jig is up. After all, how is it possible to square the following two propositions, both central tenets of feminism?
a) Women are capable of doing anything that a man can do.
b) Therefore, standards for law school, medical school, the military, police departments, and fire departments must be lowered so that women can be adequately represented.
Illogic, thy name is feminist. And this is why Women's Studies programs across the country are regarded by academics as having about the same intellectual rigor as fingerpainting class in Vacation Bible School.
At its root, all virtue is true. All genuine virtue is based upon truth. And the illogic, anti-intellectualism, and indulgence in the lie that is feminism divests the movement of even a basic perception of virtue - intellectual or otherwise.
3) Feminism is wrong because it is unjust. Feminism depends upon the craven moral cowardice of men in order to thrive. And if one does not demonstrate sufficient submission to the goals of "womyn," then filing false allegations of abuse, harassment, domestic violence, or rape are a justifiable punishment for any man foolish enough to believe that truth trumps the whining, "I'm-a-victim" outrage of the hormonal woman.
An Air Force study, mentioned previously in this blog, found that 60% of all rape allegations studied were proveably false. Duke Lacrosse, anyone? Upwards of 90% of all allegations of domestic violence do not even allege anything that a layman would consider "violence" - such allegations are again based on the political resentment that FemiFascists have at the audacity of some men to behave like men, and not give in to the whims and neuroses of the women in their lives.
And let us note that the filing of false allegations is hardly an incidental development. The changes to the Violence Against Women Act made during the Clinton administration had the effect of lowering the standard of evidence for the granting of Domestic Violence Protective Orders from the "preponderance of the evidence" (a more than 50% chance that the allegations were true) to the "subjective fear of the woman" - which could mean anything, including that somebody unfortunately mixed an Effexor and a Prozac today. Such an unheard-of lowering of the standards of evidence could only have the effect of encouraging false allegations - and consequently resulting in unjust prosecutions and convictions.
When you are right, you do not have to lie in order to make your point. The Ninth Commandment, as a basic precept of both moral righteousness and of a civilized society, still forbids the lodging of false complaints - whether the issue is money, children, politics, or merely getting one's own way. I could go on about the reverse discrimination implicit in affirmative action programs pushed by women's groups, but what I've said is more than enough to demonstrate that the agenda of feminism is wholly unjust.
4) Feminism is wrong because it is untrue. Every single statement made by feminists over the years has eventually been revealed to have been hyped up, at the least, and blatantly false, at the worst. From the so-called "Wage Gap" (which does not exist - women who have worked at the same job the same number of hours and the same number of years as their male counterparts make 98 cents on the dollar - a difference that is statistically negligible) to the early-90s myth that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women in America," everything that fits the feminist agenda is either blatantly untrue, illogical, or unproven.
Duke Lacrosse, anyone?
5) Feminism is wrong because it is neurotic. Carey Roberts has written an article on ifeminists.com (see www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0607roberts.html ) titled "Is Feminism a Mental Disorder? Of course, it is, and he especially identifies a neurotic condition which he labels "Domestic Violence Hysteria," which he considers to be "highly contagious."
Mrs. Dale O'Leary has written an article titled "Radical Feminism as a psychological disorder" (www.tldm.org/News11/RadicalFeminismPsychologicalDisorder.htm ) in which she proposes that feminism is a "psychological disorder caused by two generations of unforgiveness in the maternal line."
She notes that psychological health, for women, depends on a healthy relationship with the male authority figures in their lives - particularly with one's father. Dominating grandmothers, with imitation by a girl's mother, produces such broken relationships with men that only hatred ensues and adherence to feminism is born. The hatred which is so evident in feminism is, of course, the hatred of the scorned lover, as the feminist wishes for the love of a father or father-figure (such as a powerful husband capable of supplying her with both wisdom and leadership), but because she has an irrational fear of all but the wimpiest of men (since both her grandfather and father were such), she is continually frustrated and angry.
The cure for feminism, the psychological disorder? According to O'Leary it is the forgiveness of both parents (the wimpy father and the passive-aggressive or merely aggressive mother) and the enjoyment of the leadership of a strong man.
Finally, Charles Corry, Ph.D., labels feminism as simple "misandry," and calls it an unstable philosophical framework through which to understand the world (see www.dvmen.org/dv-121.htm ). This, of course, would indicate why so many women today are - unstable.
6) Feminism is sociopathic. The basic characteristic of the sociopath is the inability to recognize any authority above his own wants and perceived needs. The sociopath is willing, for instance to deal drugs (against society's mores) and murder customers who have not paid for such or perhaps murder competing drug dealers simply because that is his job. He is a drug dealer, and he murders in the same way that the factory worker punches a time clock - without remorse or consideration of consequences.
It is undeniable that 4,400 times a day in America since Roe v. Wade, women have willingly destroyed innocent children in the womb for the mere opportunity to escape from responsibility. It is undeniable that the more feminism advances, the more social problems such as crime, psychological disorders, and welfarism explode. The social, moral, and psychological carnage is revealed in the millions of children left fatherless by feminism's attack on the family, the millions of men falsely accused of crimes by neurotic women or merely treated as ATM machines by society, by the dissolution of millions of families and the consequent personal and economic carnage that has followed in its wake.
But perhaps most sadly are the thousands of women who realize, too late, that feminism has sold them a bill of goods. Women who realize that they were a sucker play in someone else's chess game - women who no man will now have, who deal with the guilt of their attack on perhaps the one man who ever loved them and their children, and who face the future alone - cast off by those shelter workers who years ago promised them that if they left their husbands, everything would be all right.
Feminism destroys everything that it touches, because it is fully evil. Men, children, families, the very fabric of society. But because there is a force out there - call it God or Karma or whatever - in the end, those men and those children whom feminism has attempted to destroy can ultimately rise above the evil of feminism. But the women who choose the "easy" path offered by feminism end up alone, overmedicated, infertile, rejected, and with a weight of guilt almost impossible to shed.
There may well be justice in this world....
If only....
In fact, feminism is very much alive today. So alive that it is pervasive. So pervasive that we do not even notice it any more, much like our own living room furniture.
And feminism can be truthfully said to either be responsible for, or to have aggravated, every single social problem in the modern Western world.
It exists as both formal and informal feminism. Formal feminism is the feminism of the pro-abortion movement, NOW, and academe. It is the feminism of fascistic legislation and of political lesbianism.
But there is also an informal feminism - a watered-down version that is simply accepted unthinkingly by the consumerist mobs. It is a feminism of Oprah Winfrey, the feminism that believes domestic violence to be a serious problem (against all evidence to the contrary) and that votes for women "because they are women" and that participates in the cult of the child.
Both types of feminism are wrong. Both are wrong, and both are wrong propositionally and morally. And because it has now become an accepted part of our cultural furniture, we do not even realize that it represents a mild toxin that is slowly poisoning every institution upon which civilization has been constructed.
1) Feminism is wrong because it lacks virtue. Feminism is simply a movement built around the cowardice and avarice of women. Men, of course, are motivated primarily by principle. A man gets up and goes to work in the morning, not because he enjoys it, but because he recognizes his responsibility to provide for a family, his responsibility to his employer and fellow employees, and because it has been drilled into him since childhood that men are to make a positive contribution - even at the cost of their own lives - to society. Men go to war because they recognize that there is something that has more value than their individual wants, even more valuable than the life of an individual - matters such as freedom, security, and country. Men are capable of going and doing battle in both wartime and the workaday world because they are possessed of courage - the willingness to take risks.
Feminism, however, is based upon the neurotic fears of women. It is certainly not all women, but as feminism is woven more deeply into the warp and woof of society, there are certainly more and more women possessed of these neurotic fears. The fear of domestic violence, for instance, is a neurotic fear of women, conjured up in illogical and irrational skulls for political gain by the leaders of the feminist movement who are equally neurotic - though driven so more by hate than by fear. I have personally sat in on more than 100 domestic violence proceedings in my state - not one of them even alleged violence in any sense that the layman would understand it. The "violence" complained of was that a woman was being "controlled" by a man (and one of my friends has noted, accurately, that a man is guilty of being "controlling" only when he refuses to yield control to a woman), of "namecalling," or of "holding to strict gender roles," as many religious people do. I saw one man separated from home, children, and bank accounts for lifting his hands to absorb the blows thrown from the fists of his wife. I have seen a dozen men arrested on evidence that would get a mere contract case thrown out of court.
And I have noticed a strange correlation between the lodging of claims of "domestic violence" and the occurrence of divorce proceedings, alimony or equitable distribution actions, and child support or custody trials. Very convenient....
Of course, women are encouraged to lie about such things. They are teased by women's groups, the media, lawyers, and the state to skip their own responsibilities by leaving their husbands - yet maintaining their home, kids, and an adequate income without working in the form of child support and alimony. Feminism appeals to that vindictiveness that is so pervasive in the human spirit that the Ninth Commandment forbids it, and to that sloth so extreme in the modern world that more than 50% of all tax revenues are spent on social welfare programs in America.
Unthinking, illogical, and hormonal women are encouraged to break their marriage vows at eternal cost to their own character, to their own children, and at the cost of justice itself, in order to repay a man for what are usually only perceived slights and to get a second chance at life and love (a second chance that the vast majority of my female clients find is only illusory - guys really are not interested in neurotic women who don't keep marriage vows and who come with the baggage of a passel of kids and a pile of false allegations in their wake).
2) Feminism is wrong because it is illogical and anti-intellectual. Travel over to Yahoo! Answers any old time and surf over to the "Gender and Women's Studies" section. About once every two days or so (sometimes far more often) some FemiFascist will post something like this:
"Why do half the people who post in G&WS always have such hateful things to say about feminism? Don't they realize that this is our safe space? After all, we feminists do not invade their WWE Wrestling Forum, do we?"
Which is again a manifestation of cowardice, and the very cowardice which begat political correctness. People who know they are wrong, after all, are not likely to willingly engage in discussion with those who can prove them wrong publicly. So there is an anti-intellectual bent toward feminism. Any disagreement with the political movement of feminism is conveniently labeled "misogyny" and dismissed. Anyone too effective in combatting feminism on the public college campus is threatened with "sexual harassment" charges and "sensitivity training."
But the desire to squelch dissent is, of course, the first sign that someone realizes that their own jig is up. After all, how is it possible to square the following two propositions, both central tenets of feminism?
a) Women are capable of doing anything that a man can do.
b) Therefore, standards for law school, medical school, the military, police departments, and fire departments must be lowered so that women can be adequately represented.
Illogic, thy name is feminist. And this is why Women's Studies programs across the country are regarded by academics as having about the same intellectual rigor as fingerpainting class in Vacation Bible School.
At its root, all virtue is true. All genuine virtue is based upon truth. And the illogic, anti-intellectualism, and indulgence in the lie that is feminism divests the movement of even a basic perception of virtue - intellectual or otherwise.
3) Feminism is wrong because it is unjust. Feminism depends upon the craven moral cowardice of men in order to thrive. And if one does not demonstrate sufficient submission to the goals of "womyn," then filing false allegations of abuse, harassment, domestic violence, or rape are a justifiable punishment for any man foolish enough to believe that truth trumps the whining, "I'm-a-victim" outrage of the hormonal woman.
An Air Force study, mentioned previously in this blog, found that 60% of all rape allegations studied were proveably false. Duke Lacrosse, anyone? Upwards of 90% of all allegations of domestic violence do not even allege anything that a layman would consider "violence" - such allegations are again based on the political resentment that FemiFascists have at the audacity of some men to behave like men, and not give in to the whims and neuroses of the women in their lives.
And let us note that the filing of false allegations is hardly an incidental development. The changes to the Violence Against Women Act made during the Clinton administration had the effect of lowering the standard of evidence for the granting of Domestic Violence Protective Orders from the "preponderance of the evidence" (a more than 50% chance that the allegations were true) to the "subjective fear of the woman" - which could mean anything, including that somebody unfortunately mixed an Effexor and a Prozac today. Such an unheard-of lowering of the standards of evidence could only have the effect of encouraging false allegations - and consequently resulting in unjust prosecutions and convictions.
When you are right, you do not have to lie in order to make your point. The Ninth Commandment, as a basic precept of both moral righteousness and of a civilized society, still forbids the lodging of false complaints - whether the issue is money, children, politics, or merely getting one's own way. I could go on about the reverse discrimination implicit in affirmative action programs pushed by women's groups, but what I've said is more than enough to demonstrate that the agenda of feminism is wholly unjust.
4) Feminism is wrong because it is untrue. Every single statement made by feminists over the years has eventually been revealed to have been hyped up, at the least, and blatantly false, at the worst. From the so-called "Wage Gap" (which does not exist - women who have worked at the same job the same number of hours and the same number of years as their male counterparts make 98 cents on the dollar - a difference that is statistically negligible) to the early-90s myth that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women in America," everything that fits the feminist agenda is either blatantly untrue, illogical, or unproven.
Duke Lacrosse, anyone?
5) Feminism is wrong because it is neurotic. Carey Roberts has written an article on ifeminists.com (see www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0607roberts.html ) titled "Is Feminism a Mental Disorder? Of course, it is, and he especially identifies a neurotic condition which he labels "Domestic Violence Hysteria," which he considers to be "highly contagious."
Mrs. Dale O'Leary has written an article titled "Radical Feminism as a psychological disorder" (www.tldm.org/News11/RadicalFeminismPsychologicalDisorder.htm ) in which she proposes that feminism is a "psychological disorder caused by two generations of unforgiveness in the maternal line."
She notes that psychological health, for women, depends on a healthy relationship with the male authority figures in their lives - particularly with one's father. Dominating grandmothers, with imitation by a girl's mother, produces such broken relationships with men that only hatred ensues and adherence to feminism is born. The hatred which is so evident in feminism is, of course, the hatred of the scorned lover, as the feminist wishes for the love of a father or father-figure (such as a powerful husband capable of supplying her with both wisdom and leadership), but because she has an irrational fear of all but the wimpiest of men (since both her grandfather and father were such), she is continually frustrated and angry.
The cure for feminism, the psychological disorder? According to O'Leary it is the forgiveness of both parents (the wimpy father and the passive-aggressive or merely aggressive mother) and the enjoyment of the leadership of a strong man.
Finally, Charles Corry, Ph.D., labels feminism as simple "misandry," and calls it an unstable philosophical framework through which to understand the world (see www.dvmen.org/dv-121.htm ). This, of course, would indicate why so many women today are - unstable.
6) Feminism is sociopathic. The basic characteristic of the sociopath is the inability to recognize any authority above his own wants and perceived needs. The sociopath is willing, for instance to deal drugs (against society's mores) and murder customers who have not paid for such or perhaps murder competing drug dealers simply because that is his job. He is a drug dealer, and he murders in the same way that the factory worker punches a time clock - without remorse or consideration of consequences.
It is undeniable that 4,400 times a day in America since Roe v. Wade, women have willingly destroyed innocent children in the womb for the mere opportunity to escape from responsibility. It is undeniable that the more feminism advances, the more social problems such as crime, psychological disorders, and welfarism explode. The social, moral, and psychological carnage is revealed in the millions of children left fatherless by feminism's attack on the family, the millions of men falsely accused of crimes by neurotic women or merely treated as ATM machines by society, by the dissolution of millions of families and the consequent personal and economic carnage that has followed in its wake.
But perhaps most sadly are the thousands of women who realize, too late, that feminism has sold them a bill of goods. Women who realize that they were a sucker play in someone else's chess game - women who no man will now have, who deal with the guilt of their attack on perhaps the one man who ever loved them and their children, and who face the future alone - cast off by those shelter workers who years ago promised them that if they left their husbands, everything would be all right.
Feminism destroys everything that it touches, because it is fully evil. Men, children, families, the very fabric of society. But because there is a force out there - call it God or Karma or whatever - in the end, those men and those children whom feminism has attempted to destroy can ultimately rise above the evil of feminism. But the women who choose the "easy" path offered by feminism end up alone, overmedicated, infertile, rejected, and with a weight of guilt almost impossible to shed.
There may well be justice in this world....
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Are Men, or Women, Mediocre?
I admit it is, on the face of it, a stupid question. "Mediocre," as a concept, refers to a relation to the mean or average, and when one takes a category as broad as "men" or "women," it is impossible to relate it to the mean or average since the category itself comprises the mean or average.
However, it is a question that I was recently asked by a woman. "Why are there so many mediocre men in the world?" And my response was, of course, "How do you know it isn't the women who are mediocre?"
She meant, of course, that in her quest to locate the perfect man, she was running into dozens upon dozens of men whom she considers to be woefully inadequate. And my response, of course, was intended to sensitize her to the fact that it may not be the men she is running into that are the problem - maybe it is the standard she is using to judge, or (horrors!) maybe it is the judge herself!
However, it is a question that I was recently asked by a woman. "Why are there so many mediocre men in the world?" And my response was, of course, "How do you know it isn't the women who are mediocre?"
She meant, of course, that in her quest to locate the perfect man, she was running into dozens upon dozens of men whom she considers to be woefully inadequate. And my response, of course, was intended to sensitize her to the fact that it may not be the men she is running into that are the problem - maybe it is the standard she is using to judge, or (horrors!) maybe it is the judge herself!
In my counseling, I often see women whose expectations regarding relationships are imbalanced, to say the least, and outrageous, to say the most. Again, my counseling experience goes back 20 years, and I can honestly say that it is worse today than it was in, say, 1988.
Women come into relationships with two influences present, and one influence lacking, which makes it absolutely impossible for them to build a quality relationship as they once did in the past. The two influences that are present are feminism and the media (which I often refer to as Oprah, in recognition that all mainstream media today is a progenitor of watered-down feminism and is female-centered), and the influence that is lacking is a religion, a coherent philosophy, or some other dominant worldview that is actually attached to reality.
Women today expect for their relationships to make them happy. Happiness, of course, is not a goal (both religion and classical philosophy recognize this) but is rather a byproduct of making correct choices and of fulfilling one's duty. Yet feminism, and our feminist culture represented by the media, teaches women that they have no responsibility that they are obligated to fulfill. Don't want a baby? Abort it. Don't want your husband? Leave, and use the power of the state to get him out of your hair! Want his money but not his presence? Don't worry, child support and alimony will relieve you of the duty of providing for a family and false allegations of child abuse or domestic violence will allow you to keep your kids. Women expect, because both Oprah and Sex in the City tell them it is so, to have the world (i.e., men) catering to their every whim for as long as they (men) are wanted, then to meekly walk away when they are no longer needed. But don't forget to mail that check!
Because women no longer have any duties (so society tells them), they cannot properly understand what it means to love another person. Love is, after all, not an emotion, but it is rather a settled commitment to be loyal, faithful, and act in another's best interest even when your emotions may make it difficult for you to do so. Because women are no longer capable of love, they spend their years flitting from one unfulfilling relationship to another all the while wondering what it is that is wrong with men. Why don't men want relationships? Why can't men make them feel loved? But of course, those of us who are men - who learned to love our fellowman in the military, on football fields, and in the workplace - understand that we only FEEL acceptance when we have committed our loyalty to something larger than ourselves. Since feminism and the media tells women that there is nothing larger than themselves and their notional fancies (which change from moment to moment), women - to the extent that they buy into feminism and the dominant feminist culture (whether they consider themselves to be feminists or not) are incapable of finding the one thing that they seek: a loving, stable relationship.
The problem is, the problem isn't the men. Men are getting the blame - just as Nazis gave the blame to Jews - but the blame belongs firmly with women themselves, whose character, development, and ability to love has been compromised by feminism. So there is an endless cycle of blaming, resentment, fear, and frustration that women feel toward the men in their lives which undermines every single relationship in which they engage. Yet the perceived problems never find resolution because the perceived problems (men) are not the real problem (women’s buying into feminist fallacies) – and no matter how many times you attack the wrong problem, it isn’t going to solve the real one.
The other dynamic that I have noticed is something that became plain to me one night while at a club. There was a Country & Western song that was popular some time back, called, I think, "I Ain't Settlin'," in which a band of foxy female country music singers extol their own virtues and warble on about how just any old man will not do for them - in other words, they refuse to settle for anything other than the greatest man on earth.
However, I noted while working in the club that, though this song was generally popular, it tended to be popular with women who were about four feet eleven ,weighing approximately 200 pounds, with A-cups for breasts, nappy hair, no job, a passel of kids, thrice-divorced, and a face not wholly unlike that of the average hedgehog.
Now sure, if you are 5'8 with DD breasts, a multimillion dollar income from country music, and a body and face that causes premature ejaculation as you walk down the street, it is easy to sing, "I ain't settling." The problem is, that snotty attitude that "I am too good for the average guy" has been internalized, because it is constantly promoted in the media, by the female population at large, who really can't get away with it. Frankly, for the average women who sings "I Ain't Settlin'", the average guy would be selling himself quite short.
So, it is to a certain extent a problem that is innate to women. Women tend to be emotional and vain. That has always been true. The real problem, though, is that feminism has come along and told them that they are justified in their vanity and told them that what they want emotionally is more important than life as it really exists. Women have bought this bill of goods by the millions.
And therefore it is women, not men, who are the problem. And if a solution to the widespread social ills, as well as the personal struggles of women, is to be found, it will be found consequent to a change from women themselves.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
To Be A Feminist....
To be a feminist, one must believe the following:
* Murder of the innocent unborn is good, and false allegations levied against innocent men are good, but the prosecution of Crystal Gail Mangum would be a setback for women's rights.
* Women are capable of doing anything that men can do, therefore standards must be lowered in Business School, Law School, Medical School, the military, police departments, and fire departments so that more women can be allowed to do what men are already doing.
* Women never lie about rape, but when they do, they should not face any consequences lest some other woman be discouraged from also lying about rape.
* Feminists respect diversity, unless a woman chooses to be an Evangelical Christian and a stay-at-home mom, in which case she is to be ridiculed.
* Feminists are righteous for insisting on the easy availability of sex for unmarried women, and men are goons for treating women like objectifiable sex objects.
* Women are enslaved by their dependence upon a husband for income and protection, but are set free by their dependence upon government for income and protection.
* The male patriarchy oppresses women, which is why ex-husbands must be exploited for child support and alimony under threat of governmental force.
* Women are capable of fighting in combat, but must be protected from a "hostile work environment" produced by bikini calendars.
* Women are capable of leading the world as President of the U.S., but are victims of "domestic violence" if a man fails to "properly regard their feelings."
* Men and women are the same, except that women never lie, are more nurturing, are more peaceful, are better communicators, and have an intuition that can be trusted in everything from workplace politics to international relations. However, men and women are the same - except where women are superior.
* Murder of the innocent unborn is good, and false allegations levied against innocent men are good, but the prosecution of Crystal Gail Mangum would be a setback for women's rights.
* Women are capable of doing anything that men can do, therefore standards must be lowered in Business School, Law School, Medical School, the military, police departments, and fire departments so that more women can be allowed to do what men are already doing.
* Women never lie about rape, but when they do, they should not face any consequences lest some other woman be discouraged from also lying about rape.
* Feminists respect diversity, unless a woman chooses to be an Evangelical Christian and a stay-at-home mom, in which case she is to be ridiculed.
* Feminists are righteous for insisting on the easy availability of sex for unmarried women, and men are goons for treating women like objectifiable sex objects.
* Women are enslaved by their dependence upon a husband for income and protection, but are set free by their dependence upon government for income and protection.
* The male patriarchy oppresses women, which is why ex-husbands must be exploited for child support and alimony under threat of governmental force.
* Women are capable of fighting in combat, but must be protected from a "hostile work environment" produced by bikini calendars.
* Women are capable of leading the world as President of the U.S., but are victims of "domestic violence" if a man fails to "properly regard their feelings."
* Men and women are the same, except that women never lie, are more nurturing, are more peaceful, are better communicators, and have an intuition that can be trusted in everything from workplace politics to international relations. However, men and women are the same - except where women are superior.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
How Feminism Corrupts Women
A lot of men today are seeking to find wives outside of the United States. There is a widespread perception that Asian and Eastern European women are better life mates because they have not been polluted with the false philosophy of feminism.
Let's put that idea to the test, shall we?
It appears that, in fact, feminism DOES corrupt women, and that those least touched by feminism make the best mates!
;)
Let's put that idea to the test, shall we?
It appears that, in fact, feminism DOES corrupt women, and that those least touched by feminism make the best mates!
;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
