Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 4762

Women do not lie about rape. We all know that because the feminists have told us that it is so.

And if a woman ever lies about rape, she is a liar, but not because she lied about rape. Rather, she is a liar because she lied about lying about rape. For the one thing that we know (because feminists have told us so!) is that women do not lie about rape. We have yet to receive a similar memo on whether women lie about lying.

Women, of course, know that there is far too high a social cost to lying about rape. For instance, they might be charged with a crime. Oh, wait.... Well, anyway, everybody immediately blames her for being raped, like in the Duke Lacrosse and Hofstra cases. Oh, waitaminnit.... Well, of course, her sexual history is then explored.... Dang! Duke Lacrosse again!

Well, at any rate, women have no reason to lie about rape. I mean, it's not like they would lie about rape to try to extort money from somebody. And a woman would never lie to make a political point. And a woman would never lie to simply be vindictive. And no woman is vile enough to make stuff up during a custody battle, divorce, or similar legal proceeding. And of course, women are so morally evolved that they would never even think of lying about rape in order to excuse their own questionable behavior. And of course, it is the height of misogyny to believe that a woman might level charges that could expose an innocent man to dozens of years in prison merely to get something as worthless as, oh, say, a day off from work?

Well, now we can add one more reason why a woman would have no reason to lie about rape: to get her own sorry rear out of trouble!

Turns out a 15-year old in the Carrick section of Pittsburgh, PA, recently told cops that some loathsome figures had kidnapped her, spirited her away in the back of a van, and raped her in the privacy of the woods.

Is this the part where we add the obligatory "she feared for her life!"???

The truth?

Our repugnant little minor had been feuding with ol' Mom and Dad. She took off, no doubt thinking, "I'll show THEM a thing or two!" But when she realized she didn't have a job, didn't have a place to live, her various boyfriends' parents might not take her in, and no offers to be CEO of major corporations (or even to teach Women's Studies at Yale! the utter inhumanity!) were incoming, she decided it might be a good idea to make her way back home.

Problem: How to avoid being grounded until 2015?

Ahhhhh! I know, I'll become a victim!

For, being a public school student (no doubt), our repugnant little minor has long ago learned the central issue of all of feminism: victims are not responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be punished!

And who best fits this profile?

Crystal Gail Mangum... Danmell Ndonye... you get the idea. When a woman makes a false allegation of rape, domestic violence, abuse, or sexual harassment, she is not a perpetrator of the crime of perjury, she is a victim. Someone to be pitied and treated, not punished. A false allegation of rape is a free pass out of whatever trouble may be ailing you!

Our children have learned well the lessons of feminism. And feminism has successfully enabled those who are willing to slanderously destroy others for even the smallest of rewards. You shouldn't have to suffer being grounded, punished, disciplined, or corrected honey - just slander and you can have your way.

If she were my kid, she'd be grounded till 2015....

I'm a Slanderer, but it's All About You! (nazipig!)

Recently, an intellectually vacant femtard (is there any other kind?) on Twitter (@AngelFury) retweeted a notice sure to motivate to anger any and all similarly intellectually vacant femtards (is there any other kind?)...

RT @Crimeandrape: "Rape Video 4 Arrested, 5th Sought in Hofstra Gang Rape: 4 Arrested, 5th Sought in http://shortText.com/cibw4436l

This "tweet" was sent, by the time log on her Twitter page, at 8:57 a.m. on September 26th. Notice that the link to the story that she retweeted contains a video presentation by (presumed) news reporter Bonnie Ghosh. The video begins with "She was tied up in a men's bathroom stall, where five men, one by one, would rape her...."

The video continuously rotates pictures of the four men who were arrested and includes comments from students who know them.

Of course, the problem is that in the early morning hours of September 16th-17th, slandering wench Danmell Ndonye had admitted that her flight of Satanic fancy had all been made up.

Being the public-spirited and civic-minded citizen that I am, I immediately tweeted to @AngelFury that she was now a participant in an ongoing slander of innocent men.

Now, of course, reasonable and moral person would not only delete the tweet, but would apologize profusely, or at least say something like "Thanks for letting me know! I wasn't aware that case had already been settled and didn't mean to heap accusations upon the innocent!"

But of course, feminists are neither reasonable nor moral.

Instead, what I got back from @AngelFury (perhaps she needs to go to anger management classes?) was this:

@objectifychicks #neonazipig | what evea! ur nailed. hope they serve beer in hell bozo!

Now, notice the moral void that is the feminist:

1) Slander means nothing to the feminist, and it is engaged in knowingly and willingly. Note too, that if you visit the Twitter profile page of @AngelFury, she seems all about the current Domestic Violence Hysteria (you can almost hear the heavy breathing soundtrack simply by reading her tweets!). Not only did she perpetrate a lie (all in the service of the "higher truth" of Domestic Violence [sic] no doubt!), but when confronted with the proof that it was a lie, she refused to delete the tweet or apologize or admit that she had slandered the innocent. This is, of course, the mindset that is bred in the emotional cripples that are feminists - all women are victims, even when they admit that they are not victims, and a few innocent men in jail is no big deal because they all raped someone at some point anyway....

2) Responsibility is a concept utterly foreign to the femtard. When SHE lies and slanders: "UR NAILED!" Huh? I am nailed for pointing out that SHE was wrong? But of course, this is feminist (a)moral judo at work - the feminist has never done anything wrong. If she slanders her husband with false allegations of domestic violence, HE was nonetheless "controlling" and deserved what he got. If she is confronted with the silliness of her emotional feminist screeds and the unsustainability of her femtard logic, then YOU are "demeaning" her. If she makes up stories out of whole cloth to perpetrate a rape myth, it is SOCIETY'S fault for placing women in such a vulnerable position. She is, of course, mentally ill - not responsible for her actions.

3) Notice the complete lack of ability to frame an intellectual response. No facts. No justification. No explanation. Not even correct spelling. Just "what evea" and the ever-present assault of "Nazi." It has always been entertaining to me, as an observation of the phenomenon of "projection" at work, that femtards don't quite seem to realize that "Nazi" is short for National Socialism - emphasis on Socialism - which is the very ideology subscribed to by feminists in the world today. It is, after all, not males or even conservatives that are engaged in a Nazi-like quest to wipe out an entire population - it is the feminists, who agitate in favor of the murder of more than 4,000 unborn babies per day since Roe v. Wade. It is neither men nor conservatives who are in favor of unconstitutional Star Chambers in which there is only the presumption of guilt in the accused - this is rather the family law system under the domination of feminists. This looks far more like the political prosecutions of Nazis than anything modern men or conservatives have done. And the demonization of men is quite like the demonization Hitler accomplished against the Jews, and the fascistic control of private property through regulatory means is something agitated for both by 1930s Nazis and the feminist population today. But I (slightly) digress.

4) Note the moral sanctimony of the femtard. "Hope they serve beer in hell, bozo!" Of course, implying that I will be in Hell to discover if this rumor is true. Now, I honestly have my faults - I truly do. But I wonder if @AngelFury has ever heard the old saw, "Take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you concern yourself with the speck of dust in a non-femtard's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5)? Yet, as I earnestly and honestly examine my own life, I can honestly say that I have never murdered or tolerated those who do in violation of the command "Thou shalt not kill." I can honestly say I have never perjured myself in court nor tolerated those who do in violation of the command "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I have never attempted to sever the relationship between a parent and a child or urge that child to despise a parent or make false allegations against him (always him, right ladies?), in violation of the command to "Honor thy father and mother." I have never used trumped up domestic violence or abuse charges in an attempt to gain or retain custody or in a power grab for property in violation of the command "Thou shalt not covet" or "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff, including those people that rightly belong in his life."

Who exactly is the @Angel here, and who exactly is likely to taste the @FuryofGod?

Note how slander, irrationality, hate speech, and moral emptiness characterize even the common femtard (I have no reason to believe that @AngelFury is in leadership at NOW or anything, and am assuming that she is a typical grassroots feminist.). It is not possible to maintain that moral corruption and intellectual vacuity is the exclusive domain of a radical fringe of feminists anymore - the feminist movement has succeeded in transforming even its grassroots into moral hazards.

Feminists, enjoy the upcoming comfortable winter - eternity is long, and Hell is rumored to be hot, with or without the beer.

The Shame Project: Calling a Bulldykefemtard a Bulldykefemtard

Before there was political correctness, there was shame. And shame kept a lot of people from doing a lot of stupid things and ascribing to a lot of stupid stuff.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am in favor of everybody's right to believe all the stupid stuff they want to believe (after all, there are Jehovah's Witnesses out there!), but I also am in favor of everybody else's right to say to the idiots of the world (to find them, ask whether they voted for Barack Obama): "Your beliefs are incoherent and you act like a retard!"

And of course, prior to the 1990s, there was a very effective social mechanism in place to make sure that people didn't screw up - and if they did screw up, they were thereafter rightfully labeled as a "Screw-Up." It was called shame. Calling a spade a spade. Truth in labeling.

This was a great inconvenience to liberals, as the 1980s had thoroughly proven that every single tenet of liberalism was wrong - laughably wrong. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured the world that the Soviets could not be resisted, and had formed the ridiculous slogan (ever notice that all liberalism is built upon sloganeering rather than thinking?) "Better Red than dead!", after Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II, Bush the Senior, and others had successfully conspired to topple the Berlin wall, were now agitating to spend the "peace dividend" on pet welfare schemes. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured us of a coming Ice Age due to our use of hairspray in the 1970s, discovered that the real threat was "Global Warming" (and have since decided trying to pin the whole project down in terms of "hot" or "cold" is a vain pursuit and relabeled the whole shindig "Climate Change"). The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had warned us that without high taxes, deficit spending, and governmental hyper-regulation of the economy, there would be economic carnage, then found themselves reduced to begging to incorporate the high tax revenues gleaned from tax cuts into greater and greater social welfare schemes.

And those same semi-retarded liberal politicians who, a few years before, had been agitating for the release of the mentally ill from mental hospitals in the name of "human rights" then found themselves complaining about the horrible chaos of all the crazy homeless folks living on the street.

Now, all of these events truly happened. They happened just the way I say they happened. Everybody who was awake during the period stretching from 1970-2009 knows that they happened in exactly this way. One would think that after such catastrophic institutional failure on the part of semi-retarded liberal politicians (which have never had an idea that has worked in the history of mankind) and such astounding successes by the conservative/libertarian philosophy (which has worked in every instance it has been tried), there would be a severe crisis of credibility for semi-retarded liberal politicians.

Yet the truth is that the White House is now inhabited by a the greatest example of a semi-retarded liberal politician of all time: Barack Obama. How did this happen? How is it that, after a history of such incomprehensible failure, semi-retarded liberal politicians still have any credibility left.

Well, in the 1990s, semi-retarded liberal academics (more specifically, feminists) noticed that the world wasn't quite going the way they had intended. And it hurt them to have to face the music. Oh, it hurt them. It hurt their feelings to believe in liberalism and have to deal with all the cocky conservatives walking about reminding them of the absolute failure of their philosophy and the absolute incoherence of their positions. And we all know that the one thing that a woman can't stand is to have her feelings hurt.

Rather than face the truth with courage (impossible for a feminist or liberal, since both are ideological positions built on cowardice and the rejection of reality) and modify their positions to something coherent, feminists came up with a more excellent strategy for not getting their feelings hurt: make it illegal (and to some extent immoral) to say anything that might hurt their feelings. In 1990 there were only 75 speech codes at colleges nationally, by 1991 this number ballooned to over 400.

It is important to note that speech codes and political correctness do not, as is commonly asserted, function to put a leash on genuinely offensive speech (such as "The N-word" and other fighting words), but are rather designed as an Anti-Truth-in-Labeling-Act. The purpose of speech codes and political correctness is to keep those who are right from confronting those who are wrong. For instance...

* Texas A&M's speech code protects "personal feelings" in an attempt to prevent "indignity of any type."

* Ohio State University's speech code seeks to prevent communications which "threaten... emotional harm."

* Davidson College's Sexual Harrassment policy forbids "patronizing remarks" including "comments or inquiries about dating."

* Emory University's speech code prevents any speech or conduct that might be interpreted as "demeaning" to certain privileged groups.

* The University of Connecticut prohibits the "use of derogatory names [or] inappropriately directed laughter."

Speech codes have been used to prevent the showing of Mel Gibson's Christian epic, The Passion of the Christ. Let not your heart be troubled, though, dear reader. For at one college, the same faculty that forbade The Passion of the Christ was nevertheless reasonable enough to allow - during the same time period! - a skit titled "F*cking for Jesus" which glorified masturbation to an oil painting of Jesus Christ.

The purpose, then, of speech codes has nothing to do with preventing genuinely offensive speech (else any production containing the word "F*cking," whether or not it had anything to do with blasphemy, would be barred). It is rather a tool of the socialist left designed to foster...

the growing dominance of the left in higher education, and to [enable them to act upon] their belief that it was their function to reengineer society, starting with students’ interior beliefs and moving outward.

Speech codes are, then, instruments of social engineering - and a peculiar type of social engineering. It is an attempt to feminize the world.

What? asks the Dear Reader, how is it that females or feminists get the blame for all the horrific speech codes of the world?

First, as a historical phenomenon, note that speech codes, by those who favor them, are said to have originated, at least partly, to the increased and open presence of females and gays (who generally share a female outlook) in the university.

Secondly, which gender warbles on endlessly about "feelings?" See the speech code snippets above.

Thirdly, who has a proven record of being willing to sacrifice truth for tolerance - as long as the "tolerance" in question is of their own beliefs, and not the factual statements of others?

Note the connection, now, between shame as a social force restraining stupidity and the presence of speech codes. Speech codes were enacted, largely at the behest of women who were tired of having their beliefs mocked in academe, to protect their own feelings - not as a means of seeking truth or even of preventing genuine offense. Feminists would simply rather not be confronted with the truth because the truth doesn't support any of their positions. Therefore, they have made the truth expendable - indeed, in a sense, they have made it illegal.

Think this is all a stretch, Dear Reader? Consider...

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are fit to fight on the front lines in combat and that placing a bikini calendar on one's cubicle wall at the office creates a "hostile work environment." I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if you can't endure the hostility of a bikini calendar on the wall, then enduring the hostility of exploding shells and a bayonet fight may be asking a bit much.

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are capable of doing anything that a man can do while asking that admissions and promotion standards be lowered (only for women, mind you!) in police departments, fire departments, the military, law schools, medical schools, and business schools so that women can attain representation equal to that of men. I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if women are, in fact, capable of doing everything that a man can do, then all that needs to be done is for women to live up to the standards that men are already attaining.

* Feminists maintain, in the wake of overwhelming evidence (including Duke Lacrosse, Hofstra, the statements of professional statisticians, studies conducted by the U.S. Air Force, and legal practitioners generally) that women do not lie about rape, sexual harassment, abuse, and domestic violence. In fact, individual studies show that the false allegation rate extends anywhere from 20% to 60% or more (see the above studies) for these feminist-favored allegations - whereas the rate of false reporting for all other crimes is between 2% and 4% per annum.

* Feminists maintain that men and women are the same in every way, except that women are more nurturing, more cooperative, more peaceful, more wise, more....

You get the idea. Add to the above that feminism's assertions of men and women's sameness are called "mindless" by scholars and that even feminist "scholars" [sic] themselves admit that the Domestic Violence Hysteria is junk science, and you have a pretty thick soup of mental retardation. It is starting to make sense why feminists (and other liberals, certainly) would not want their beliefs scrutinized and challenged.

Now, of course, these speech codes originate on campus. But remember that the real purpose of speech codes was not to regulate genuinely offensive speech (remember "F*cking Jesus"?) but to keep semi-retarded liberals and feminists particularly from being shown to be the utter and complete fools that they are - and by that means, to fashion a "safe place" for femtards to prosper and brainwash a generation of children into believing that there actually might be something to their incoherent and already-disproven political positions. It was, as quoted above, a process designed to change "students' interior beliefs and move outward."

And of course, this plan has succeeded, because now speech codes not only dominate campus, but they dominate the thinking of the marketplace. How many times have you found yourself relating a story, discussing evidence, or relating a truth to someone only to be met with a condemnatory sigh and something muttered containing the word "stereotypical"? Note that one can now be accused of "hate speech" at a party or joshing around with friends.

Those who are wrong have seized control of the language at the expense of all truth.

Meanwhile, what is the truth about feminists?

* Though they assert that they are more nurturing than men, they are, in fact, murderers. Four thousand times a day since Roe v. Wade, the feminist project has focused on maintaining the right to abort a fetus (the Latin term for "baby," I bet no feminist was ever honest with you about that!) - often in the most macabre ways, at any time during a pregnancy, and with government funding!

* Though they assert that they have higher conceptions of justice than society at large, they tolerate and encourage the leveling of false allegations against men, resulting in thousands of men each year being charged with acts of violence of which they are not guilty. Conveniently, rape shield laws prevent all necessary information from being presented that might be exculpatory to the accused, domestic violence laws lower the standard of evidence to the ridiculous level of "the subjective fear of the woman," and over and over again we are told that the prosecution of those who make false allegations will "prevent other victims from coming forward." Oddly, we do not seem to believe that prosecuting people for insurance fraud will prevent the filing of genuine insurance claims, nor do we seem to believe that prosecuting people for perjury will prevent people from testifying in court generally.

* Though they assert that they love children, they not only murder them by the multiplied millions but their entire program has the goal of placing children in the most dangerous place on earth for a child to be - in a home headed by a single mother.

* Though they assert that they do not press a radical homosexual agenda, they foster ridiculous fears of men in the mind of emotionally and intellectually weak women, they present divorce as the first (and necessary) solution to a woman's problems, and they foster an entire industry (the Domestic Violence Industry) devoted to severing women from men and making those same women dependent upon radical feminism, psychiatrists, and the state. And of course, it is a common feminist project of the day to "reclaim" such words as "queer" and to agitate in favor of gay marriage and gay rights generally.

* And following closely behind the above, while feminists promise a better society, and on that ensures equality for all, in fact they have destroyed the very foundations of society in destroying the family, destroying academia (through the perpetration of ignorance as education), destroying the media, and destroying the legal system. The time for moderation is long past. It is time to put the NOW harpies back in their place.

So the truth about feminism is somewhat different than what would produce high esteem - in fact, the truth about feminism (and all liberals, of course) is what might be considered to be "demeaning": Feminists are intellectually vacant, slandering, murdering Bull Dykes.

See why they have a vested interest in controlling the language? Any truth uttered against a feminist would certainly hurt their feelings!

So here is my somewhat modest proposal. Every person on earth who believes and respects the truth should simply refuse to participate in anything that smacks of speech codes anymore. Now, I am not suggesting that you get yourself kicked out of school or fired from your job. Let's face it, there are lots of things you don't have perfect freedom to do in life - if you work for Ross Perot you can't have facial hair. Hey, it's his business, he can run it the way he wants.

But there are thousands of social interactions and venues that we each inhabit each day in which free speech is theoretically guaranteed, from the local church to the local mall to Twitter and Facebook. In every place in which one is legitimately free to talk, I propose that those who respect the truth begin to respond to feminists in the only way that is fitting: harshly.

It is time that their emotional tomfoolery be identified as intellectually vacant: I suggest the judicious use of the term femtard. It is time that their murderous self-centeredness be called what it is: Refuse to use the term Pro-Choice, they are Pro-Abortion and Murderers (though I think an interesting "twofer" could be had in feminizing that label as Murderesses - a politically incorrect coup d'etat!). They are not feminists, they are Bull Dykes.

The point I am making is certainly not the adoption of a certain list of labels - there is much room for creativity. My point is really this: We who know the facts and respect the truth often believe that if we meet feminists on the ground of facts, logic, and gentility that we can persuade them to embrace the truth (of which there is only one, and they don't have it). But this project of trying to treat feminists as if they are intellectually capable of responding to the truth has failed.

And to say that it has failed is not merely to discuss an academic topic. While we have been busy treating feminists with respect and responding defensively to their accusations of being "demeaning" in our truth-telling, they have been busy murdering the unborn, tossing innocent men in jail, ripping up the foundations of society, and destroying men, women, and children at every turn.

My question to those who believe the truth is this: Which is worse, to "demean" a feminist, or to kill 4,000 children per day and to toss thousands of innocent men per year into jail?

It is time for us to realize that we have enabled the wholesale slaughter of children and the corruption of our culture and the legal system by showing moderation in dealing with that which is pure evil. We have enabled pure evil by allowing it to masquerade behind a cloak of respectability. No more. Every time we are in the presence of pure evil (and all feminists are evil, in the same way that a guy who joins the Nazi party because he appreciates the job opportunities, even though he doesn't agree with all that Jew-hating and world-domination stuff, is evil in that he associates with evil and in that he empowers evil with his mere presence), we should simply mock it. We should attack it intellectually, label it, demean it, and mock it until we make it afraid to ever show its vicious head in public again.

It is time for us to reclaim the powerful corrective of shame. It is time for us to emblazon the foolishness and immorality of all feminists in sky and proclaim it from the housetops. It is time for civil society to stop treating those who are wrong as if their position matters. Sure, they have a right to be wrong... but we have a right, and a responsibility, to insidiously and consistently mock them for being willfully ignorant.

It is time for truth to be restored to the language and the culture. It is time to once again return to the judicious use of shame.

They are, after all, only Bull Dyke Femtards, and should be treated as such.

Guest Column: Allaboutcounseling.com - Misandry and Manipulation

Allaboutcounseling.com is
All About the Abusive
Manipulation of Clients.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

By Paul Elam

ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM

ALL ABOUT MANIPULATION OF CLIENTS

I recently posted the following article to my website, avoiceformen.com. I also sent an email to all the mental health professionals from the state of California that are listed on that site informing them of ethical breeches and advising them that it was my intent to expose those breeches to the public at large with every measure at my disposal.

ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM

ABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF CLIENTS

I recently posted the following article to my website, avoiceformen.com. I also sent an email to all the mental health professionals from the state of California that are listed on that site informing them of the ethical breeches and advising them that it was my intent to expose those breeches to the public at large with every measure at my disposalABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF CLIENTS I recently posted the following article to my website, avoiceformen.com. I also sent an email to all the mental health professionals from the state of California that are listed on that site informing them of the ethical breeches and advising them that it was my intent to expose those breeches to the public at large with every measure at my disposal.

Subsequently I have received several emails from those listed advising me that they were terminating their affiliation with the site. It is time, especially after conferring with Publisher Mike LaSalle, to provide even more incentive.

Here is the article I referenced, followed by the email I sent them. After the 30 days have elapsed, I will write an update to this story and will include the name and contact information for all mental health professionals from California still affiliated with ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM

I urge all MRA’s to post this article to their blogs and websites, and to use the keywords “counseling” “client abuse” and other similar phrases for the benefit of search engine results that will tie the disinformation on the site and its unethical practices directly to it’s subscribers.

Here is the original article:

ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM IS ALL ABOUT ABUSE

Most of the mental health related “helping professions” e.g., psychotherapists, social workers, psychologists and counselors, have a code of ethics that guides their professional conduct. They are sworn, supposedly at the risk of their professional licenses, to follow the ethical mandates of that code in how they conduct their practices and in their relationships with clients.

The rules require them to maintain objectivity, to offer accurate information to the best of their ability and to act in the clients best interests at all times.

Failing to do that is considered professional abuse and is subject to sanctions. In most places, professionals are admonished to take all this into account regarding their professional affiliations as well.

In other words, aligning themselves with other professionals or organizations that act to the detriment of those ethical standards is strictly forbidden.

Why then, one must wonder, are there so many therapists that get client referrals though the website that operates under the name ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM?

ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM is on the surface a simple referral resource for helping people find mental health services, and for connecting mental health professionals to possible clients.

What is disturbing is that the site doubles as a tool for the political indoctrination of prospective clients. They weave information on mental health services with a pro-feminist and overtly anti-male agenda, and target that message at people who are logically presumed to be at highly vulnerable points in their lives.

ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM quotes statistics on issues like rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence and even alleged wage gap information. Almost all of it is wildly inaccurate and misleading, much of it without the benefit of research sources. Most of this “information” has been thoroughly debunked by sound and unbiased research so its presence on the site can only be interpreted as calculated to deceive.

For example, they state that half of all marriages experience domestic violence, a complete falsehood. The Centers for Disease Control put the percentage at less than one quarter, and many other valid studies point to even less frequency.

The site erroneously claims throughout in the information pages that it is almost exclusively women that are the victims of that violence and that the small fraction of women who are violent only commit that violence in self defense.

Women who are victims of violence are a serious problem, but they won’t be helped with deceptive propaganda that is designed more to indoctrinate than it is to help. And this is where ethical violations are quite clear.

ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM proffers a redundant message that demonizes men, and paints women as victims in every way imaginable. And intertwined with their entire body of false statistics and misleading statements are pitches for feminism, dangling the philosophy like a carrot before clients with the unmistakable implication that it is an integral part of the overall mental health picture for women.

Think about what that means. People come to the website, usually in enough emotional pain to make them vulnerable and impressionable, and rather than offering an objective, truthful and beneficial doorway into improved living, the authors of the site exploit that pain and vulnerability in order to further their own political agenda.

What would you think of a psychotherapist that implies to their clients that some of the solutions to their emotional difficulties are to be found in the Republican Party? How about a solution that tells people that saving the environment will also save their marriage?

That is precisely the approach taken by ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM

Political organizations and philosophies are not considered a valid form of mental health treatment by caring, objective and competent professionals. In fact, the truly professional and skilled in the field would never associate themselves with such practices.

This insanity needs to end, and that starts with the professionals who list their services in the ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM directory.

Following is a list of said clinicians (original article only) from the state of California, with their names and contact information as listed in the directory.

I will start with them, sending and email and a link to this article and an explanation of why they should divest themselves from ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM

It is hard to know how many of them are aware of the breeches in ethics on the site, but they will after being contacted.

Footnote: When the time has expired for the California listings, I will move on to the other states and Europe on an accelerated schedule.

Here is the email sent to those listed on allaboutcounseling.com:

Greetings,

I found your listing and contact information at allaboutcounseling.com.

I am not writing because I am having problems, but because you might be in the near future and I am looking for a way for you to avoid that.

I don’t know if you have carefully reviewed the material presented at allaboutcounseling.com, but it contains a good deal of disinformation and other aspects that are of ethical concern to me, and should be to you.

I explain this more completely in an article I wrote, to which you will find a link at the bottom of this message.

The main focus of that piece is that intertwining political indoctrination, e.g. radical feminism, with promoting overall mental health is patently unethical. And when you add to that the fact that much of the information used is misrepresented or outright fraudulent, it becomes both deceptive and abusive.

It has to stop.

Please keep in mind that I don’t write this with the idea that you personally are engaged in any such unethical behavior. I don’t know anything about you and would not proffer such maligning conjecture.

What I do know is that you are listed on that site, and by that fact your involvement is the impetus for their actions, and now for mine. Since I will be directing a substantial amount of energy at exposing that website for what it is doing, you and your reputation are subject to being collateral damage in the fallout.

Let me explain further.

Currently, the article below is published, with your name and practice information on my website. That, in and of itself, is harmless to you. But at the end of the 30 days, I am going to use my considerable reach on the internet to distribute the complete article in a wide variety of places. If you doubt my word when I say “considerable reach” just google my name. You won’t have to go through very many pages of results before it dawns on you just how significant this action is.

In the end the article will be exposed to many thousands of people. But that is still not your main concern.

The larger problem for you would come with search results.

Imagine that when people key in searches on counseling, allaboutcounseling.com, client abuse, or even your name or practice name, that the article mentioned pops up in the top tier of search results.

And I say all that with the understanding here that truly your biggest problem is that you have your name tagged on to a website that spreads lies and distortions while pretending to offer valid science.

As I said, I don’t know anything about you, so I really have no desire to cast a pallor over your professional reputation. But my work at exposing the hateful practices at allaboutcounseling.com will be launched full force regardless.

This would seem to me to leave you three options.

1. You can contact allaboutcounseling.com and advise them it is unethical for you to be listed on a site that spreads falsehoods to people at vulnerable points in their lives.

2. You can just have your listing there deleted.

3. You can ignore all of this and proceed at your own risk.

I think option number one is the best.

I am starting with California and this action will be expanded till I have covered every region in the allaboutcounseling.com registry.

And regardless of the outcome, my readers will love me for it and it will increase traffic

to my site all the more.

I urge you to consider whether your relationship with that particular referral resource is valuable enough to risk placing your practice in the middle of this campaign.

Ultimately, I think the best option is for the owners of allaboutcounseling.com to drop the sexist propaganda, present only valid information and quit trying to manipulate people who are in emotional turmoil. If they won’t do that, I will gladly settle for making it foolish for any credentialed professional to be associated with them.

Here is the piece mentioned

SPECIAL GUEST COLUMN BY Paul Elam, the Editor-in-Chief for Mens News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men

Women Don't Lie About Abuse - Chapter 3126

A blogger named planstoprosper, a neurotic lying woman who has just enough knowledge of the legal system to cry "child abuse" and then make herself judgment-proof, a messy divorce and custody battle, and a legal and cultural climate that encourages women to make false allegations in order to get their way... and what do you get?

1) Yet more evidence that feminists are in cartoon country when they allege that "women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse."
2) Enough objective evidence to keep in mind and take into the jury box any time you may be summoned for one of these kinds of cases.
3) An assurance that Objectify Chicks! isn't the only blog that cares about these types of cases.
4) A $1.2 million dollar verdict for defamation, uncollectable because the woman is judgment-proof.
5) A vicious, lying woman who maintains custody of the child.
6) No criminal charges.

Lesson to women: If you have to perjure yourself to get your way, it's worth the risk - as long as you have enough foresight to judgment-proof yourself. Because even when your perjury is discovered, district attorneys generally (though not always) will look askance lest they risk deterring other "victims" (!) from coming forward.

And the last paragraph is worth the price of reading the blog...

A false accusation of abuse is abuse. Victoria Douglas should be spending years in jail for what she has done to Rodd Sutton and his daughter.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 2478

"The reason feminism uncovered this reality [of male oppression], its methodological secret, is that feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men."

Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified



“It’s incumbent on us to believe what complainants tell us ... It’s a matter of support. They’re vulnerable.”

Sergeant Doug Smith, the cop who investigated the false charges against a Canadian Member of Parliament (who will remain nameless because he is the REAL victim), and levied felony charges against him despite the "victim's" inability to remember in which year the "rape" took place, despite the 15 drafts of the complaint that it took to work out all of the "victim's" inconsistent claims, and despite the fact that the "victim" had been previously convicted of lying about a Social Security scam and had falsely accused one of her bosses of sexual harassment.

From reports at WCBSTV.com.

Wrongly Named In Hofstra Rape: 'Happy To Go Home'

Charges Dropped Against 4 Men Under Arrest; Search For 5th Called Off

September 17, 2009, 9:22 A.M.

REPORTING: Magee Hickey

NEW YORK (CBS) ― Just minutes after the charges were dismissed against four men accused of gang-raping a Hofstra student, there were hugs and jubilation from family members as the quartet was released from the Nassau County Jail Wednesday night.

The bombshell admission that the 18-year-old Hofstra University woman had lied came when she was talking to prosecutors Wednesday, the Nassau County District Attorney's office said.

She told them she had made up the story that she had been gang-raped by five men in a dorm bathroom on Sunday. Instead, she said the whole sexual encounter had been consensual, something the four men had claimed at the time of their arrest.

"I'm happy that the truth is out, that we can clear our names. All of us have last names. All of us have families. I'm sure they were embarrassed. I'm just happy we're out of here, that you're here. That we can get our story told," said wrongly accused Kevin Taveras.

The 18-year-old woman at the center of the story has not been identified and the DA's office is now saying they've launched an investigation in her statements.

Hofstra Vice President of University Relations Melissa Connolly released the following statement:

To the Members of the Hofstra Community:

We have been notified by the Nassau County District Attorney's Office that the young woman involved in the alleged rape incident has recanted her claims against the five young men.

This week has been a very difficult one for our entire community, and we will need time to heal and understand the events of the last few days. As additional information becomes available we will post it on the University home page.

The four men, Hofstra student Rondell Bedward, 21, Stalin Felipe, 19, and Jesus L. Ortiz, 19, all of the Bronx; and Kevin R. Taveras, 20, of Brentwood, had been charged with five counts of first-degree rape.

They told CBS 2 HD's Kathryn Brown on Wednesday night they were happy to be released after spending three nights in jail, but did not offer opinions on the accuser. They said they did not know the accuser and had no idea why she would make up such accusations.

Felipe said he's just relieved the entire ordeal is over.

"I'm actually very happy that the truth finally came out," Felipe said. "I'm blessed. My family is here right now to pick us up and I'd just like to thank everybody for your support out there. The truth is finally out.

"I prayed to God on the inside that everything would work out. I actually thought everything was going to go down bad. It feels so horrible when you are innocent and then you are going down like you are guilty.

When asked if he had any reaction to the fact that the woman lied about the incident, Felipe took the high road.

"Basically I have no hard feelings toward her. I don't know why she did it. I don't know her so I don't want to say anything bad about her," Felipe said. "I grew up in an all-women household. I have sisters. All my women are aunts."

"I respect women. I would never disrespect women, so being accused of that hurt me and my brother, you know? I'm just happy that everything is finally out in the open and we get to go home."

Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice issued the following statement on Wednesday evening:

Moments ago my office moved to dismiss all charges against four men accused of committing a sexual assault on the campus of Hofstra University.

Late this evening, during the continuation of the Nassau County Police Department's investigation of the allegation, and under questioning by my office's chief trial attorney and chief sex crimes prosecutor, the alleged victim of the sexual assault admitted that the encounter that took place early Sunday morning was consensual.

Following the interview, my office moved quickly to appear before a night court judge to dismiss all charges and request that the judge order the individuals' immediate release.

Nassau County Judge Robert Bruno dismissed the charges and ordered their release. I have launched an immediate criminal investigation into the statements and reports given by the woman in connection with this incident. Further details regarding this investigation will be released at a later time.

CBS 2's Kathryn Brown contributed to this report


BREAKING: The New York Post is reporting the identity of the criminal who falsely accused these four innocent victims.

The four were arrested after 18-year-old freshman Danmell Ndonye made her ugly, false accusation. The fifth innocent person she accused was never arrested and his name was not released.

The Post further reports that at least one death threat has been communicated to the innocent victims and that one of the accused has been banned from his college campus. The Post is also reporting that a key piece of evidence (not available for all who are falsely accused) was that security cameras failed to corroborate the false accuser's story.

Women Don't Lie About Sexual Violence - Chapter 2043

Tila Tequila is allergic to alcohol.

According to Tequila's Twittering...

“I am allergic to alcohol. It has been publicly known for years. That is how I got the name Tila “Tequila” cuz the irony. I can’t drink.”

This will come as quite a surprise to many of her fans, who see her portrayed on television as a champagne-swilling "hottie" whose natural domain is the bar.

It also comes as quite a surprise to those who maintain that, on September 5-6, Tila Tequila was drinking at a San Diego night club, Stingaree, until closing time, about 2 a.m. It particularly comes as a surprise to the deputies who determined that she had been drinking. Deputies, you say? Yes, but I am getting head of myself....

Back to the story, of which, we all know there are always two sides - the lie and the truth. Let's cover the lie first: Tequila maintains that, in addition to being allergic to alcohol, she was assaulted, choked, and falsely imprisoned by Shawne Merriman on September 6. She called paramedics, deputies were summoned, and neither apparently found any injuries, but they took her to the hospital (you know how neurotic little women like to be fussed over!). Deputies also allowed her to sign a citizens' arrest against Merriman (a common ploy when law enforcement officials refuse to arrest because of obviously trumped-up charges), and Merriman was taken into custody charged with two felonies: assault and false imprisonment.

Now, Shawne Merriman plays outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers and is nearly 6'5, 270 pounds. One scouting report calls him "a physical freak with an undeniable mean streak." Tequila, on the other hand, claims to be 4'11 and 93 pounds. Choking and assaulting with no injuries? Come again?



Oddly (?), several witnesses who were present at the scene seem to find inconsistencies with the story, as well. Or at least inconsistencies with Tequila's story. Merriman's attorney, Todd Mancuso, maintains...

"There were numerous eyewitnesses that will support [Merriman's] version of the events that transpired at his home."

Hmmmmm. A woman lies about matters tangential to the alleged assault but which provide context to it ("I don't drink."), numerous witnesses, from a bar owner to the nightclub employees, to eyewitnesses at the scene of the alleged violence. Law enforcement officials find no evidence of any injury. Law enforcement refuses to make the arrest on their own authority, and forces the complainant to take out a citizen's arrest. Everyone involved admits that the complainant appears to have been drinking quite heavily.

So of course, Merriman was arrested.

Now, the truth. Tequila's story was so tortured and twisted that it actually hurt to write it. The next story is clean and straightforward.

The truth is that Tequila was drinking heavily enough to be "visibly intoxicated" at a birthday party at which she was also seen giving lap dances all night to one Shawne Merriman. Upon the untimely (for Tequila) arrival of closing time, Tequila, Merriman, an assortment of friends, and at least two women sufficiently foxy to attract Merriman's attention made their way back to Merriman's home.

As these things are prone to go when you are young, good looking, tall, muscular, famous, and made of money (as is Merriman - well, I can't vouch for good-looking, but my wife said, "mmmmhhhmmmmmmmm!"), Merriman ended up in his bedroom <*coughcough*>, errrrrrrrr, in his bed <*coughcough*>, well, in a rather compromising position with the two foxy ladies previously asserted to have attracted his attention.

Tequila, as girlfriends are prone to do in such delicate situations (especially when drunk), wandered into Merriman's bedroom. Always jovial, and apparently unacquainted with the old saying about three being a crowd, invited Tequila to, uhhhhhhh, join him and his two, uhhhhhh, friends.

For some reason unknown to anyone other than her, Tequila took offense at this proposed arrangement. So she responded in the only way a self-respecting woman could respond: she stripped off all her clothes, threatened to have sex with the entourage, and threatened to drive home, both drunk and sans clothing (because the shoulder harness on a seat belt doesn't chafe as badly when you only weigh 93 pounds).

Merriman, forsaking his other two, uhhh, friends, then attempted to persuade Tequila that A) everything was going to be alright, B) it is against the law to drive while drunk, and C) walking and driving around in public without clothing is likely not the best life decision that a 93-pound sexpot can make. Even Britney Spears at least wears boots, for cryin' out loud.

What happened next can best be summarized thusly: drama, drama. Then, the inevitable happened! That Merriman became violent? Alas, no. The inevitability of male violence is a feminist myth, of course. But what is TRULY inevitable is that when a neurotic drama queen of any age (and any weight), whether famous or not, gets into a verbal tiff with her boyfriend/husband/father/lover/boss and can't seem to make him acquiesce, the false allegations begin to fly! 'Tis the feminist way, of course.

So 911 is called, deputies and paramedics summoned, you know the drill.

Tequila alleges violence. Merriman denies. The assembled crowd quietly grumble, "That ain't what WE saw." The medics say "She doesn't appear to be injured." The deputies say, "You don't appear to be injured. Are you sure you aren't drunk?" Tequila says, "Just because my name is Tequila everybody always thinks I am drunk! Don't you KNOW I am allergic to alcohol? You guys are such HATERS! Don't be a HATER!" The Deputies say, "We aren't going to arrest him." Tequila says, "I am only a little woman! Didn't you guys get the memo from the Domestic Violence Unit? You are supposed to always believe the victim!" The Deputies say, "Ma'am, we really don't want to arrest anyone till you are sober again." Tequila says, "I am allergic to alcohol! I want him arrested!" The Deputies say, "Well, we can let you fill out the papers for a citizens arrest...?" Tequila replies, "I'm not good at spelling since I majored in Women's Studies. Could you guys help me fill it out? Or are you gonna keep being HATERS?"

The most cogent observation offered (thus far) on the Tequila-Merriman series of events? From the bar owner, of course...

"It sounds like [Tila Tequila] is allergic to the truth."

Unfortunately, when a culture makes the decision to not only foster, but to encourage and protect false allegations, many will develop such allergies.

Thankfully, we have feminist dogma to help us interpret these events, which otherwise would be rather confusing. For feminists assure us, of course, that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.

Unfortunately, it appears that feminists may have their work cut out in convincing some of the folks who witnessed these events that feminist dogma is true. For it seems that those who actually were present and witnessed these events chalk it all up to a fit of jealousy on Tequila's part...

"Sources close to the story told Vara that Tequila -- also known as Tila Nguyen -- was unhappy that she was not the only woman getting attention from Merriman, and jealousy played a role in the early morning altercation."

Feminism + Psychology = Hate

I recently demonstrated that Feminism is, all by itself, a mental disorder. In continuing to read on this subject, I have run across an article by yet another mental health professional on the general topic - though this article has a slightly different emphasis: his assertion is that the very field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, and counseling is imbued with a severe sexism - born of adherence to radical feminism - that is destructive to its clientele.

Paul Elam, in an article titled The Psychology of Hate, writes (in part):

Years back, in another life, I used to teach at seminars and conferences that provided continuing education units for professional re-certification.

In one particular module, I used a portable grease board in a room in front of my waiting audience. Without introducing myself or saying anything else, I used a grease pen to write the words “Men are…” at the top of the board, and then silently invited the audience to finish the sentence.

Almost invariably, “pigs” or “dogs” was the first offering, accompanied by a room full of good-natured chuckles. I would nod my head and write it down on the board and return to the audience, still silent, for more.

“Controlling,” says one. “Afraid of commitment,” says another. “Aggressive.” “Macho“ “Afraid of intimacy.” “Violent.” “Sexist,” and “Power hungry.” More of the pejoratives, and almost only pejoratives, would come from the audience till the board was full.

I then flipped the board to the other side.

“Women are…” was the cue, and the answers were even more rapid fire than they were with men.

“Strong.” “Capable” “Empowered” “Sensitive.” “Nurturing,” and the like would fly from the audience to the grease board like a barrage of arrows, till that side too was full.

“What do you imagine,” I would ask, taking a strategic pause for a sip of water, “that these answers tell us about the real nature of sexism in the way we view men and women?”

Asking them a question with actual spoken words must have thrown them for a loop, because the stock response to that question was almost invariably a room full of nonplussed, cognitively dissonant faces. And that confusion usually gave way to irritation, clearly at me, though every answer on both sides of that board had come from them.

And by the way, the participants in the crowd? They weren’t accountants or nurses or teachers or financial advisors.

They were mental health professionals.

Counselors, psychotherapists, social workers and the lot. The very people we love to imagine possess the objectivity to rise above the mindset of bigotry and sexism. And the people, despite our want of faith in their work, least likely to actually do it.

I wanted a little more pressure so I asked more questions. “How could this affect our therapeutic alliance with clients?- Could it make our relationships with females enabling?- Punitive with men?” And always, the final question I asked was “Do we carry sexism, against men, unconscious or conscious, into our work with each and every client?”

With that question the anger usually intensified.

In one talk, a female participant, a social worker, jumped out of her chair and threw her papers everywhere. “You’re the sexist!” she hissed at me, and stormed out of the room. She later wrote letters of complaint both about my topic and the fact I would not sign off on her attendance.

Welcome to the wacky world of mental health....

This article really needs no comment by me. Click the link above to read the entirety of the article (it will be the best 20 minutes you spend this week).