WINNING! Over the Feminist False Allegations Industry.

Click above picture to enlarge.

People all over the world turn to Objectify Chicks! for information about fake domestic violence claims more than anyone other than Yahoo! and Legalforce.com. According to Alexa.com, the web's authoritative analytics company, the search query "fake domestic violence," more than 8% of the time, leads the searcher to peruse the pages of Objectify Chicks!

The worldwide reach of Objectify Chicks!, while generally exposing all of the mental disorder known as feminism, seems to specifically serve mankind by providing information about the false allegations industry that is powered by modern feminism. For instance, a quarter of all traffic to Objectify Chicks! has been driven by search terms such as "Crystal Gail Mangum," "false allegations," and "fake domestic violence."

Key articles to peruse on the issue of false allegations include:

U.S. Air Force study finds that up to 40% of rape claims are false.

Domestic Violence is the biggest feminist lie.

Women are more abusive than men.

Vanilla Ice falsely accused of DV.

Cops admit that women use false allegations of DV.

How "Women's Shelters" coach and coax false allegations of DV and rape (linked to the first of a four-part series - be sure to read all four parts, based on research and personal interviews with women who have been inside shelters).

Statistical Evidence that DV is a feminist hysteria.

David Letterman falsely accused of DV.

Tucker Carlson falsely accused of rape.

National Organization of Women President lies about being raped.

Chick makes up rape to get a day off from work.

How feminists dissemble about what the term "Domestic Violence" means.

Why Mike Nifong is a feminist hero.

Professorette, DV "expert," admits that the feminist-conjured Domestic Violence Hysteria is politically motivated.

Rick Pitino falsely accused of rape.

Child lies about rape to avoid being grounded.

Jealousy + Booze + Tila Tequila = false allegations of Domestic Violence.

Summary of previous articles: Be Aware of the Truth about Domestic Violence during Domestic Violence Awareness Month!

Tim Cole Dies in Prison, an innocent victim of false rape allegations, revealed nine years after his death.

Oprah Winfrey lied about rape.

Why Crystal Gail Mangum is a feminist icon.

Guest Column by Jill G.: How defining rape down ensures that all men are rapists.

And, of course, scouring the website will turn up dozens of other articles on the topic as well. See if you can find the one in which a female member of the Democrat Governor of North Carolina's office admits that women do, in fact, commonly lodge false allegations - contrary to feminist dogma.

Everything that you need to know to get a firm grasp of how the Feminist False Allegations Industry works - and why - can be gathered by reading the links on this page. So the next time you hear about a neighbor who was married for 10 or 15 years who has suddenly been arrested for raping his wife or for domestic violence (funny how these things occur during custody and alimony disputes, isn't it?), take it with a grain of salt.

Or, if you are wise, with a TON of salt....

You Never Know Who is Watching

Click above picture to enlarge.

Sniveling, emptyheaded feminists - also known as femtards - love to engage in "dialogue," which is to say, "cheerleading," in which they surround themselves with people (i.e., womyn) who view the world in essentially the same way that they themselves do, then sit around and say the same things about the same issues, and then walk away feeling quite justified and bright because all these other bright women... errrrr, womyn, agree with them, and therefore they must be right.

If you can get your own series doing this, you call it "To the Contrary" and air it on PBS.

I always thought that was the strangest name for a show in which everyone approaches every problem from a leftard feminist viewpoint, but I suppose stranger things have been done by the mainstream media to preserve the illusion of objectivity, and I have also always thought that the name was an intentional play on a well-known female character trait: the willingness and ability to take ANY position in ANY argument just for the sake of keeping the argument going.

This is a character trait that my grandmother, for instance, used to call "being contrary," or "being contrary for contrary's sake."

But anyway, Wikipedia describes this PBS series as devoted to "news analysis" (in the same sense in which "Naked News" or Newsweek is devoted to journalism, I suppose), but notes that it is an "all-women" program. Of course, because we all know that women have a special perspective, right?

But note that the perspective seems to be, by Wikipedia's "analysis," oddly... predictable. "Each show features four female panelists from various backgrounds... discuss[ing] various issues in the news, mainly affecting women, children, families, and communities of color."

"Communities of color?"

Translation: Libtard psychobabble.

Let me remind the gentle reader that I have gloried in the fact that online feminist publications have been running my articles for weeks in their online summaries.

But imagine how surprised I was to wake up and find that now, "Objectify Chicks" is being followed by "To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe"?

Truth, to the femtard, is like a bad accident. It may not deter you from your foolishness, but you can't resist slowing down to gaze as you pass it by.

The Role of Women

No Means... Yes... Maybe... Come Get Me?

Feminists need to do a better job of brainwashing other WOMEN, about the whole "no means no" issue. Women always say what they mean... except when they don't. Which is often. Or always. Or never. Or something.

Guest Column: Feminist Redefining of "Consent" Encourages False Rape Allegations

Originally posted February 19, 2011

By: JILL GUIDRY

Blog: Don't Buy The Abortion Lie!


Over the years I've been involved in the prolife movement, I've encountered quite a few radical feminists. Even more so, now that I'm also engaged in online activism. Every single radical feminist I've run across claims to be a victim of rape. Every. Single. One. Yes, I've heard the 1 in 3 statistics about women and sexual assault. But seriously, every single one of them? This phenomenon seems woefully underrepported by MSM, doesn't it? given all the recent attacks on John Boehner by the lefty feminists on Twitter regarding his 'redefinition of rape,' I thought it was time for a closer look at how feminists themselves have redefined rape in order to play the victim card and victimize others, namely men and their own unborn babies via abortion.

No one disputes that certain plants thrive in dim light and moist conditions. Can any objective observer dispute that false rape claims likewise thrive in a culture that erupted in the past forty years as a backlash against a perceived oppressive "patriarchy" that regards even certain garden variety sexual relations as a form of tyranny against women? It is no stretch to assert that this culture actively encourages young women to manufacture rape out of whole cloth by teaching them to equate consensual intercourse with vile sexual assault.

Misinformation is the engine that drives this culture (as we know from the baby-as-a-blob-of-cells abortion rhetoric), and rape hysteria and false rape claims are its noxious emissions. Outright lies are passed off as facts by what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry, sexual assault advocates and radical feminist writers who insist women do not lie about rape despite overwhelming evidence that a significant percentage do. The myths engendered by this toxic culture are repeated so often that they have crept into our popular culture -- including the assertion that only two percent of rape claims are false and that one-out-of-four college women are raped. The "truth" these stats seek to "prove" -- that women are routinely and brutally attacked by men -- is not supported by objective facts so it suffices to make up statistics as needed to support the "truth" being peddled.

Despite all the radical feminists' twisting, pounding, contorting and screeching, American women are not being sexually tyrannized by American men -- some women are tyrannized by some men, just as innocent people are tyrannized by criminals all the time. (Note that men and children are also victims of rape but never merit so much as a mention by feminists.) But rape is not rampant in the United States, on campus, in taxis, in wooded areas, or any of the other places where women claim they've been raped and it often turns out they haven't. The one exception may be prisons where young men with typically no experience in the prison system are routinely brutally raped and typically don't report it for fear of even worse brutalization. In fact, men may be victimized by rape more than women because of prison rape. Nevertheless, although the rape of females is treated with all the solemnity of a national crisis, the rape of men in prison is a punchline.

By demonstrating that the culture that engenders these two percent and one-in-four lies is invalid and, therefore, unacceptable, and by teaching young women to assume responsibility for their actions instead of being assured they are "victims" of some amorphous male oppression when they experience after-the-fact regret about having intercourse, we can reduce certain of the more vile kinds of false "acquaintance rape" claims.

But first it is necessary to expose this gender-divisive rape culture that encourages young women to cry "rape" even when rape has not occurred:

YOUNG WOMEN ARE FED A DISTORTED AND WILDLY CONSTRICTED VIEW OF "CONSENT" INTENDED TO LEAD THEM TO INTERPRET LAWFUL INTERCOURSE AS "RAPE."

Young women are being wrongly taught that sex induced by a male's verbal cajoling without physical threat is rape.

They are being wrongly taught that rape occurs in the absence of a woman's "enthusiastic" consent, as if "enthusiasm" can be measured in any objective sense, and as if otherwise perfectly lawful but not necessarily "enthusiastic" consent is somehow legally inoperative.

They are being wrongly taught that sex after a woman takes any alcohol or drugs invariably negates the woman's ability to validly consent.

And they are being wrongly taught that statutory definitions of rape must yield to a woman's own experience -- thus, men somehow must mold their conduct to fit an amorphous, free-floating, moving target of a subjective and secret whim of a woman's "experience," including, presumably, her after-the-fact, ex-post facto, false and belated hissy fits of regret about having engaged in intercourse. The fact that such a standard, with all it Star Chamber ramifications, furnishes no guidance to the male as to what constitutes "rape" prior to the act, is not at all troubling to the enlightened feminists proffering this standard. Due process be damned. Rape occurs when they say it occurs, regardless of whether it actually did.

Such a standard is especially pernicious given that it has now been proven by objective evidence that women experience greater after-the-fact remorse than men about one-night stands. They encourage a slut culture, then rail at the inevitable results.

If feminists wanted to assist young women -- instead of feeding them misinformation in an attempt to have them invent rape from whole cloth, they would teach them that after-the-fact regret about one-night stands is a common, indeed natural, feeling for women. This would encourage young women to think twice before engaging in such encounters and about falsely crying rape afterwards. But, of course, the feminists accuse anyone of making suggestions that might hold young women responsible for their actions as "victim blaming" -- a magic incantation they blithely toss off in an attempt to keep young women in a state of perpetual infancy, freed of any responsibility for their actions when it comes to sex.

With such gross misinformation floating about it is little wonder that some young women have a terribly inaccurate understanding of rape. The test to determine if valid consent was given in the context of rape is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would have believed that the woman consented, based on the totality of the circumstances, including her words and actions. If a woman willingly assents to sex, it is not rape. Whether she secretly "wanted" to have sex, or did not "want" to have sex, is completely beside the point. The inquiry focuses solely on her outward manifestations of assent.

Beyond this, it is strikingly naive to attach rigid rules as to what constitutes "consent," including, for example, any insistence that consent must be "enthusiastic." Persons in a committed relationship do things for each other with regularity out of love and sometimes, perhaps often, without all that much enthusiasm. Some people rarely express "enthusiasm" about anything. When a woman is trying to get pregnant, her partner often has sex out of obligation even when it's not especially convenient and often when he is not especially "enthusiastic." Has he been raped since he gave into her verbal desires without being "enthusiastic"? No sane person would suggest that, but by this inane feminist standard that is the only logical conclusion.

And women sometimes fake both "enthusiasm" and orgasms, often because a couple's sex drives are not in sync and because she's more interested in fostering a long-term relationship than having a momentary sexual experience. In such circumstances, if the guy knew the truth, he may or may not want to have sex. Is a woman's faked enthusiasm that induces sex a kind of rape of the man? The feminist standard, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests it must be. How utterly silly.

Another fallacy is that "no" always precludes valid consent for whatever happens after. To ignore what happens after "no" is uttered is naive in the extreme and blinks at nuance and the complexities of interpersonal relations. Again, no such rigid rule is appropriate. First, a look, a nod, an embrace inviting sex are often clearer than a teasing "no." Second, should we declare as a matter of law that valid consent is a legal impossibility after an accuser says "no" -- regardless of what occurs afterwards? Her subsequent words and actions over the next minutes or hours be damned?

"Consent" does not lend itself to a rigid definition, because human relationships in the area of romance and sexuality are often complex with literally a limitless number of possible scenarios that defy tying everything up in a nice, neat feminist package. To insist that consent must be "enthusiastic" and that "no" cuts off any possibility for romance for the entire evening are concepts unworkable in the extreme and were concocted to vilify male sexuality. Again the only valid test is that a person in the position of the male must reasonably understand that there was consent. When a woman embraces her partner and prepares for intercourse in the absence of threat of physical force, consent is present, regardless of whether every radical feminist stomps her foot and insists it isn't.

Why They Are Called Femtards....

So recently, I was interacting with a buddy on twitter and was accosted by a couple of prochoice femtards who exhibited all of the normal (lack of) debate skills shown by the left generally, and by feminists especially, and who gladly donned the mantle of fascist barbarians if that was what was necessary to change the spelling to womyn. The actual tweets, with the actual twitter screen names, followed by my highly enlightening comments, follow....

Note: I have adopted "twitter" style to identify the speaker - the speaker, the one tweeting, is identified by the @ symbol. I.e., when you see @objectifychicks, I am the speaker. Also note that I have, for ease of reading, occasionally converted twitter abbreviations to their English signifier (i.e, "2" to "to," "shd" to "should," etc.), and have added punctuation and capitalization throughout for ease of reading.

_____________________

@Auragasmic I never see pro-lifers tweeting about capital punishment or war. #duh #prochoice

You will notice that nothing that a femtard ever says shows any insight or evidence of an ability to think independently. This is actually true of ALL of the left, but it is particularly evident in feminists. If they haven't heard someone else say it, and if it is not a political slogan which can essentially fit on a t-shirt or bumper sticker, they are incapable of expressing it. So tell ya what, let's trot out the old "pro-lifers don't care about capital punishment" argument, shall we? Nobody's ever brought that one up before!!! Hint to all femtards: the reason why some people who are pro-life support capital punishment and war, but do NOT support abortion, has everything to do with the twin issues of helplessness and innocence. I do not expect you to be able to morally reflect on these two concepts, so get someone who is more morally advanced than you are to explain it to you - like the nearest second grader.

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting about false allegations of domestic violence or rape. #prochoice #duh #fail.

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting about a CHILD'S right to choose-to be born. #prochoice #duh #fail

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting about why, if they are as capable as a man, they have to have standards lowered to do what he is already doing.

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting anything other than political slogans. Wonder if they are capable of thinking? #stopwondering

Notice that I have exposed the tender underbelly of feminism with this series of tweets. Though femtards maintain that if a woman's feelings are not taken into account, she is being abused, they do not see false allegations of domestic violence and rape - which put innocent men in jail for years and separate them from their kids and assets - as anything to particularly worry about. Some exalted sense of "justice" femtards have. And while femtards warble on and on about a woman's choice to either kill her unborn or let it live, they never seem to care about the "choice" of the father of the unborn or of the child itself. And while femtards warble on about how they are equal to men and are capable of doing everything that men can do, they immediately begin to lobby for new legislation and affirmative action lowering standards so that women can do what men are already doing under existing standards. Notice that my femtard prey will only opt to attempt to deal with what she considers to be the low-hanging fruit, and notice how it traps her....

@Auragasmic uh... that would insinuate that it possessed the ability to choose. #lolduh #logicfail #prochoice

Note the deep and abiding ignorance of the femtard. First, she does not understand the very words that she is using. A statement which plainly states something doesn't "insinuate" anything. But a femtard believes that using any word with more than two syllables justifies them spending two years earning that M.A. in Women's Studies. Secondly, note the utter daftness of the self-absorbed retard that is the feminist - she believes that the "choice" of the powerful trumps the rights of the weak. Keep this in mind, because our femtards will wholly adopt that philosophy in just a bit....

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting for retarded kids to be slaughtered because they are incapable of choice. #prochoice #logicfail

Now, to a femtard, all killing is equal. And notice that our femtard's comparison of abortion to capital punishment and war (see above) is a tacit admission - or INSINUATION - that abortion is, in fact, killing. So if a pro-lifer believes in capital punishment for the protection of society or war for the protection of the nation, that is the moral equivalent to the amoral feminist of killing an innocent baby for the femtard's own personal convenience. Again, our prey(s) will admit this before the night is over. YET, note that though all killing is equal, our semi-retarded prey cannot quite catch that there IS a real equivalence between her principle that, if an unborn lacks choice and can therefore be killed, then retarded kids who also lack meaningful choice can be killed under the same principle.

@Auragasmic O.o a change of topic because you are incapable of proving your case. Perhaps you should ask one [a femtard??? - ed.] because I am not one. Cheers.

Is it an inability to see the correlation between the retarded kid and the unborn, or is it an unwillingness?

@objectifychicks I am asking YOU. Or did you run out of political slogans to spout? Better get that boob job, chickie, or life will be hard!

@Auragasmic I am all for protecting the rights of the mentally retarded. Take it home, yo!

Note that the sloganeering, at this point, has even devolved lower than the normal low ebb of leftard "discourse." Because she can't think of another political slogan, she slips into some sort of urban grunt-expression. Perhaps I caught her in the middle of her Snoop Dogg marathon. Note how smoothly I transition back to the question at hand, which she hopes that she has deflected with her deviation into "Gin and Juice."

@objectifychicks On what logical, moral, or philosophical principle is a retarded kid more entitled to life than the unborn? #femtard #fail

@Auragasmic Well, the simplest one would be that the retarded kid isn't LIVING INSIDE SOMEONE ELSE. #areyoudaft #prochoice

@objectifychicks So your principle is that the more dependent a person is, the more brutally they may be slaughtered? Very barbaric of you. #fail




This is the part of the discussion that femtards, because they are innately morally blind, because the initial choice to live in the unreality in which men and women are equal in every way is an immoral choice to live in flaky fantasy rather than truth, do not want to have. As long as abortion is about "choice," it is not about murder - and that, the murder of people far more helpless and innocent than any other mass killing in history, which they would roundly condemn.

@Auragasmic It's quite simple and if you would use the head on your shoulders rather than the one in your pants this wouldn't be difficult.

Of course, "you don't understand anything because you are a man and have a penis." Having lost the battle, she attempts to salvage the war by appealing to the unique nature of chicks. And note again the implicit idea that men only ever interpret reality through their own sexual desire. Yawn. I think the technical term for this type of non-argument is the ad hominem attack. By the way, chickster - every single instance of "women's intuition" that I have had the opportunity to observe in my entire life has proven to be false. Better start reading and learning rather than relying on your unique knowledge as a woman... errrrrr, womyn.

@Auragasmic No one ON EARTH has the RIGHT to use someone's BODY AGAINST THEIR WILL. Not even a fetus. #prochoice

Yes, chickie, if you don't make any sense, just TALK/TWEET LOUDER and you will be more persuasive. Notice how I now reveal the problem with her principle-made-on-the-fly....

@objectifychicks But I take it the pregnant woman can use the unborn's body in any way they see fit without consent-including disposing of it as trash? #specialpleadingforchicks

@Auragasmic No, my principle is that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO USE ANOTHER'S BODY AGAINST THEIR WILL. #prochoice

OK, just keep repeating it rather than engaging the question, since you know the question exposes you.... Now I will draw the net.

@objectifychicks But a pregnant woman can use the body of an unborn as they will-as trash to be disposed of? #logicfail #barbarian

@Auragasmic She has the right to decide if she wants to donate her uterus/body and possibly life to something using her body. #prochoice



@objectifychicks It's not the body of the woman at issue. It's the body of "another." You know how you said that nobody may use the body of another?

@Auragasmic That other BODY is violating the woman's by using her uterus as a home. Develop another means of removing the fetus, then.

@objectifychicks BTW, being a #femtard and #barbarian #prochoice #monster I know etymology eludes you. But you realize "fetus" is Latin for "baby?"

So her argument is shown to be: 1) Special pleading for chicks - a baby cannot "use" the body of its mother, but a woman can "use" the body of the baby. 2) Inconsistent - whereas she SAID that nobody can use the body of another without the other's permission, what she MEANT was that nobody but a woman can use the body of another without the other's permission. And by the way, this sort of double standard applies to men as well. A woman may choose to "use" the body and labor of a man when she chooses to get pregnant without the consent of a man, making him an indentured servant and forcing child support payments for 18 years. But a man who is the willing father of a child cannot keep a woman from aborting it, not even if he denies his consent. The truth is that to a feminist, only women have rights. EVERYONE else - men, children, the government, society itself, had better hop to and obey the random will of the emotional cripples who populate the National Organization of Women. 3) Dishonest - attempting to hide behind a quasi-clinical term such as "fetus" doesn't change the fact (and we all know that it is a fact, including femtards) that the "fetus" is a "baby."

@Auragasmic It could be a leprechaun ya daffy prole. It doesn't have the right to use SOMEONE'S BODY AGAINST THEIR WILL #prochoice

Notice what we learn from this hyperemotionalism: 1) Femtards don't really care about children, though they make a lot of noise about children. A child has no more right to life, to care, to the respect of its mother, than does the mythical leprechaun in the mind of the femtard barbarian. Children are really just pawns that feminists use to persecute men and to fashion a socialistic society for themselves (Have you ever noticed how EVERYTHING that is a goal of the left is "for the children?").

@objectifychicks Oh, so there is an exception to your moral rule that NOBODY has a right to use ANOTHER'S body against their will? #specialpleadingforchicks #nottoobright

Making the point, again, and it will not be the final time that I make it before the light clicks for her, that though she uses the language of equality (NOBODY can use ANYBODY'S body), she actually argues for a double standard that favors women simply because they are women-as all of feminism does.

@Auragasmic The fetus' existence is VIOLATING the woman's right to bodily autonomy. #thinkwiththerighthead #prochoice

Life doesn't matter. Cruelty doesn't matter. Suffering doesn't matter. The expectation of the weak that the strong will protect them doesn't matter. The expectation of society that a mother will protect her children doesn't matter. The rights of men or children do not matter. Society doesn't matter. Survival doesn't matter. Justice doesn't matter. What matters? Whatever notion has entered the mind of the nearest neurotic holding a NOW sign. Only what a woman considers to be her "right" matters to the femtard.

@objectifychicks So NOBODY has a right to use ANYBODY'S body without consent, unless the NOBODY is a woman and the ANYBODY is unborn. Am I getting it right? #barbarian

@Auragasmic If U have another method of removing the fetus and placing it somewhere to develop for nine months, we're all ears.

Note the assumptions: Women are not responsible for their own decisions. If a woman makes a mistake or finds herself in a bind,, society owes it to her to let her have the easy way out. This, of course, does NOT apply equally, because, as noted before, if a woman does not decide to have an abortion, the man who had sex with her will, in fact, be held responsible for his decision to have sex with her by ponying up 18 years of child support payments. Note also that the problem is everyone else's, not women's. Women get pregnant. They don't like it. Therefore they abort. Because they can't be held responsible. If you don't like abortion, it is EVERYONE ELSE'S responsibility to come up with a solution for women ("If U have another method... we're all ears!"). The femtard utopia is not only a world in which women are not responsible for their actions (though everyone else is responsible for theirs!), but is rather a world in which everyone else is responsible for the choices that women themselves make! If YOU don't like abortion, then YOU come up with a plan, don't expect women to come up with an alternative - the ball is in YOUR court! And note that even nature itself does not escape the condemnation of the feminist. Even BIOLOGY and ANATOMY must be modified if the femtard is to be placated! And you think you are gonna marry one of these Hitlers in High Heels and somehow please and satisfy her? You think the demands are EVER going to stop???

@objectifychicks The unborn was invited into the uterus by the woman when she chose to have sex. How #barbaric would it be if I invited you into my house and then killed you for entering?

@Auragasmic Birth control fails and condoms break. Are you saying no one should have sex unless they want to have kids? #lol #prochoice

Note how the femtard eludes the real question of her own brutality, and her own desire to live a life in which her irresponsibility is subsidized by millions of slaughtered children, millions of exploited men, the corruption of government and justice on her behalf, and the eternal pain of the children left to live with her when feminism has trained her to be a neurotic, self-absorbed barbarian - forever forsaking the tender sentiments needed to be a devoted mother. To the femtard, all issues come down to self-gratification - for which sex is a convenient stand-in - because all femtards are self-absorbed, and have no love or tender feeling toward any person on earth - obviously including (and perhaps, least of all) her own children.

@objectifychicks Here's a thought. Maybe YOU should be responsible for once? Maybe YOU should find a means of sexual gratification that doesn't place other lives at risk?

@objectifychicks When I drive, I take certain risks. If I cause damage, why should the people I have hurt pay for it? If YOU screw up, why should another pay for YOUR screw up? [no pun intended, ed.]

@objectifychicks Trust me, I know the answer. WOMEN cannot be held to the same level of RESPONSIBILITY as, say, TEENAGE drivers! #specialpleadingforchicks

@Auragasmic Using your logic, we should let accident victims die because they chose to drive and knew the risks. #lol #prochoice

Of course, this is quite a logical leap by our emotionally-charged, neurotic, and intellectually vacuous femtard. My statements require no such conclusion. While I would certainly agree that a person who drives without adequate insurance and knows the risks and has an accident should be left to pay the cost of the damage he has caused, even his own medical care, I have said nothing that demands that accident victims die simply because they drove. Perhaps her illogical leap is dishonesty on her part, or perhaps it is because the pro-abortion femtard just has death on the brain. The reader will note, though, that in fact, I specifically use the word PAY, not DIE. But she is on the ropes, grasping at straws, because she is a moron and it has been revealed to be so on twitter for all to see. So she manufactures an argument that she feels she can win. This is the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. Femtards, as I have stated, are not capable of insight and intellectual activity. They are capable of rote memorization of bumper sticker slogans and... logical fallacy.

@objectifychicks Thanks for proving that chicks are not as logical as men. That's YOUR (il)logic, not mine. #godgaveyouboobsbecauseyoucantthink

At this point, @Auragasmic essentially dropped out and a couple of her friends joined the fray. This is a common tactic among those who realize that 1) they are wrong, and 2) they are not intellectually equipped enough to continue to argue their wrong position; they summon friends to come and pelt the one showing up the fooltard/femtard with meaningless insults and questions until a level of frustration sets in which allows the femtard to depart thinking that at least a truce was preserved. In fact, one of the femtards actually admitted...

@Auragasmic ... I wonder if he realizes he's being trolled?

Followed a discussion on whether I had stopped beating my wife, whether or not I had ever been in the presence of a vagina, whether or not the domain name http://objectifygirls.blogspot.com was registered to an a$$hole, numerous uses of the term #sexist and #misogynist, typical femtard henhouse prattle. If you can't win the argument, you can always insult your much wiser opponent. But there was at least one significant exchange that ought to be preserved. Reverting back to my indisputable assertion that the baby had been invited into the womb when the woman decided to seek sexual gratification with a fertile man, another woman, whom we shall dub femtard #2 entered with this groaner....

@sophiadaniels the police would still enter and remove me by force even if you invited me in. #lol #prochoice

Now, see what has just transpired. We have previously had @Auragasmic admit that she really doesn't mind killing that much, when she admits that, in her mind, abortion, war, and capital punishment all share the same moral ground. We now have a second femtard admitting that she believes in the use of FORCE, the same level of force authorized to the police, against the unborn!

@objectifychicks Thanks for the admission that you believe in using force & violence against the helpless. #feminazi #barbarian #femtard

@sophiadaniels No problem. Thanks for demonstrating that all #prolifers are #sexist #misogynists.

Note that I thanked @sophiadaniels for admitting that she believes in using force and violence against the helpless. Note that rather than denying it, she responded "No problem," fully accepting my evaluation of her admission.

____________________


What have we learned?

1) Feminists are called femtards for a reason. They simply are not very bright. We instinctively recognize that only children live in fantasy worlds (and children aren't very bright either, which is why we make them go to school for 12 years), but if your fantasy is that men and women are equally-abled in all areas of life and that women are gentle, cooperative, and peaceful, we call your neurosis "feminism" and grant you a Ph.D. But at the end of the day, you can't assemble enough degrees to make this nonsense sound like anything other than the crazed, amoral ravings of a UFO abductee who REALLY sees a pink elephant in the corner.

2) Feminists are, indeed, filled with hatred. Their hatred extends to the fruit of their own womb, and to everyone around them. Their hatred spurs them to approve and utilize violence and force against anyone who stands in their way, including a husband, lover, or the child in their own womb.

3) Feminists are the living proof that women don't always make good parents. How ridiculous is it to argue that women innately possess a nurturing, gentle nature when they willingly admit to favoring killing of innocents and violence against the helpless to the tune of 4,000 abortions a day since 1973?

4) Feminists are NOT filled with self-loathing, but are rather filled with a self-absorption and self-worship so intense that they are not even aware that there are other people in the room - much less a man that they are married to or a child in their womb. They care nothing about the rights or suffering of others, if those rights or that suffering stands in the way of their temporary self-gratification in the least. Never forget - @Auragasmic admitted that a single night of sexual gratification was more important to her than the 70 years +/- that the baby in her womb was entitled to.

5) The intellectual shallowness of femtards is exceeded only by their willful immorality. Again, what kind of monster complains of "Domestic Violence" against themselves because someone hurt their feelings or didn't give them money, but justifies the burning of the skin off of a living creature or the crushing of its skull and consequent vacuuming out of its brains or the dicing of it, limb from limb, helpless in the womb, for her own continued personal self-absorption? What kind of morality is it that complains of hurt feelings, but will commit genocide against two generations?

Thanks to everyone for playing!

Jailbait?

At a public gathering tonight, the following conversation took place between my wife and I:

ME: "When did they start letting 14-year olds dress like THAT?"

WIFEY: "She is at least 26 years old. She has ankle tattoos."

ME: "I can see that one career path not open to me is 'pedophile.'"

*Newsweek* is Dead

I have been a constant reader of, and sometime subscriber to, U.S. News and World Report since my early teen years. I enjoyed the magazine because, though it was hardly evenhanded, it was the most evenhanded of the major newsweeklies, and has been - at least for as long as my experience with it beginning in the 1980s.

Not long ago I received notice of something that I already knew was coming thanks to reading the U.S. News blog - the magazine was shutting down as a paper weekly and would become an internet-only phenomenon. My paper subscription would be finished out by receiving a comparative number of issues to Newsweek.

Oddly (to me, but perhaps not in the grander scheme of things), the folding of U.S. News nearly coincided with some major changes taking place at Newsweek. Following an acknowledged decline of the magazine into rank liberalism (Evan Thomas, an Assistant Managing Editor at Newsweek, once famously admitted, "I think Newsweek is a little liberal.") beginning around 2008, the fortunes of Newsweek declined (i.e., the subscribers and advertisers abandoned ship, as they always do, cf. Air America) to the extent that the magazine was sold for $1 and a new management team, and consequently a new editorial team, was brought on board. Beginning with the March 14, 2011 issue, new Editor-in-Chief, Tina Brown, rolled out the "New Newsweek."

Tina Brown became famous - or at least well-known - as a progenitor of the breathy, Harlequin romance-style of "journalism" that provides bored women with fodder for gossip at bridge clubs held in the dining rooms of the wealthy the world over. In fact, she first gained international recognition (again, "fame" may not be the concept I am hunting for here) for providing coverage, in Britain's Tatler and on NBC's "Today Show," about all things Princess Di. From there, she moved into the heady journalistic spheres of... Vanity Fair. Yeah, this will end well.




So with these bona fides (Did I mention that she then founded a "news"/opinion website called The Daily Beast? Never heard of it? No worries - you are hardly alone, but you frankly need no more information about the site than to look closely at its name....), Tina Brown was an obvious choice to become Editor of Newsweek. OK, enough with the pretense. No, she wasn't an obvious choice. And still isn't. Let's be honest - she was an affirmative-action hire, like Katie Couric at the CBS Evening News. And her tenure will mimic Couric's in every way... but I am getting ahead of myself.

Journalism is not anything that Tina Brown understands. Politics (at least progressive, leftard, feminists-in-jackboots-sieg-heiling-thither-and-yon politics), she understands. And marketing. Or, I guess when done to the extreme now being indulged by Newsweek and for purely political purposes, I think it is usually called propaganda.

But me, being the patient and defer-all-judgment sort that I am, was willing to pick up the "New Newsweek" on the day when it arrived in my mailbox and check it out. Who knows? I have been pleasantly surprised before. Though not often. And I wouldn't be this time, either.

Opening the March 14 issue to its first substantive piece I saw a Tina Brown editorial statement (surprise!) titled "A New Newsweek" (surprise! surprise!). In a breakout box in the center of the page was a short blurb that in 26 lines, averaging about 6 words per line, contained some form of the word "women" or a pronoun that referred to women six times. Women today, we are told, are "fighting tyranny," "speaking truth," and "fighting for basic rights" including "being safe from sexual violence." I momentarily thought that I might be detecting a rather perverse theme, so I flipped back to the front cover and saw the word "women" twice on the cover. I then saw a story about "shattering glass ceilings" and a brief blurb about "the Dior Debacle," referring, of course, to the fashion designer, Christian Dior. Still not persuaded that I was seeing things clearly, I flipped to the table of contents page and spotted the word "feminist" twice and a story about "New Jersey's political odd couple." OK, you may have to beat me over the head with a boat oar, but I am persuaded that I am seeing it clearly now.

Now, just to supply some context here, the March 14, 2011 issue of Time magazine had a cover story titled, "Yes, America is in Decline." Given that we have three wars running, a $14 trillion debt (that anyone will admit to), near 20% effective unemployment, the dollar in steep decline, and the Keystone Kops infesting the executive branch, I find this a timely and relevant idea for an article in a leading newsweekly. Consulting the table of contents page of the March 14 Time, I find articles on oil prices, reforming Wall Street, Yemen, the budget fight in Congress, and the union chaos in Wisconsin. News. Real news.

So maybe Time is just great at what it does, and maybe that is why Newsweek somehow got run into the ground in the first place? Checking the March 7-14 issue of the liberal The Nation, I found a cover story on the publication of some new communitard book on using the French Revolution as a model for continuing to fight for "social justice," with other stories on "The Green Counterrevolution" and "In Defense of Public Workers." OK, not as good as Time, perhaps, but I think that we can grant that it is at least "newsy." Again, checking the table of contents, I saw articles on the Arab uprisings and censorship, just to name a few.

The March issue of the conservative The American Spectator contained pieces on the state of the Obama presidency, "Obama's Phantom Trains," Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Again, substantive and "newsy."

So, Brown's schtick is not seriousness, apparently - at least not when compared to her journalistic/liberal/conservative peers. Well, she admits as much, when, in her editorial statement ("A New Newsweek") she states that her vision for the magazine is that it will "allow the reader to PLAY in a different way" (emphasis added). So in a world in which Princess Diana is significant, "news" is "play." Let the dumbing down continue.

Did I mention that part of the "New Newsweek" is an emphasis on... well, why should I say it when Tina Brown's own words will do? "And let's not forget PICTURES" (emphasis added). Did somebody say "dumbing down?" Now if someone would just say, "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!"

So, dumbing.... errrrr, thumbing through the March 14 issue I see... fashion ads from The Limited (p. 9), an article on Arab feminists (p. 11), fashion ad from St. John (p. 13), an article on the "ominous" decision of Asian men to forego marriage rather than deal with feminists (v. 15), the ever-present photo spread of French President Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni (p. 20), what "France's most powerful businesswoman" believes about nuclear power (p. 30), "the secret to newlywed bliss" (p. 35), what Charlie Sheen's meltdown means for the various women in his life (p. 37), an article on what it was like to be one of Sadaam's children by (you guessed it!) one of his daughters (p. 40), a reprint of a 1960 article on "Young Wives with Brains" (p. 41), "The Hillary Doctrine," including the predictable sidebar on "The Evolution of a Feminist" and consequent breakout box on "The Gender Metric: The payoff for women's empowerment" (p. 44), "150 Women Who Shake the World" including a teenage student who is a "top student" at one of Cambodia's best private schools - and I swear I am not making this up (p. 52), an article on Iranian feminists - didn't they just do this a few pages back? (p. 66), an article on fashionista Christian Dior (p. 72), book reviews on four books, three by women, one of which is on love and another described as "a beautiful book" (p. 78), an article on cooking (p. 82), a blurb on the comeback of stilettos by Chanel in which the reader is encouraged to "step out in style" (p. 83), and a closing bow toward Kate Moss (p. 84).

OK, I admit, I am not being fair. That was just one issue. Tina Brown and her femtard buddies had a lot of pent-up gender rage and self-absorption and, well frankly, fashion advice after having been silenced by The Patriarchy all these years. One could forgive them for letting loose just this once, right? They will get back to their sober custodianship of a vital news organ with the next issue... likely.

So then I receive the March 21, 2011 edition of Newsweek and find that, among other cover stories are "Who Took the FUN Out of Washington?" (emphasis added) and articles on coffee and the ubiquitous Charlie Sheen. Inside are the requisite self-congratulatory letters to the editor on the new gynocentric magazine - from Lorraine and Terri, of course - I swear I am NOT making this up (p. 4). Follows, commentary on cutting back financially by transvestite celebrity RuPaul (p. 25), a fashion look at Kate Middleton (p. 30), a bow toward Michelle Obama's fashion sense (p. 44), an article on Starbucks (p. 50), Celine Dion and the homeless in Vegas (p. 58), more entertainment news in an article on Bono, Spiderman, and the omnipresent woman - director Julie Taymor (p. 65), a book review which can be summarized as "it is legitimate to murder if you are a chick claiming abuse" (p. 67), a blurb on spas (p. 69), an ad on enjoying your bath (p. 70), and an automobile review comparing the featured auto to a "Gucci" (p. 71). And no, I am not making that up, either.

Then the April 11, 2011 Newsweek arrived and Kate Middleton and Madonna shared the cover stories (yawn). An ad for bottled water graced page six, and an ad for taking your kids to the playground graced page nine. Sex discrimination on page 23 yields to the royal wedding on page 32 yields to a "Save the Children" ad on page 56 and a feature on Tina Fey on page 59 and a feature on Whoopi Goldberg on page 62 and dazzling heels and Michelle Obama's pearls on page 63 and I just can't do this anymore....

So the April 28, 2011 issue of Newsweek arrived with the cover story gloating about "The Beached White Male" yet recognizing that guys without jobs can be a little creepy and dangerous: "The Killer Stalking Long Island." But then, judging by the cover, at least, women aren't exactly tame either, as we are informed that the inside contains a story on "The Smoking Rage of Italian Women." Next issue, please....

The May 2, 2011 Newsweek features (significant, when juxtaposed with the prior cover on the "Beached White Male") the cute little Olsen twins all grown up and exegeted with a story titled "Meet America's Next Billionaires: How Those Cute Little Olsen Twins Built a Big, Fat FASHION Empire" (emphasis added). And of course, the necessary cover story on... Katie Couric. Next issue please. Things can't possibly get any worse.

Until they did. The May 9 issue of Newsweek cover: "Notes From a Royal Wedding," Sarah Palin, and "Obama's Mysterious Mother"....

It was at this point that I canceled my subscription.

Newsweek, though I would argue that it has seldom been a serious magazine, cannot under any standard be considered a serious magazine by even the most frothing-at-the-mouth libtard. Newsweek had its days. It was less liberal than many mainstream magazines throughout the 70s and 80s, and Mike Isikoff even broke the Lewinsky scandal as a reporter for Newsweek in the 90s. Today, however, Newsweek needs only a few scratch-n-sniff perfume ads to become Good Housekeeping, or the perfume ads plus one article per issue on "How to Be a Tiger in Bed" to become Cosmo.

But having adopted the feminist/female perspective, it now attempts to do the work of informing the public about substantive issues with all of the keen insight of a dating profile, all the self-absorption of an Oprah episode on "How to Get Him to Love You for YOU!", and all of the sophistication of a Harlequin romance novel.

Newsweek is dead. It was killed by feminism. And feminism killed it in two ways. First, feminism killed Newsweek by fostering an environment in which someone as untalented and unqualified as Tina Brown could get a job just because she is a woman. Secondly, feminism killed Newsweek by persuading the culture that perspective matters more than truth, and that females have a unique perspective that is worth attending to. In these same two ways (and two dozen more) feminism has almost killed Western civilization.

Newsweek was first killed because somebody, somewhere, made a decision to hire somebody who was not qualified to be a journalist, much less an editor, to handle the serious business of guiding the direction and content of a news magazine. Whoever made this horrible mistake made it because feminism has persuaded them that there is something unique in the female perspective that deserves expressing. In fact, they have insisted, under color of affirmative-action law, that women are required to be given the opportunity to express themselves, regardless of ability - because ability no longer matters. Only perspective matters.

Secondly, Newsweek was killed because it is no longer a news magazine. It is a self-absorbed and petulant expression of self-esteem and female "empowerment." As such, it is a journal of the neurotic, rather than a journal of news, because the only thing unique about the female perspective is its tendency to wholly depart from reality.

There indeed may well be something unique in the female perspective, but it decidedly does NOT deserve expressing, unless one is prepared to make a serious argument that ignoring a $14 trillion debt while explicating the newest in stilettos and Christian Dior controversies is really a grand and important strategy for changing the world in a positive manner. And any magazine that would attempt to persuade us, or deceive us, into believing that "150 Women Who Rock!" is a more important issue than $14 trillion that has to be repaid is on the cutting edge of neurotic - if not psychotic.

Tina Brown is a moron. She was a moron when she was the world's leading expert on Princess Di (and by the way, being the world's leading expert on Princess Di is, in the hierarchy of things, somewhere below being the world's leading expert on The Incredible Hulk... coloring books), and she is a bigger moron today. And a moron, when placed in charge of something important (like one of America's only two remaining newsweeklies) will tend to drag that important thing down to their irrepressibly stupid level rather than abandon their stupidity and pull themselves up to the level of the responsibility that has been laid before them.

Now, don't get me wrong, it is not my position that there is anything wrong with Good Housekeeping or Cosmo, per se. But in the same way that it makes no sense to put lipstick on a pig, it makes no sense to dress Good Housekeeping up in the robes of a sage and call it "newsworthy." Newsweek under Tina Brown is merely Good Housekeeping writ large. It is a futile attempt to float a formerly general-interest magazine by blatantly appealing to a narrow sliver of the general public - women. And let's be honest here, marketing news to women is a bit like marketing Budweiser to Mormons: any inroad you make will be progress, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it is a cogent business move. Women are the least-informed voting bloc in any demographic study, year after year, and that is not (and has never been) because there is a lack of news for women to access. It is, rather, because women would rather read about Charlie Sheen, Kate Middleton, strappy sandals, and "99 Ways to Drive Your Man Wild in Bed" than they would the intricacies of foreign policy, the intellectual matrix of Constitutional law, or the abstraction of the floating dollar.

The shallowness and self-absorption of the "female perspective" on display at Newsweek is the death rattle in the throat of a once-great American institution. The shallow and self-absorbed demographic it is targeted to reach is too shallow and self-absorbed to care, and those serious, thoughtful, and civic-minded enough to care to read a newsweekly will abandon this mess in droves.

Rest in peace, Newsweek. I am going to be subscribing to something with a little more intellectual heft and journalistic integrity... something like Maxim, whose pictures will always be better than anything Newsweek can offer. In the meantime, enjoy your "play."