Objectify Chicks

Feminism = Professional Bitchery: Will the Bitching EVER Stop?

2012-01-18T09:29:00.010-05:00

So, yeah, I get it, chicks have a unique perspective and have been silenced by The Patriarchy and we need affirmative action to open up more channels of dialogue for chicks to give us their opinions about politics and family and the economy and strappy sandals and whatnot.

So recently, the Washington Post, in an attempt to bend over forwards for the femtard hoards, started a new blog especially for women, and featuring women, called "She the People." Clever title. If you are in fifth grade. Which is actually four grades more clever than the average Women's Studies program in grad school.

Now, of course, the dirty little secret, unknown to all except for everyone outside of politics, academia, and feminism itself, which is to say, known by almost everyone, is that feminism's only tool is bitching about this, yielding only to bitching about that, and taking breaks on rare occasion to bitch about the other thing.

So professional bitch... errrrrr.... feminist... errrrr.... bitch, Jessica Valenti, whose life is "complicated" enough to get excited about such things, posted her uncompromising approval of the idea of... affirmative action??? Who knew???

Apparently, she feels (for all feminists feel rather than think) that women should, by sheer virtue of their womanness, be given the headline on the front page, regardless of their talent. It is not enough that the Washington Post has devoted an entire blog to the inane drivel and sheer psychosis that is feminism, and it is not enough that, by virtue of such blog, several women are employed who, by virtue of their Master's Degree in Women's Studies from an Ivy League institution, are fit only to be the Assistant Manager at Burger King. No, Valenti believes that those who have talent (and trust me, we are talking about the Washington Post here, so the whole idea of "talent" is quite relative in this discussion) should simply step aside, forfeit their work and compensation, and yield to the femtard hoards. Maybe she wants femtards to take over the Washington Post, and then just devote a sub-blog to the real writers?

Who knows, maybe Valenti and the other femtard "writers" got a new set of crayons at Christmas...?

So she bitches, quite bitchingly:

Here’s the thing: I will always want more women’s (and feminist) voices in the mainstream media, particularly in politics. There’s an overwhelming byline gender gap and that needs to change. But The Washington Post’s new lady blog, “She the People,” is not a step in the right direction. In fact, I think it’s pretty terrible.*

I’m all for WaPo featuring more women covering politics, but why oh why can’t they just - I don’t know - feature more women covering politics on the main site or pages? As Steph Herold tweeted earlier today, “why do women need a separate blog to write about politics?”
The logo doesn’t exactly help things either. I mean, “she” is underlined with lipstick?

The lipstick is the only redeeming part of the blog, in my opinion. Chicks are so hot in the right color lipstick. Just sayin'....

So, let's follow the progression of femtard bitching, shall we?

1) "There are not enough women writers in the mainstream media." (YAWN)

2) "The mainstream media should devote more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues.'"

3) "Now that the mainstream media has devoted more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues,' we don't like the way in which that has been done, because our psychotic, barely-able-to-construct-an-English-sentence, vocabulary-composed-only-of-variations-of-the-words-victim-and-empowerment writers are being kept in a femtard ghetto rather than splashed all over the front page, in spite of the fact that Newsweek is quickly tanking with their experiment with femtardism we still think all media should be given to us so we can talk about ourselves and our shoes and how abortion is so hottt!, so dammit, give us the front page and all you real employees of the mainstream media go home and await further orders from the jackbooted stormtroopers of feministing."

What is the lesson here? Feminism is not about defending victims of anything, nor about obtaining equality in anything. It is about getting just a little bit more. There is nothing that you will ever say or do, and no society that could be designed in either reality or imagination that will placate the professional bitchery of the femtards.

(I won't get into the psychological or metaphysical here, but one would be tempted to speculate that the constant inability of the femtard hoards to be satisfied with anything is more reflective of an internal state typified by emptiness, rather than any outward reality of genuine denial, but I digress....)

Feminism's only tool is professional bitching. And no matter how much you give a feminist, the bitching will never stop.

Feminists truly do believe that they are entitled to whatever they feel they want, regardless of their level of ability or accomplishment or the contribution (sic) that they make to society. Notice that Valenti never attempts to establish that women are doing a job sufficient to get a "real job" with the Washington Post. Because skill doesn't matter to a femtard. They are entitled, dammit!

But does anybody actually believe that if there were ANY feminist writer with the talent to write for the mainstream media, she would be denied a job?

If you doubt the lack of talent among feminist writers, simply read Jessica Valenti. After a couple of minutes of reading Valenti, you will be craving something sensible like, "See Spot run...."

Promise Me You Will Never Let Go: Role Reversal?

2011-11-19T21:17:00.013-05:00

Above are two scenes from art.

Art, of course, is where we are free to envision the impossible. Art encapsulates science fiction and alternative historical endings. It argues for the future. It sees the impossible as present.

Yet, it is amazing how utterly... conventional... is the message encapsulated in the above pieces of art.

Feminism tells us that men and women are equal. Women can do anything men can do - only better - and while having babies and being morally superior. Because, while women will never lie about being raped, men will certainly lie about raping.

Yet, in the first scene, Enrique Iglesias gives his life for the woman that he is fleeing with. Eventually, running into a group of gangsters, he makes a willing decision to take his licks and sacrifice himself for the woman that he loves. He singlehandedly stands down a group of armed gangsters in defense of... a woman. The words roll easily from his lips, and the concept is something that we all comprehend and find not to be foreign in the least: "Let me be your hero."

In the second scene, after the breakup and sinking of the Titanic, Jack tells Rose to take a deep breath and trust him while leaping away from the sinking ship and swimming, hopefully, to safety. While all hell is breaking loose, Jack is thinking. While everyone is panicking, Jack is in a lower zone of existence, thinking five steps ahead to what the woman that he loves will need - to escape the undertow of the sinking boat, to reserve a big supply of oxygen, to find an ice floe upon which to await rescue, and to possess the resolve, in the form of a promise, to survive. Promise me, he demands of her, that you will never let go. Because you will survive. You will go on and have a bunch of babies and die an old woman in your warm bed. You won't die like this.

You won't die like I will... tonight.

Now, think with me.

Is it even intellectually possible to perform a role reversal in these two scenes?

Is it even theoretically possible that the woman could be singing to Enrique Iglesias, "Let me be your hero while I sacrifice my life in the midst of these crazed gangsters. Let me fight and die to protect you."

OK, stop chuckling.

Could any sane person conceive of Rose protecting Jack as the Titanic breaks up and sinks? Could any sane person conceive of Rose thinking of the undertow, the oxygen, the ice floe, and the need for resolve? Could any sane person conceive of Rose floating in the water with Jack on the floe, and while sacrificing herself for him, telling him that he would not die this way, on this night?

These pieces of art do not "perpetrate a sexist stereotype." They present the only view of reality that rational people could ever possess.

Because as we know, in history as in art, it was the men who stayed behind when the Titanic ran out of lifeboats, allowing the women and children to escape. It was only a man who could utter the phrase, "That's the end boys. We've done our duty," and be satisfied - because only to men does duty matter more than life. And then, only men could finish their lives, waiting for drowning, by singing "Nearer My God to Thee." To postulate that women would stay behind and respond with such dignity and to imagine that women might show such preference for men is even beyond the bounds of legitimate art, which is built upon imagining the impossible.

The limitation, I suppose, is that the impossible has to be presented credibly to represent good art. And while the human mind can credibly conceive of a giant lizard persecuting Tokyo or a city without roads populated by hovercraft or even such odd ducks as a "Wookie," the human mind could never credibly imagine the above two scenes working out in any way other than the way in which they were presented.

The very idea, whether in either the case of armed thugs or a sinking ship, or in the case of history or of art, is more than the human mind can conceive. To even begin to postulate such a scene stretches the limits of sanity and believability. To try to reverse the roles in the above scenes would immediately turn a heroic music video into a gigglefest. It would turn a somber moment into a moment of comic relief. It is not that the role reversals won't happen - they couldn't happen.

Men and women are far too different. And in any moment of need in which a woman did not have a political axe to grind, like mere moments before perceived trouble or death, we all know that she would be turning to the nearest man for her salvation. To postulate any other denouement would far surpass even what we could conceive in science fiction.

Even in the realm of the imagination, we betray more unintentionally than we can ever muster by mouthing tired old feminist phrasings on purpose. The truth is, we all know that men and women are not the same, not equal, not whatever. And to try to pull off a scene that is heroic, dramatic, sad, or virtuous - even in the realm of art - it is necessary to cast the man as the hero, coming to the rescue of the fair maiden. That is, if one is to avoid having one's art degenerate into the boorish, the campy, the sophomoric, the psychotic, or simply the cartoonish. To try to imagine these two scenes ending consistently with the purported feminist world view would immediately elicit the challenge of, "You're kidding, right?" or a quick call to the nearest mental institution.

Even in the realm of art, where our task is the design of new possibilities and alternate realities, we recognize that every single affirmation of feminism is not just wrong, but inconceivably silly.

Female Radio Personality Describes the Historical Rationale for Feminism, and the Legal Basis for Sexual Harassment, in a Single Concise Rant

2011-11-09T07:43:00.006-05:00

Who says chicks can't do philosophy? I was extremely encouraged to hear the following rant by a local radio personality in which she alternately describes the historical basis for the feminist movement, the legal basis for sexual harassment claims, the origin of the Latin language, and the meaning of life (rumored to be, "42"). Next week, catch Carmen's lecture on the relationship between bipolar disorder and the space-time continuum...!

"The feminist movement was started by a bunch of ugly women who wanted special treatment. Feminists do not want equality. They want special treatment. These are a bunch of women who want to be promoted and make their way up the ladder without being qualified.... [Feminism has succeeded] because men are a bunch of wussies, and you [guys] let this happen.... If your [fathers] had not been doormats we wouldn't be in this situation today. Women have no interest in equality, because if they did, we wouldn't see the number of sexual harassment lawsuits that we see."

Carmen Connors, WRDU 106.1's Morning Rush (Raleigh/Knightdale, NC)

I Am the One Percent

2011-10-31T18:31:00.002-04:00

Feminism: Evidence that Women are Weak and Dependent

2011-10-04T08:50:00.006-04:00

The feminist movement is the ultimate admission by women that they are wholly dependent upon men. It is the externalization of a neurotic desire to design a world in which women can be cared for by men, and always have men accept responsibility for their weaknesses, while simultaneously asserting their moral and intellectual independence from men.

While maintaining that women are "strong and independent," women insist that government provide for them through the welfare state, that men provide for them through child support and alimony, that the justice system protect them from even imaginary threats (and the most minor of insults) mobilized by the lavish leveling of false allegations, and that both government and business be fully committed to the proposition of the self-worth of the individual woman through compelling that their hiring, promotion, and professionalization be increased via affirmative action, preferential promotion policies, and through divergent sets of rules for men and women.

Thus, the total dependence of women upon men is revealed by feminism's demand that men, and structures erected by men (such as government and business), continue to be responsible for the provision, protection, and even emotional health of women, who appear wholly incapable of standing on their own the more feminist they become.

BOOK REVIEW: "In Praise of Prejudice" by Theodore Dalrymple

2011-08-21T19:38:00.006-04:00

I once heard a man speak about how the essence of wisdom is the ability to make distinctions. He said, "Eskimos have 14 (or some ungodly number - I don't remember the exact number, but you get the idea) different words for snow. In America, we have one: 'snow.' Now, who is wiser about snow?"

Whether he meant to or not, he was making the point that the ability to detect and express distinctions is at the core of wisdom. The book of Proverbs, the Judeo-Christian canon's most well-known book of wisdom, is essentially a list of arguments which encourages discrimination: wisdom is A, foolishness is B; a woman worth marrying is A, a woman worth leaving alone is B; a godly man is A, a heathen is B. So when you look around today and see nothing but fools, you can rest assured that one of the primary reasons that people are so foolish is that they have surrendered, either willingly or consequent to having been browbeaten into it, the ability to make distinctions.

The ability to make distinctions is known as "discrimination." We speak of a man who is a coniessuer of wine or cigars or fine cars as being possessing "discriminating taste." The notions that we carry around in our heads because we know a lot about wine or cigars or fine cars are, of course, called "stereotypes" (Maseratis possess superior cornering ability, Plymouths are unreliable, Cubans consistently make the best cigars, an older wine is - all else being equal - better). The attitude that certain things are to be preferred or rejected based on the knowledge that we already have of it is called "bias" or "prejudice."

Prejudice, in the modern world, gets a bad rap. Socialists in this country have convinced everyone that 1) prejudice is bad because racial prejudice is bad, and 2) that truly intelligent people walk around without preconceived notions of any kind, constantly trying to figure out the truth anew. In politics, we call this type of person a "Moderate." If you work on a construction crew, you call this type of person an "idiot."

Because all of us operate with stereotypes and prejudices, and life would be impossible without them. Your entire childhood, your parents tried to instill certain ideas in you so that you would understand how the world worked and would be able to function in it safely, only to send you off to a public university where some learned professor attempted to strip you of your "prejudices" and revert you to infancy once again.

For instance, every time that I walk into a room and see a switch on the wall, I assume that if I flick that switch, it will turn on a light - somewhere. This stereotype of switches serves me quite well. Rather than wasting a lot of time dialoguing with a switch when I come into a room to try and get to know it in its own right, I boldly, and with astounding regularity, correctly, walk over to the switch, flick it, and a light comes on somewhere!

Have I been wrong? Of course. I once lived in an apartment and within the first week of living there I flicked a switch expecting a light to turn on and instead heard a great roar as the garbage disposal was engaged. On a rare occasion, I have gone over and flicked a switch and nothing happens. Or at least seems to happen. Whenever I experience nothing after flicking the switch, I always envision that scene from a TV program I once saw in which an unidentified switch is clicked over and over to no apparent effect till we learn that the neighbor's garage door is groaning up and down.

But the number of times that I have been wrong has been infinitessimal. And I am clever enough, when I find a switch that does not seem to turn on a light, I quickly learn, "Oh, that switch is for the garbage disposal." Or the electric chair. Or an exploding booby trap in my neighbor's, last name of Grant, driveway (if only!). And the real point is, is it better to carry around the predisposition that those types of switches turn on lights and merely learn the exceptions, or to enter every room with an empty head and wait for the switches to prove themselves to us?

Political correctness would have us to waste our lives investigating light switches when we already know, with 99.99999% accuracy, what life is all about. It is impermissible to note that women are emotional, and not intellectual - though the number of intellectual women that I have met in my life is a small number, hovering around three. And then, there is Ann Coulter, of course, but I have never met her. If you know her, will you put in a good word for me?

It is impermissible to notice that ethnic minorities commit a disproportionate amount of all crimes, though Liberals themselves are more than happy to mention that imprisonment is a huge problem in various ethnic communities, but not because of crime! - Lord no! - but rather because of a lack of economic opportunity, or education, or transistor radios, or Wii's, or something. It is impermissible to notice that Democrats are the most anti-intellectual individuals on earth, though every study not done by Democrats actually finds that Democrats score very low on tests of factual matters related to politics. And so on....

Theodore Dalrymple goes much farther than argue that prejudice should be accepted and left well enough alone (which I am, myself, ready to do), but he actually encourages and praises prejudice. While my theory is that we should not reject knowledge that comes to us, Dalrymple encourages us to actually seek out occasions to exercise prejudice! OK, well, maybe not, but his book *In Praise of Prejudice* is nevertheless worth more than one read (I stopped at two readings).

Dalrymple encourages us to instill our prejudices about such topics as life, philosophy, religion, and politics into our children, on the grounds that, should we fail to do so, "children will always choose the same thing, the thing that most immediately attracts and gratifies them." They will choose to spend, not save. They will choose to lie to keep themselves out of trouble rather than developing moral character by telling the truth and accepting responsibility and consequences for their actions. They will choose to gorge themselves on sugar, and thus become the objects of Michelle Obama's disdain for being "obese." Perhaps Dalrymple is correct on this point.

Dalrymple further argues that some prejudices are true - as my illustration of the light swtiches above - and we risk, by refusing to pass along these prejudices that false prejudices (like the myth of Global Warming and the myth that Men and Women are the Same and the myth of the Entire Democrat Party Platform) coming along and replacing truth, and that ultimately, the failure to instill in others correct stereotypes and prejudices is an act of great cruelty, as it pushes children out into a world unfit to participate in reality. AND it makes them susceptible to snake oil salesmen and liars, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He further argues that prejudice is, after all, inevitable, as the former prejudice against blacks has, in American, been replaced by a prejudice against whites.

He argues, rightly, that neither authority nor custom, frequent instillers of prejudices, are wrong or abusive in and of themselves. In fact, matters that have been around long enough to be custom are more likely to be correct or true than matters which were adopted for the first time in 1968, and matters that can be spoken of authoritatively are far more likely to be true and right than matters that have to be hemmed and hawwed about and spoken of in vague allusions. "Hope and Change," anyone?

Dalrymple asserts that "discrimination" ultimately means "to make a proper judgment." And that Liberals, who never make proper judgments, have taken occasion from the association of the word with racism to dull the thinking faculties of three generations. He notes that, when he was younger, "A person who did not discriminate, or was undiscriminating, was a person without taste, morality, or intellect [and socially] was likely undiscriminating in his behavior." This explains the popularity of rap music.... And sadly, the intellectual life of Americans has become as polluted as its FM radio stations precisely because a lack of discrimination leaves men unfit to discern between truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness, or even good and evil. This explains the Springer show.... In American intellectual life, as in American pop culture, kitsch has become the constant substitute for truth.

No less towering intellects than Aristotle, Plato (and Socrates through him), and Adam Smith believed in the irrefutable value of prejudice. Those who reject ten thousand years of intellectual history, philosophy, and religion, in preference for the vacant emotional mewling of the 1968 generation would do well to realize that it is not those of us who recognize that stereotypes sting precisely because those that we held to prior to 1968 were true, but that operating with the ability to discern between good an bad is a moral necessity. Such a realization is not an attempt to force our beliefs on anyone, but the radical notion that every man has the right to determine what is right and wrong, true and false, for himself, is an incomprehensibly self-absorbed and prideful idea. Though men capable of rendering a correct judgment will often be considered "arrogant" or "full of themselves" by the moral pygmies whose intellectual and moral diets are dictated by pop culture, there is no more radical arrogance than the wholesale rejection of 10,000 years of truth and wisdom for the right to design a world all of one's own making.

Feminists Do Not Believe That Women Are Equal to Men

2011-07-07T05:00:00.002-04:00

I do believe that equality before the law is, and ought to be, the ideal. This would necessarily imply that all affirmative action principles and other preferences for women (such as the ludicrous presumption that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and molestation) be weeded out of the courts in both principle and practice.

However, such an equality under the law would necessarily result in inequality of results. Men and women, not being the same, necessarily cannot be equal if their ability to secure certain outcomes is the measuring stick for "equality." And what is more, NOBODY - not even feminists - believes that men and women are equal, using that measuring stick.

First, note that the very structure of the law under feminism puts the whole world on notice that feminists consider women to be inferior to men. Feminists structure VAWA in such a way that a woman who makes an allegation is presumed to be a victim, even without the presentation of any evidence. The standard of evidence for obtaining a restraining order under VAWA - which could cost a man (because only men fall into this buzz-saw - that's the way feminists set it up) his home, his children, his marriage, his income, his reputation, and often his freedom - is the "subjective fear of the woman."

Yet if I do so little as proffer an insurance claim which winds up in court, I will be required to produce voluminous evidence to back up may claims or risk, not only losing my claim, but perhaps being charged with insurance fraud. That women are expected to receive the benefit of the doubt when making criminal and quasi-criminal allegations (and, that this is the feminist IDEAL for them to receive said benefit of the doubt) demonstrates clearly that feminists believe that women have a problem with truth-telling, and are thus morally inferior to men.

If feminists really believed that women are as adept at telling the truth as men are, why would they seek to LOWER the standard of evidence for one of the most serious allegations that a man can face to a standard below that required for an insurance claim or a property dispute? Aren't feminists admitting that they doubt the veracity of women (which may not be a bad idea, at least if one asks the Duke Lacrosse team or Dominic Strauss-Kahn or even the Casey Anthony jury) in seeking to have them be believed just because they make claims?

Further, all legal and cultural restrictions/incentives that imply that I should hire/promote merely based on gender is again a backhanded admission that without such restrictions/incentives, women COULD NOT attain such positions or promotions, and again is an implicit admission by feminists that they believe women to be inferior in the workplace. So feminist policy shows clearly that even feminists do not believe women to be equal with men.

But secondly, though feminists will brazenly and obnoxiously proclaim from every housetop that "women can do anything a man can do," I have never been in a personal conversation with someone making that outrageous claim but what the claim has not been immediately followed by a series of caveats....

"... but of course, you can't expect a woman to be able to lift as much as a man...." (this one admission, alone, philosophically destroys the equality argument, in my opinion, since physical strength and stamina necessarily influence, though not necessarily determine, every other ability in life)

"... but of course, social structures have hindered women from attaining fame and fortune as inventors and scientists...." (as if men have not accomplished everything in history against opposition, i.e., talk to Luther, Columbus, Einstein, Churchill, Reagan, or even Johnny Unitas or Joe Namath about how the world just rolled over and encouraged their accomplishments)

"... but of course, the good-old-boy network excludes women from participation...." (as if women, if they were "all that" and twice as bright as men to boot, would not have long ago discovered that the solution to this problem is the establishment of a good-old-girl network to compete against, and ultimately annihilate, the good-old-boy networks)

"... but of course, opportunities have been denied to women...." (because of course, men, at birth, receive a giftwrapped box with opportunity enclosed in it)

But the point should be pretty clear - if you are my equal, you are my equal no matter what. And every caveat that you can attach to your statement of "I am equal to you" is merely an admission that you realize you are NOT equal to me.

For instance, I was recently regaling my wife with stories of what a great basketball player I am, when I said:

"I am every bit the equal of Michael Jordan in every way, but, of course, I have never dunked the ball; and of course, the NBA conspired against me to keep me out of professional basketball; but that is because I am only 6'1, white, and can't jump as high as many NBA players; and so, of course, I never won an NBA championship. But the truth is, I am the equal of Michael Jordan in every way."

I would submit that the nonsensical warblings of feminists about female equality with men are about equally as credible. And the truth is, feminist claims of the equality of women, when it comes to ability, are much more an attempt to convince themselves than they are a justifiable attempt to convince the rest of us.

People who believe in justice will always be committed to genuine equality of men and women before the law. But people who have an intellect more mature than a 12-year old's and who do not fear reality recognize that such equality before the law will necessarily result in a wide practical inequality between the sexes.

The Root Cause of "Domestic Violence" is... Women are Wh*res???

2011-06-26T07:59:00.006-04:00

So a cop in Florida has developed an iPhone app called "CATE" - Call And Text Eraser. Installed on one's phone, it allows one to carry on adulterous relationships without fear of getting caught by erasing all calls and texts on the phone from certain numbers.

"I had a good friend of mine who went through a divorce because his wife was finding things on his phone. It intercepts call and text messages from people on your lists and stores it within the app."

But then, Immler, the cop who is the inventor of the app, reveals something that is says too much by half....

"Immler begs to differ (with those who say his app is an indirect condonation of adultery). He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone."

Now, think about that....

The typical femtard mythology on "domestic violence" (I use quotation marks because, as I have revealed in other posts, the whole concept of domestic violence is fake.) is that men, who are controlled by some evil chemical called "testosterone" and who have been reared to respect violence and non-cooperation as lifestyle choices (after all, men watch football and are competitive... shudder!) and whom society has taught to hate women (because, of course, women are merely nonsentient beings to be controlled and objectified for sexual purposes by the patriarchy!), rise up in all the evolutionary power of their superior strength and beat women senseless for no reason whatsoever.

Now, of course, this mythology doesn't take into account that lawyers who are defending those accused of "domestic violence" across the United States, at least, immediately ask their clients to come up with a list of instances in which the wife (and it is always the wife making the allegation of "domestic violence," isn't it?) was "controlling" or in which the husband/defendant failed to be "controlling," because, as they say in the jurisdictions in which I have knowledge, "All domestic violence proceedings are about 'control,' never about 'violence.'"

But the main point of the mythology, of course, is that women are sainted victims of evil. Evil has been brought about on them by men, the patriarchy, even biology itself (thank God/goddess/Gaia for abortion!). But women are as pure and unsullied as the wind driven snow, and didn't do anything to bring about "domestic violence" (whether that is defined as assault - which it isn't - or merely refusing to give a woman her way - which it is).

But here is an amazing thing. The cop who designed the app says he designed it to deter "domestic violence" (however you define that) because it is prone to happen... when adultery is at issue?

Let's read it again....

"Immler begs to differ (with those who say his app is an indirect condonation of adultery). He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone."

Now waitaminnit... lemme get this straight. Women file 98% of all "domestic violence" (however you define that) claims in the United States. Yet Barney Fife/App Developer here says that "domestic violence" (however you define that) is sparked by the discovery that a spouse is cheating?

So DV (however you define that) is something uniquely complained of by women. DV (however you define that) occurs, according to Mr. Adam 12, when complainants are discovered in adultery. So it must be that women are somehow uniquely related to adultery...?

Ergo, the reason "domestic violence" (however you define that) takes place is: Women are Whores.

Oddly, the story itself dds further fuel to this suspicion when it notes that this app, which is designed to help one cover one's tracks while committing adultery... is primarily downloaded by women!

I think we have stumbled upon a very important solution to the "domestic violence" (however you define that) problem in this country! If women would quit being such irredeemable and committed whores, "domestic violence" (however you define that) would go away!

Let's see if feminists are really interested in wiping out "domestic violence" (however you define that), or if they just want to keep the funding that flows from all the false allegations of "domestic violence" (however you define that).

I think I know how this story ends.

____________

Original story from WPTV.com....

by Rochelle Ritchie

It comes in the form of an app on your cell phone that can hide who you've been texting and calling.

The app, called "CATE," hit the Android market last week and is already getting rave reviews. But one divorce attorney says the app may keep your secrets secret, but not for long.

CATE stands for "call and text eraser" which is exactly what it does. The app erases any opportunity for your significant other to find out who you've been in contact with.

Phillip Immler is a cop who is also in law school. He created the app after a friend's phone was hacked by his spouse.

"I had a good friend of mine who went through a divorce because his wife was finding things on his phone. It intercepts call and text messages from people on your lists and stores it within the app," says Immler.

Only the app owner has the passcode to unlock the contacts he or she decides should be hidden from view. There's already buzz over the app online.

Divorce attorney Robin Roshkind says while the app may promise to hide your infidelity, it won't stop a determined woman or man wanting to know the truth.

"If there is going to be an app to stop all this, trust me, we still have our ways, a good old fashioned private investigator. It's a little ironic it was an officer of the law that came up with this app," says Roshkind.

But Immler begs to differ. He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone.

So far "CATE" has been downloaded more than 20 times in its first week at $2.99 a pop.

Despite the purpose of his app, Immler insists, "I don't condone cheating, no."

Immler says more women have purchased the app than men.

Feminism's Witch Hunt - 2011 Style

2011-06-15T21:06:00.000-04:00

Defund Feminism (#DEFUNDFEMINISM)

2011-06-13T16:45:00.006-04:00

GO TO YOUCUT HERE!

The House Republican Caucus is requesting the guidance of Americans to help the Republican leadership settle on cuts to make as the House wends its way through the process of proposing a reasonable federal budget. In a program called YouCut, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is asking voters to register their approval of certain already-proposed changes, but also is giving voters the opportunity to "Submit Your Idea." By clicking this button, you can make suggestions of cuts that ought to be made, but may not have been suggested yet.

Several things are necessarily true....

1) Feminism in America could not exist without federal funding. NOBODY cares enough about the serial drivel and prepubescent nonsense engaged in by feminists to actually reach into their wallet and fund it. This is why federal grants - under the rubric of "law enforcement" or "education," for instance - are absolutely vital for keeping feminism alive and viable in the United States.

2) Feminism contributes absolutely nothing positive to the American culture or economy.

3) In fact, feminism actively undermines both the American culture and the economy. Its pro-abortion dogma has eliminated the greatest part of two generations of taxpayers, leaving programs such as Social Security and Medicare in the lurch. Its false allegations industry serves only to tie up courts and law enforcement with meaningless political charges, while actively undermining the one thing that has been proven to protect women and children - the family. Its academic endeavors [sic] are widely recognized as being a pablum only slightly more complex than the normal fare of the retarded. Its legal theories, besides encouraging false allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, serve only to destroy business, culture, the military, the professions, and the public good by making irrelevancies out to be real issues ("diversity," "sexual harassment," "women's perspective") and by placing, en masse, unqualified people into positions of responsibility based merely upon their gender.

And yet, billions of dollars per year flow from both the federal and state governments to sustain feminist political programs that serve no recognizable public good other than funding lawyers and further feminist programs.

These are the undeniable facts. Feminism helps nothing, hurts everything, and would simply cease to exist if taxpayers were not strongarmed into keeping feminism alive through the distribution of taxes to feminist organizations by governments.

This being the case, it is time for those who stand with unborn children, the family, business, the culture, legitimate education, justice, and legitimate law enforcement to strike while the iron is hot. For the next few years, Congress will (theoretically) be seeking to make all kinds of cuts just to keep the American ship afloat.

It is thus time for the most malignant tumor in the history of the American experiment to be excised.

It is time to totally, completely, and finally DEFUND FEMINISM.

Please surf over to YouCut, and after voting for the various items for which your vote is solicited, find the "SUBMIT YOUR IDEAS" button at the bottom of the page. Then, fill in the dialog box with your request that ALL feminism in the United States be defunded at the federal level.

I wrote the following in my request:

"I would like to request that ALL feminist political organizations and activities, from Planned Parenthood to women's shelters to feminist studies and women's studies programs in universities, be completely defunded by the federal government.

These are wholly destructive organizations which exist only to consume the hard-earned resources of working Americans while undermining the values and culture that is respected by the American majority.

Further, these are political organizations, and cannot and should not be funded by the taxes of those who disagree with their political policies."

Feel free to swipe my note, modify it, or write your own. Or, if you have a flair for the pithy and dramatic, perhaps you will simply write...

"DEFUND FEMINISM."

It is time to draw a line in the sand, and excise the most destructive political movement in the history of the United States. Join me in asking Congress to DEFUND FEMINISM, and please send your friends to this page to join the fight.

So You Think You Know What Feminism Is About?

2011-06-13T05:00:00.002-04:00

You are delusional or stupid or dishonest if you maintain that feminism is about:

1) Equality.
2) The protection of women.
3) Proper care for children.
4) A stronger, more vibrant society.

Rather, feminism is about:

1) Socialism.
2) The destruction of marriage.
3) The wholesale slaughter of children.
4) The hatred of men.
5) Covetousness.
6) Placing women, children, men, and all of society at risk.

Read the quotes below. Enjoy.

Oh, and I truly AM sorry that nobody has told you the truth prior to now.

Women Want It Every Which Way

2011-06-12T20:03:00.005-04:00

So, let me get this straight....

If Daddy DOESN'T hug and kiss his little femtard as a child, then his little femtard grows up psychotic, histrionic and depressed because he was "a stranger" and "emotionally distant."

If Daddy DOES hug and kiss his little femtard as a child, then he has "sexualized" his relationship with her.

So Dads, write this down! Hug and kiss your little femtard, but DON'T!

Got it?

You perv....

Weiner Dicks Around - Anthony's Sexual Harassment Escapades

2011-06-06T19:29:00.008-04:00

So Anthony Weiner is a bit of a prick. A dick. A... wiener. That much is obvious.

What may not be so obvious is that he is also guilty of sexual harassment.

What is even less obvious is why femtards will be ignoring this fact.

"Sexual Harassment," which Susan Brownmiller admits was a made-up offense designed to make femtard protest posters pithy, witty, and memorable, is nevertheless a fake offense (like "domestic violence") that can cost a man just about everything.

I will never forget living through the Clinton impeachment and speaking to a woman who took great offense at the stories of Clinton semi-boinking the interns while biting the lips of more mature visitors and fathering multiracial children thither and yon. When I asked, "What is it that makes you so upset about this?", she replied, "You can't tell me that if this were the CEO of General Electric the feminists would be all over him screaming 'sexual harassment!' 'Sexual harassment!' 'Sexual harassment!'"

And of course, she was right about that. But we have all known forever that hypocrisy and irrationality are the only two things that feminism has in abundant supply. Oh, and grievance. But anyway....

So I have thought about that conversation with that woman a lot over the years, and I think she was right in a way. Feminism is ultimately not about the rights of women - it is about the extension of socialism. When it is convenient to parade for the extension of socialism under the faux banner of "women's rights" or "equality" or "pro-choice" or whatever 2-3 syllables can be taught to the pressing mob of femtards on a particular day, then feminists will do so. When to insist on their principles will hinder the cause of socialism, however, femtards will back off. Because socialism is their ultimate goal. Not "the rights of women."

This, of course, explains why Bill Clinton, who was alleged to have been a rapist, was the exception to the rule of "women never lie about rape." Because if feminists had insisted that "women never lie about rape" during the Clinton impeachment, it would have hindered the cause of socialism. It also explains why Anthony Weiner is getting a pass....

What exactly has Weiner done that ought to have femtards in a tizzy? Glad you asked.

Now let me first clarify a couple of points - I would NEVER deny that femtards are in a tizzy. Somewhere, you can bet your life on it, feminists ARE IN FACT in a tizzy. In fact, the only strategy of feminism is "tizzy." Like Charlie Sheen, feminists have "only one gear" (unless you count lesbian as a gear, then they have two!), and that gear is "tizzy." Bet your boots on it, feminists are, as we speak, in tizzys the world over.

However, they are not, and will not be, in a tizzy over the antics of Anthony Weiner [unless some heinous crime is revealed, at which point he will have forced their hand, no pun intended]. And I honestly do not think that they should be. But the point is, there are certain things that if the average guy (and only guys, because there are, in fact, two sets of rules) had done JUST AS ANTHONY WEINER had done them, he would currently be experiencing the full wrath of the femtard masses.

Let's postulate for a moment that the CEO of General Electric had done exactly what Weiner has done: "flirted" with random chicks on facebook and twitter, emailed them pics of his erect penis, and engaged in phone sex and dirty hotchat on GE's phones and on GE's time.

"Sexual Harassment" is described as "coercion of a sexual nature... includ[ing] a range of behavior from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse.... [It is] a form of sexual and psychological abuse and bullying."

Click the above graphic to see a list of the types of situations in which sexual harassment may occur [let me once again remind the reader that I fully recognize that sexual harassment is a fake offense - all that I write about it in this article is merely "for the sake of argument"] and the various personality types of sexual harassers.

First note the following:

Where a person is in a position of authority or power over another, due to social status, political power, or age, sexual harassment may occur.
Even "friends" and "strangers" can commit sexual harassment.
"Adverse affects on the target are common."
The harasser may be "totally unaware that his behavior is offensive or constitutes sexual harassment."
"Private harassers carefully cultivate a restrained and respectable image on the surface, but when alone their behavior changes.
"Dominant harassers... engage in harassing behavior as an ego boost."

Now, let's examine the facts of Weiner's case and see how they stack up against the above.

One of Weiner's cyberbabes is now being mocked as having been headed for tabloid scandal since her teen years. Other of his cyberchicks have experienced anxiety, nervousness, and discomfort due to the situation that Weiner put them in.
Several of the "targets" claim that they are only online friends or that they have, in fact, never met Weiner.
Weiner, a Congressman of some political power and influence, was dealing with women aged 21 and 26 and a single mother who is studying in nursing school (as known now), and with another woman who worked full-time as a blackjack dealer in a Las Vegas casino.
Weiner's communication with the women was disrespectful, at one point suggesting that he would have sex with one doggy-style while watching TV and classifying her as a mere "distraction," and self-focused, with constant references to his "fat c*ck" or "ridiculous bulge" with requests to show it off.

It doesn't take long to ruminate and determine that Weiner, in fact, has fulfilled ALL of the aspects of sexual harassment (again, a fake concept) that I have reproduced above. He used his political, social, and age "superiority" to fish for the young or otherwise vulnerable, and the fact that he was merely a "friend" or "stranger" to the women and never actually met them is irrelevant. His gutter flirtations had numerous adverse effects upon the women - from immediate embarrassment to propelling them to get out in front of the story to tell their side first to anxiety to nervousness. Likely, Weiner never intended such adverse circumstances to occur to the women, and may be unaware of their discomfort. Yet his treating them as if they were just holes to be filled for his pleasure while he enjoyed TV or mere "distractions" certainly indicate that it is true, as one of the women said of him, that he "has issues." And apparently, one of the issues is that he considers the female to exist primarily for his enjoyment and pleasure - attitudes that in anyone other than a Democrat politician, feminists would be flooding the airwaves with cries of "SEXISM" about even as we speak.

At least he refrained from the Clintonian cigar trick....

His constant focus on the length and girth of his meat, his desire to expose it, and his need for total strangers to pleasure him certainly indicates that his ego was the primary thing in his own mind. How often, relative to the braggadocio about himself, does he compliment the beauty of the women he is flirting with? And certainly, prior to the infamous mis-tweet, Weiner had cultivated the image of a clean, if raucous, man of the people - even a man who was consumed with advancing feminist issues and making the internet safe from sexual predators.

And darlin,' don't worry - if I can't have you, just a few pics I can "jerk off" to. The very thought of a Jewish girl who can give good head just makes me.... OK, enough of that.

Now....

Can you see the same fact pattern applied to the CEO of General Electric?

If you can, I ask you, what would feminists be saying and doing, right now???

WINNING! Over the Feminist False Allegations Industry.

2011-05-30T11:45:00.007-04:00

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

2011-05-29T12:02:00.004-04:00

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

2011-05-27T05:00:00.000-04:00

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

2011-05-26T13:35:00.002-04:00

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

2011-05-16T05:00:00.002-04:00

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....

2011-05-13T17:51:00.016-04:00

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?

2011-05-09T05:00:00.000-04:00

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

2011-05-07T06:48:00.012-04:00

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."

The Equality of Women - A Historical Perspective

2011-03-30T04:37:00.005-04:00

It is an undeniable shibboleth of the left, and of feminism particularly, that women and men are equal (though some feminists will insist that men and women are equal in always save the physical, which doesn't matter). This is such a common assertion that it has become much like your living room furniture - you no longer question it, nay, you barely even notice it any more.

Oddly, this is something that has been staunchly denied by 10,000 years of human history. Nobody ever believed such nonsense until the 1960s (when, I remind you, people's minds were being addled by drugs) when it became a part of a gospel-like social dogma pushed by people whose ideas have fashioned a world that is undeniably worse by every meaningful measure of social deviance and chaos imaginable.

Below are some historical quotes demonstrating that the wise, the holy, and the awake all have insisted on the inferiority of women for the entire history of mankind....

"This is my conclusion," says the Teacher. "I discovered this after looking at the matter from every possible angle. Though I have searched repeatedly, I have not found what I was looking for. Only one out of a thousand men is virtuous, but not one woman!" Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 (NLT)
"I thank God... that I am male and not female." Socrates
"All women from their birth are searching for their Master." Aristotle
"I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four
"Don't wait for a good woman. She doesn't exist." Charles Bukowski
"Woman was God's second mistake." Frederich Nietzsche
"In revenge and in love woman is more barbaric than man is." Frederich Nietzsche
"The sexual life of adult women is a dark continent for psychology." Sigmund Freud
"That woman is by nature meant to obey may be seen by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of complete independence; immediately attaches herself to some man, by whom she allows herself to be guided and ruled. It is because she needs a lord and master. If she is young, it will be a lover; if she is old, a priest" Schopenhauer
"Woman, who, unless carefully brought into legal and moral subjection, was of all things most likely to be used by that Infernal Serpent as he had already used her in those far-off day...." Eric Dingwell (1957)
"Women are always authoritarian." G.K. Chesterton

Femtards are Such Incredible Idiots

2011-03-27T20:41:00.006-04:00

This has happened at least three times prior... but today I decided I wanted to capture it.

A femtard website has picked up my story on how femtards are irrational because commitment to feminism is an emotional commitment, not an intellectual decision - and is running it as a HEADLINE PIECE on their webpage.

Apparently, all you have to do to be picked up on some sites is run a #feminist hashtag on twitter? Or maybe, judging from the other articles, this was the only article on feminism published that day that was cogent, logical, and not written in pidgen English?

See the original article at ObjectifyChicks: Empowering Women!

Why Are Women So Focused on Being Equal with Men?

2011-03-27T13:00:00.003-04:00

More in the continuing series, Answers for Femtards....

____________________

Q: Why do women focus so much on equality with men?

A: This is an excellent question, and points to a great deal of insight on your part.

Women seek "equal rights" (which must be translated, as it has nothing to do with equality - "equal rights" to a feminist means "preferable outcome") because they are very much aware, from the time that they are small until they graduate with their Master's Degree [sic] in Women's Studies, that they are very much INFERIOR to men.

For instance, what kind of moron would warble on about how men and women are equal enough to do the job of a lawyer or doctor, and then demand that law schools and medical schools LOWER standards of admission specifically so that more women can be included in the respective classes, unless they were very much aware that women could NOT compete on a level playing field - an implicit admission that women are inferior to men?

The person who knows that they are inferior will 1) continually deny their inferiority and 2) seek to get preferential treatment so that they can have some of the social baubles that their inferiority has denied them.

When you realize that feminists understand the inferiority of women, the inconsistencies of it as a political philosophy all of a sudden make perfect sense!

Why are Chicks so Bitchy?

2011-03-11T04:27:00.001-05:00

More in the series, "ObjectifyChicks! answers femtard questions...."

___________

Q: Do you think men, for the most part, are friendlier than women?

My job involves customer service, and I've noticed such a huge difference in how men typically behave compared to the behaviour of women. Men tend to have fewer complaints than women. And if they do have an issue with something, they are much friendlier about it. Even when there's no problems, men tend to smile much more than women do. Alright, so I understand if they're having a bad day, but they don't have to frown at everyone because of it. So, has anyone else noticed the same thing as me? Do you think men are usually friendlier? I think men are more laid back, and don't cause a fuss as easily as women do.

A: Your observation is correct, and is well known to be true in customer service and sales circles.

Our feminist culture brainwashes women into believing that they must be "assertive" because if they are not, people will take advantage of them. Further, feminists are encouraged to think of themselves as victims of everything on earth. Further, feminists encourage women to respond to everything in life by sloganeering, shouting, demonstrating, and generally having a bad attitude.

As our culture becomes more and more influenced by femtards, you will tend to see the intensity of the anger, alienation, and social dysfunction increase.

Men, on the other hand, are real people and because of their team perspective (as opposed to the self-absorption encouraged in women by feminism) ingrained in them by years of sports participation, the military, and business endeavors (real businesses, not femtard nonprofits) know that working with others collaboratively and giving others the benefit of the doubt and assuming that others are responsible is the best way to solve problems.

It is important to note that the behavior you describe is NOT inherent to women, but is rather inherent to feminism - and the more influence feminism has the more this type of maladaptive behavior spreads.

Social Science: Answering A Woman's Question About Poverty

2011-03-09T04:14:00.001-05:00

Q: Why are there more children living in poverty today, 40+ years after we declared a war on poverty?

A: Feminists are to blame, because they are responsible for destroying the one factor most likely to preserve a child from living in poverty: being born within a marriage in which the father lives throughout their childhood

Feminism's assault on the family is either directly responsible for, or an aggravating factor in, every single social problem of the modern Western world.

Women Mature Earlier than Men but....

2011-03-08T04:10:00.000-05:00

The following was a question from a woman, and my highly intellectual (and entertaining) answer....

__________

Q: At what age do women stop growing?

A: At whatever age they become a feminist.

The Truth About Women Who Have Been Influenced by Feminism

2011-03-07T07:50:00.003-05:00

Excuse the pidgin English of the question below, but remember, it was written by a woman....

__________

Question: What is it about Asian women that makes men [mostly white men], wanting to be with them?

It is not so much the LOOK of Asian women that makes them popular with men (though many are beautiful). It is rather the demeanor, attitude, and values of Asian women that make them popular with adult males.

American women are worthless. They are fat, ignorant, self-absorbed, and sexually unskilled. They are so stonehearted that they have been murdering their unborn at the rate of 4,000 innocents a day for 30 years. They are psychologically unstable, romantically unreliable, and more prone than not to use the legal system as a weapon to merely get their way. American women are brash, obnoxious, loud, and irrational - and that is on their very best days.

And as to looks... when did you last hear an Asian woman talk about "comfortable shoes" or note that she didn't "believe in makeup?"

Asian women are (largely) diminutive, petite, and feminine. They are quiet and submissive, and have genuine values (whether or not Westerners would agree with them all) from having been reared in a Confucian environment. They are devoted to their family, and recognize that sexual skill is a necessary part of being a woman. They recognize that their primary loyalty is to their husband and do not have the "party" attitude of young American women. They are clean, manageable, marriageable, and sane. These are the reasons why Asian women are popular among adult males.

And I know that, during the time that I spent in Asia, I was greatly encouraged to find that the average Asian woman wholly rejects feminist philosophy, which is a short way of saying everything I wrote above.

I am married to an American woman who is beautiful, sexually skilled, a good wife and mother, and quiet and submissive. She is a real jewel. However, I had such a hard time finding a woman like her among all the aspiring female linebackers that typify the American female population, that if anything every happened to her, I would actively seek an Asian wife.

Along this line, it is important to recognize that the femtard interest in Western men's attraction to foreign women has nothing to do with their purported concern for "human trafficking." Femtard attempts to criminalize foreign matchmaking services and the ease with which foreign wives can obtain visas is rather an attempt to squelch competition from real women (which Western, femtard women are NOT) so that Western men are forced to settle for the screeching, obnoxious, and fat-laden banshees of the femtard left.

Even feminists, who generally are complete and utter fools, have enough sense to realize that the only way that a man would choose to marry or be involved with a femtard is if they had no other choice.

Castles in the Air

2011-01-09T08:47:00.003-05:00

Feminism requires that one be voluntarily delusional, which is a far more serious problem than mere stupidity.

How One of the Most Powerful Women in History Predicted the Moral Carnage of Feminism

2011-01-04T13:52:00.004-05:00

"I am most anxious to enlist every-one who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and pro-priety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' them-selves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection." Queen Victoria of England, 1870

Book Review: The Death of American Virtue - Clinton vs. Starr

2010-09-24T10:38:00.010-04:00

The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr – by Ken Cormley

As a social studies teacher during the Clinton administration, I had assured my students that it would take the United States 100 years to recover from Clinton's presidency – if it ever did.

Ken Cormley's book on the evolution of scandal into scandal with its eventual climax in the impeachment proceedings has been universally (as far as I can tell) praised as being an even-handed work of scholarship. Cormley is a Constitutional Law scholar and dean at the Duquesne University Law School, and his account of this David vs. Goliath (hint: David is Ken Starr, for illustrative purposes) struggle is indeed one of the finest works of historical inquiry that I have read. And as a former social studies teacher, I have read a lot of history. It is intricately sourced and indeed, even-handed, yet reads like the finest of novels.

As one would expect from a work praised for its lack of bias, the book reflects real world realities starkly. We know who is wearing the white hats and the black hats in this story, just as anyone whose conscience has not been perversely twisted during the actual Clinton scandals. Bill Clinton is a vile, monstrous, deceiver – a man of few principles and zero conscience. What you will learn, perhaps for the first time by reading Cormley's book, is that Clinton is also a world-class coward. Ken Starr, however, is a man of impeccable character, respected as a man of integrity by everyone who was not a defendant in this case, including Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno (pp. 340ff). While Starr occasionally appears (and admits to being) somewhat befuddled by the prosecutorial task of following allegations, he is clearly a man of honesty and honor whose shortcomings are entirely human and do not affect the final outcome of the investigatory task. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and others, are proven repeatedly to be the liars that we all knew that they were back in the day.

Having said all that, I would say that reading Cormley's book has significantly changed my mind about a few things.

First of all, back in the day I considered it to be axiomatic that Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, et al., were obviously telling the truth about being sexually harassed, raped, and what have you, by Bill Cinton. Upon reading Cormley's book (did I mention that it has been praised for being even-handed?), I am convinced that they were not, in fact, telling the truth.

Paula Jones repeatedly expressed a desire to have her case concluded with a fair settlement just so that she could “have her life back.” Her advisors, including (but not limited to) conservative activist Susan Carpenter-Macmillan and Jones' own ex-husband, continually twisted her arm to keep the ball rolling. Had Jones actually been harassed in the way that she described, I cannot imagine her being willing to dismiss her allegations upon payment of funds to a charity, especially when the allegations of Clinton's alleged character as a rapist began to be published abroad. Further, Jones repeatedly assured various characters, including her own lawyers, that she would do certain things (settle the case) and wouldn't do certain things (pose naked in a porno spread), and reneged on those commitments. Finally, in one of the most outrageous lies ever known to man, Jones maintained to her lawyers once the said buff pictures had indeed been published that she was unaware that she was being photographed. *Ahem.* Anyone who has seen any of those pictures knows that Ms. Jones was quite aware that she was being photographed. Jones is an unstable liar, and her allegations against Clinton should be discounted accordingly.

Willey's case is, if anything, even more cut-and-dried than Jones.' Willey alleged that Clinton accosted her when she came to seek a political job from him, pinning her against the wall, biting her lip, and aggressively fondling her breasts. However, on the very date on which Willey suggests that this occurred to her, Linda Tripp maintains that she saw Willey coming out of Clinton's office appearing in an almost dreamy state, relaxed and happy – certainly not distraught in any way. Additionally, Willey's friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, denied that she had ever maintained that Clinton had misbehaved with reference to her. Willey, in fact, confessed to being behind closed doors with Clinton and willingly kissing and mutually groping him.

In short, by all evidence that exists beyond mere prejudice, it appears that these two women (and a host of others, whom I will ignore in the interests of brevity) were mere opportunists who sought to gain something – whether a Penthouse spread or a job – by the filing of false allegations against the president.

The hypocrisy which congeals around these allegations, which were simultaneously widely considered to be false among the intelligentsia and yet widely circulated by that same intelligentsia, is astounding. Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post and the boss of Mike Isikoff, who broke the Lewinsky story among the “respectable” [sic] media, admitted that, while a great fan of JFK (whose credentials as a “girler” were impeccable), it was necessary to pursue and publish similar allegations against Clinton: “[Clinton] made the news.... I mean, we didn't take up with Monica Lewinsky.... Where do I draw the line? I draw the line at truth.”

Ahhhh, but there is the rub. Any time Bill Clinton is involved, the lines between truth and falsehood become marvelously blurred, don't they?

While it is true that Clinton is among that vilest of the class of human beings – those who treat their marriage vows as if they were clauses in a contract riddled with exceptions – and is singularly the most perverse and shameful politician to have ever inhabited the national stage (BHO44 notwithstanding), and while it is true that Clinton had (shall we say?), an extremely full social calendar, while broadcasting abroad the truth that Clinton was a devilish adulterer whose compulsion apparently exceeded that of one Tiger Woods, the press simultaneously broadcast the known falsehoods of the myriad of empty pockets, heads, and lives who swarmed around the Starr investigation like sharks around chum, seeking Warhol's proverbial 15. In short, the truth that Clinton was (and still is) an adulterer is not an excuse for knowingly accusing him of nonconsensual antics – including rape (Exodus 20:16).

But when lies are being tossed around, Bill Clinton is in his element. He is not just a Master of the Lie, in fact he is The Ringmaster of the Lie. Kevin Ohlson, a Justice Department appointee under Clinton, expressed fear when Janet Reno recommended handing off the Lewinsky matter to the Office of Independent Counsel (and by the way, contrary to the insane warblings of the Clinton administration, the investigation into the Lewinsky matter had nothing to do with sex – it was rather an investigation into obstruction of justice and the possibility of bribery being passed through Vernon Jordan in the form of a jobs-for-silence conspiracy): “Oh my God, this could lead to the president's resignation... out of sheer and utter embarrassment” (343). Of course, Ohlson can be forgiven for the unprovable assumption that Bill Clinton possesses enough conscience to feel embarrassment about anything. It is a common trait among sociopaths, of course, that they display no capacity for shame....

And so the false allegations against Clinton produced, not the truth, but rather an engorgement on falsehood that resembled, spiritually, the chaos present whenever my mother-in-law and a buffet are in the same room. Clinton was more than happy to engage in denials of the truth (one of which had his law license permanently revoked in Arkansas), character assassination (“Drag $100 through a trailer park and who knows what you'll come up with?”), and a scorched-earth policy of mudslinging (as successive Republican Speakers of the House resigned under the assault emanating from the Clinton White House through model citizen and *Hustler* publisher, Larry Flynt). Because Bill Clinton is a liar deep in his soul, he is in his element when the lies are flying fast and furious. And if winning counts, then he won. But if someday one is held to account for *how* one wins, there may be a somewhat different verdict before a slightly more majestic bar than the impeachment panel rightly convened against him.

So yes, it is quite an even-handed treatment of a chaotic period of American history. Cromley's objective treatment show Bill Clinton to be the vile criminal that he actually is in real life – a man so alienated from truth that he is destined to be remembered primarily for lies. Both the lies that he himself told, and the slanders that were proffered against him.

What has not been discussed in Cormley's book, or any other, of course, because the topic is expressly *verboten* among polite society (luckily, I do not consider myself to be polite at all), is the nexus between the Clinton scandals and feminist doctrine.

First, one may justly wonder, though Ben Bradlee seemed not to do so, why it is that the philandering of JFK, FDR, and (possibly) other presidents were largely covered up by the media, while Clinton's were declared, as it were, from the housetops. Now, liberals have their own explanation as to why this occurred (a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but then paranoia is a natural aspect of the mental disorder known as liberalism), but liberals are always wrong, and have been proven so by history. So what is the real reason?

One word: court. Court documents. OK, that's really two words.

Marcia Lewinsky, Monica's mom, essentially paints her daughter as the victim of a perjury trap, noting that EVERYBODY'S first reaction when caught in adultery – even when you have got “the goods” on them – is to deny it. She makes the point that Paula Jones' public display was voluntary (though Jones herself would deny this, saying that she was thrust into the spotlight by *The American Spectator*): “Just because Paula Jones may have thought it was her right to make a public spectacle... I think Monica [similarly] thought it was her right to keep it private. And not to tell anyone about it, and to deny it, which is exactly what she did” (p. 399).

And I would agree, except for one thing: feminists generally, and Bill Clinton specifically, not Paula Jones, long ago made the decision for all of us that sex was going to be a public matter to be wielded like a weapon whenever it stood to benefit a woman to do so (and with so-called “rape shield laws,” feminists similarly established that feminism is not really about equality, but about enacting a series of double standards, when they also devised evidentiary standards in legal cases which kept relevant information about a so-called “victim's” past out of evidence, thereby reducing all rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual harassment claims to “he said/she said” status).

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a sop to the feminist movement without whose devotion he would not have been elected (and, as subsequent events would confirm, as a sop to his wife as well). VAWA contained several provisions that were designed to promote the filing of false charges by women against men:

VAWA removed the possibility of perjury charges for any testimony that a woman makes in a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearing.
VAWA lowered the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO from the “likelihood of imminent harm” standard, which has been the standard for obtaining restraining orders in English Common Law since prior to the establishment of the American experiment, to the much more mushy “subjective fear of the woman.” In practical terms, this means that traditionally, in order to get a restraining order, a person had to prove that absent such an order, there was an imminent probability of harm. Under VAWA, however, any woman willing to manufacture false allegations (and nearly all DVPO proceedings are merely a convenient venue for the airing of generic grievances which have nothing to do with “violence” - it is estimated that false DVPO proceedings drain the economy of $20 billion annually, see http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-False-DV-Allegations-Cost-20-Billion.pdf), against a man need only convince a judge that she possesses fear of that man (and not even that such fear is justified!) in order to be granted a restraining order. Obviously, it is exceedingly rare for a requested DVPO to not be granted, on even the flimsiest of evidence. I have seen DVPOs granted by courts because the husband was an evangelical Christian or, in one case, because a husband canceled an insurance policy – which caused his wife to very dramatically intone in her testimony, “I just don't know who he is anymore. That is not the kind of thing he would do. I feel naked and exposed – I am SO SCARED.” Subjective fear of the woman requirement satisfied: DVPO granted.
VAWA further continues to corrupt the judicial system by controlling the continuing education classes taken by judges and attorneys on the topic of “domestic violence.” Of course, all such continuing ed courses are taught either by doctrinaire feminists, who view the breakup of the family as a part of their ongoing political project, or by representatives of women's shelters, whose funding depends on an ever-expanding definition of and finding of “domestic violence.” Lawyers and judges at the district court level, where these matters tend to be disposed of, are now thoroughly brainwashed by feminist dogma, which has no relation to facts.

Clinton had, then, as one of his first major triumphs of policy, signed into law a piece of legislation that was designed to produce false allegations. It has done so in spades. This is entirely consistent with everything that we know about Bill Clinton, because the one reality that history will inevitably connect with his name is "liar." A man who lies as much as Bill Clinton always has, would certainly be a man whose alienation from truth is so complete as to desire to encourage lying in the general populace.

Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones were hardly the first females to use... uhhhhh... "creative" interpretations of sex to accomplish their purposes, whatever they were. In the book of Genesis, we see that false allegations are second only to seduction in the female weaponry utilized in the war against men (Genesis 39:7-20).

But the United States, under the tutelage of Bill Clinton, the notorious liar, and consequent to the Violence against Women Act, is the first society in all of human history to actively encourage these false allegations. Bill Clinton signed VAWA with the full knowledge that false allegations would ensue, that innocent men would be separated from their children (at least) and unjustly convicted of crimes (at worst), and that the American family would experience incomprehensible carnage. And that is exactly what has happened.

The purely karmic reality, however, is that Clinton was one of the very first to suffer under this regime.

God does exist.

And He has quite a sense of humor.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, there is nothing funny about the carnage that has been wreaked on the American family by Bill Clinton's signing of VAWA. It will, indeed, be 100 years before America recovers from the Clinton administration.

If it ever does.

Who Harms Women?

2010-09-03T07:25:00.004-04:00

‎"Feminists have done more damage to women since the 60s than men have done in all of human history." Carmen Connors on WRDU's (106.1, Raleigh/Knightdale, NC) "The Morning Rush"

Interesting FEMALE perspective, wouldn't you say...?

My Chat With an Attorney

2010-05-28T10:03:00.003-04:00

So I was talking to an attorney earlier this week. The conversation shifted - lurched - from a generic "how-are-you-doing?-how's-the-family-how-ya-likin'-your-new-office-manager?" to "Why I no longer practice family law...."

The attorney says to me, "I've had it. All family lawyers are outrageous liars."

This was not news to me.

"And the judges - for God's sake! - the judges tolerate childish antics from the attorneys because they are afraid of calling women out on their neurotic and juvenile behavior..."

Of course, the implicit fact behind this statement is that most family lawyers are, indeed, women. Oddly, family law once was the area of practice that the bottom ten per cent of a law school class went into because it isn't really law - it is more like institutionalized temper tantrum throwing, which suits women well....

"... and the women!" the attorney continued. "Holy #$@&!!! I guess the judges in family court tolerate perjury so much because if they didn't, the women wouldn't be allowed to testify at all!!!"

While I agreed with what the attorney was saying, and inwardly was cheering, I did find it odd to be hearing all this - from a FEMALE attorney!

While I was tempted to ask her how many of the men she thought were lying, I figured that question might telegraph my position a bit much. Instead, I offered, "Yeah, and those godawful domestic violence hearings. I mean, once I saw a guy get thrown into jail because he had cancelled an insurance policy without telling his wife - she claimed it "made her fearful for her safety" and under the DVPO law in our state, the judge just locked him up....."

My female attorney friend didn't miss a beat. "Phshaw!" she exclaimed. "Domestic Violence indeed! I swear that 85% of the allegations offered by women are patently, obviously false. These women start committing adultery and in order to keep their husbands from finding out - or worse, ratting them out to friends and family - all of a sudden their husbands are "controlling" and "emotionally distant" and "emotionally abusive. I have yet to see a woman enter a DVPO hearing complaining of bruising, if you know what I mean" my attorney friend volunteered, somewhat craftily.

So it turns out that my FEMALE attorney friend, who admits that she started her law practice with "high hopes" and "faith in the system," now considers herself "jaded" and "never to darken the doors of a family court again." Why?

"Those lying women," both the family law attorneys and their clients.

Who'da thunk it?

Draconian Feminist Sentencing Destroys a Woman

2010-05-01T06:27:00.004-04:00

Michelle Taylor got drunk one night and allowed a 13-year old boy to fondle her breasts.

She was charged with the crime of committing lewdness with a minor (a charge which feminists in Nevada had recently been part of having the legislature change the sentence for, in an attempt to fight the bugaboo of "sexual predators" - i.e., as a means of having men who were slandered by their wives in custody battles locked up permanently), she was tried, and convicted.

Now she appears at her sentencing "hearing" with only one possible sentence: life in prison.

Everything that the defense attorney says in argument against the legislative statute is true. It is a draconian, unconstitutional violation of due process. The female lawyer is particularly compelling, I think, when she argues that if Ms. Taylor had killed the "victim" (?) after allowing him to fondle her breasts, the maximum sentence would be only 50 years. As I say, everything that the defense attorney says is true. What is the greatest truth, however, is what went unsaid - what went unsaid despite a direct question.

At one point, the female defense attorney says, "This law was never intended to apply to... people like Ms. Taylor," and the judge responds, "Why not?" The defense attorney, shaken, promises "I'm getting to that," yet she never explains why Ms. Taylor should have been excluded from the application of this law, or what type of person it was intended to apply to.

She doesn't say it because she can't say it. Nobody can say it, though everybody in the room knows the answer. It is literally the pink elephant in the room.

For, though organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) deny it, it is plain that feminist involvement in "child abuse" and "child molestation" issues is far more about ensuring that men are pliant on custody and other issues during divorce, and about adding another tool to the feminist toolkit for destroying men. One organization, Stop the Silence, accessed through the NOW website, states that one of its primary objectives is working on issues of "protective custody" (i.e., not letting Junior and Janey be around Daddy, whom Mommy slandered when Daddy showed up in court with lawyers!) and "other prevention measures, i.e. a focus on appropriately dealing with offenders."

Of course, appropriately dealing with offenders means being sure to hyperventilate appropriately prior to locking innocent men slandered in divorces up for life.

So the defense attorney can't say what she is thinking: "Your honor, the dirty little secret of the legal system, that everybody in this courtroom knows, is that this law was enacted only to burden men with such harsh treatment - and many of them for doing less than Ms. Taylor did. Only men were supposed to be warehoused for life after their ex-wives invented false allegations of child abuse against them. 'Life in prison' for such a mediocre crime as allowing a 13-year old boy to fondle one's breasts is too much for a woman."

But it is a law that was sought and pushed by feminists as a means of destroying men.

And men face such kangaroo court proceedings as this every day: in fact, every single Domestic Violence hearing in the United States today is a "hearing" only in the same "star chamber" sense as the "hearing" endured by Ms. Taylor - the end result is already determined, no matter what the evidence is shown to be. For men, to be accused is to be guilty of domestic violence. At least Ms. Taylor had the chance at a trial - though her lawyer complains that she was not offered an opportunity to plead out.

Every day in America, innocent men are accused of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse by women who have no morals, who are encouraged to do so by "women's shelters," attorneys, police, and courts who not only knowingly countenance such false allegations, but refuse to charge them with perjury when their slander is evident. Every day these men's lives are destroyed, and many innocent men end up in jail under such draconian laws, designed by feminists in their war against men.

But now, it turns out the proverb is true: "Whoso diggeth a ditch shall fall therein" (Proverbs 26:27).

For feminists, I hope that each of you one day tastes the equality that you have designed for Ms. Taylor and for thousands of innocent men that your immoral and hateful program has destroyed, or attempted to destroy.

For Ms. Taylor, I sincerely hope that somehow you (and the thousands who did less than you - all men slandered by women) are released and find grace to rebuild a meaningful life.

Face of Feminism: Linzi Gorman, False Rape Slanderer

2010-04-29T17:02:00.005-04:00

Get drunk: Check!

Bang a couple of strangers in the bushes at the park: Check!

Feel regret or fear: Check!

Make up story about being raped: Check!

Send police on witch hunt: Check!

Allow innocents to be arrested and charged: Check!

Hey Femtards! How's that whole "women don't lie about rape" thingy workin' out for ya?

This story originally appeared in the Belfast Telegraph:

Face of a rape liar

Sunday, 25 April 2010

[No author given]

This is the drunken liar whose false rape claim almost wrecked the life of a grammar school pupil.

Lying Lindsay Gorman, known as Linzi, sparked a huge manhunt when she told police she had been sexually assaulted late at night in Belfast's Botanic Gardens in April 2008.

The 20-year-old from the plush Walnut Hollow area of Larne had, in fact, had drunken consensual sex with two different men in bushes at the park.

But detectives believed her pack of lies and a short time later arrested Campbell College student Mark McLean.

In June 2008, the innocent 18-year-old from east Belfast appeared in court charged with rape.

He was freed on £3,500 bail after being forced to stand handcuffed in the dock while a lawyer publicly accused him of being a sex offender.

A detective, fooled by Linzi's lies, even told the court that police had forensic evidence linking Mark to a “high-profile stranger rape”.

Three weeks later later bed-hopping Linzi went to Newtownabbey PSNI station and admitted she made a false rape claim.

Crystal Gail Mangum - Feminist Icon

2010-04-27T06:51:00.005-04:00

Finally, Crystal Gail Mangum has been called to account for her crimes!

You will, of course, remember Ms. Crystal Gail Mangum. She is the slanderous harpy (i.e., feminist) and "exotic dancer" (i.e., hooker) who lodged false allegations against the Duke University Lacrosse team in 2006 - apparently because she felt slighted when she was not tipped what she thought she deserved for dancing at one of their parties.

As per usual, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper intervened and administratively dropped the charges against the lacrosse players, the decision was made in the local district attorney's office to not prosecute Mangum for her crimes of abuse of process, filing a false police report, obstruction of justice, or even perjury.

The stated excuse for not filing such criminal charges against her was that she was too mentally unstable to be legally responsible for her crimes (but then, aren't all feminists similarly mentally unstable?). However, let's never forget that it is the official legal dogma of the feminist movement that slanderous women who file false allegations against innocent men (and there are many - up to or exceeding 60% of the aggregate allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse or molestation are false allegations) should never be prosecuted, inasmuch as such prosecutions of slandering hussies will deter "real victims" from filing their complaints. Oddly, feminists have never argued that those who file false insurance claims should not be prosecuted lest such prosecutions deter those with real insurance claims from filing....

But one district attorney in a false allegations case, in explaining why he would not file charges against the perjurious feminist who slandered an innocent man, demonstrated the depths to which femtard mythology has penetrated into the black heart of the legal system....

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them."

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in fact, codifies this feminist desire to encourage false allegations by encouraging states to adopt no-prosecution policies against any women who file charges of "domestic violence" against a male - even if such charges are determined to be false.

The end result of this turn of events is that feminists strive for a cultural milieu in which women are encouraged to file false charges against innocent men by removing all costs to themselves for doing so. It is the decriminalization of the crime of perjury - if one is a woman, of course.

Now of course, morally, matters are much stickier. For in fact, we have all known that Crystal Gail Mangum was a criminal nearly from day one. That the state refuses to prosecute her based on its political corruption by feminist dogma does not mean that she is not a criminal - for certainly she is a criminal, regardless of whether she has been prosecuted. And she is rightly viewed with contempt across the board in this country today.

But nevertheless, the whole Duke Lacrosse situation remains an interesting illustration of what passes for "justice" in the twisted feminist mind. Emotionally unstable and mentally shortchanged women are encouraged to approach life from a perspective of vigorous anger and self-absorption, never considering the lives of so much as their own children, and certainly giving less than a care about any man or even society itself. When such women act out... errrrrrr... lash out... uhhhhhh... "empower themselves," the innocents whom they are in the process of destroying are expected to simply accept their punishment (in the criminal realm, or settle, at a cost of thousands or millions of dollars in the civil). Meanwhile, the costs to those individuals is astronomical (as the Duke Lacrosse players and their families had to expend millions of dollars to defend themselves against the slander of Mangum and District Attorney, Mike Nifong), the costs to society are unexpected and far-reaching (as the Duke Lacrosse team lost an entire season of play, Mike Nifong lost his job and wound up in jail, Duke University settled out of court for willingly participating in the slander against the lacrosse players, several players did not graduate from Duke, the lacrosse coach lost his job, and the entire Durham community was divided along political lines) over what was, remember, merely a woman acting out because she had been brought up with a sense of feminist entitlement in a feminist culture which teaches women that if they do not get what they want they are justified, nay, even required, to be assertive and stand up for your rights and not be any man's doormat and lash out in some way at whatever displeases them.

Feminism is, of course, a mental disorder. It is a form of neurosis, in which its adherents are taught to ignore reality, replacing it with a dream world designed in their own heads. Further, it is a form of sociopathy, in which social conventions and the rights of others are submerged into an extreme narcissism and self-absorption that produces a bent toward aggression and crime. Whether those crimes be the filing of false allegations, other forms of perjury, or the slaughter of unborn innocents on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust, feminists are simply and inarguably criminals - though mostly unprosecuted, as was Mangum.

Feminists often tell us that "sexual predators" (i.e., those whose lives have been unjustly stained by the feminist false allegations industry's slanders) should be stopped on the first sign of deviance, so that far greater crimes in the future may be avoided.

Would that feminists were equally as concerned about the criminal potential of their own adherents, whose crimes are not imagined. Mangum's criminal record, for instance, is interesting. She was arrested for driving while impaired in 2000, and surrendered (or had revoked) her license in lieu of prosecution. But in 2002, Mangum was charged with grand larceny, driving while impaired, speeding to elude arrest, and assault on a government official when she stole a taxi belonging to a man to whom she was giving a lap dance, initiated a high-speed chase with police, and attempted to run over a policeman who approached the taxi on foot. She pled guilty to misdemeanor charges and spent three weekends in jail.

Then, of course, came the moment(s) of truth. On February 17, 2010, Mangum's daughter called Durham County's 911 and reported, "My mom's gonna die if you don't hurry."

Upon arrival, the police found Mangum in a violent, chaotic meltdown. She was, of course, merely "being assertive" in feminist style. Police report that they observed her "kicking, scratching, and throwing objects" and that they heard her threaten to kill her boyfriend (!!!???), one Milton Walker, when she screamed "I'm gonna stab you, motherf****r!" Yes. In front of police. Think maybe Missy has come to believe that there are no consequences for her wrongdoing...?

Upon further inspection of the home, police discovered that she had deposited her boyfriend's clothing in the home's bathtub and set them on fire.

Did I mention that Mangum's three children - aged 10, 9, and 3 - were present in the home?

I am pleased to report that Mangum has finally been charged with a crime -a whole slew of 'em, in fact! From attempted murder, to simple assault, arson, child endangerment, communicating threats, identity theft, damage to property, and resisting arrest, she has finally had the state endorse the proposition that all of us knew to be true from early in 2006 - that Crystal Gail Mangum is a sociopathic criminal who ought to have been locked up long ago.

Yet, something bothers me about all this....

I have previously pointed out that Mike Nifong is a feminist icon. It really doesn't make sense that he has been disbarred, charged and convicted with crimes, and locked up in jail - all he did was exactly what feminists have demanded that all law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts do: believe all allegations made by women against men regardless of the evidence.

In the same way, I can't really see charging Mangum with any crimes since all she is doing is exhibiting the strong, independent, assertive (some would say narcissistic and sociopathic) personality type that is encouraged in women by our feminist culture.

For instance, feminists encourage the filing of false allegations against men, and even admit that they are not really concerned that such false allegations take place! One Catherine Comins of Vassar College remarked in Time magazine....

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

Undoubtedly this is true. Primarily, I would think they gain a realistic perspective on feminism.

If false allegations are merely a public service done by women toward men, why then, who is more of a feminist iconoclast than our beloved Crystal Gail Mangum?

Feminists additionally assure women that, when they feel that their rights are trampled on, or when their feelings are not taken into account by the male authorities in their lives (be that daddy, hubby, lover, or employer), they are justified in manufacturing criminal or civil charges, in the form of a false rape claim, a claim of domestic violence, or a manufactured civil claim of sexual harassment.

Undoubtedly, Mangum merely looked at the economic hardship of her country (for she is undoubtedly a patriot), and decided to handle her problems without further burdening a family court system that is already overburdened with the false allegations of thousands of other women! Criminal? Hardly. Mangum is merely a feminist who respects Hayek!

Feminist culture teaches women that their happiness, self-fulfillment, self-esteem, and self-absorption is the primary issue in all of reality. It justifies the destruction of innocent men, the devastation wreaked upon the institution of marriage, justifies the groaning weight of the welfare state, and even serves as a ready reason for the slaughter of the unborn in the womb. Children are merely appendages that can be disposed of at will when the interests of the mother are at stake.

It is puzzling, then, why Mangum could be charged with child abuse. After all, had the fires that she set inside the house actually gotten out of hand and her children had perished, undoubtedly she would not have thought of it as murder, but rather as a 40th-trimester abortion (at least for her ten year old, feel free to do your own math on the other two kids!).

I could go on, but I think the point I am making is rather much clear. Crystal Gail Mangum may or may not be a criminal, but in a feminist culture in which her behaviors are merely the logical extension of femtard agitation it is worth considering: Is it true that Crystal Gail Mangum is a feminist icon, having mastered the behaviors and attitudes encouraged by feminism, and if so, is it also true that feminism is merely the politicization of a criminal sociopathy?

Defining Rape Down, and Down, and Down.... (Guest Column from theFIRE.org)

2010-04-26T20:04:00.005-04:00

Originally posted at theFIRE.org

This is yet another feminist legal innovation and a repudiation of all that is good and right and fair about Western jurisprudence: in order to commit a crime, it has traditionally been required that one possess the mens rea - guilty mind or knowledge that one is doing wrong - of a crime. Feminists would rather just have all men be known as rapists, so now it is necessary to define rape in such a way that one isn't aware one is committing it.... [ed.]

New Duke Policy Renders Students Unwitting Rapists; Removes Protections for Those Accused of Sexual Misconduct

April 7, 2010

DURHAM, N.C., April 7, 2010—Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus. The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." Duke's new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the "atmosphere" or because one or more students are "intoxicated," no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.

"Duke's new sexual misconduct policy could have been written by Mike Nifong," said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. "Members of the men's basketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are 'perceived' as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship. Students who engage in sexual behavior after a few beers could be found guilty of sexual misconduct towards each other. This is not just illogical and impractical, but insane. Given its experience during the lacrosse team rape hoax, Duke, of all schools, should know better than to institute such unjust rules about sexual misconduct."

The new policy was introduced at the beginning of the school year with fanfare from the Duke Women's Center—the same center that apologized for excluding pro-life students from event space in a case FIRE won last month. Women's Center Director Ada Gregory was quoted in Duke's student newspaper The Chronicle justifying the new policy, saying, "The higher [the] IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are ... imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop." (In a follow-up letter to The Chronicle, Gregory claimed that the quote was inaccurate and did not reflect her views, but stood by her analysis that campuses like Duke are likely to harbor smarter sex offenders who are better able to outwit investigators.)

Duke's vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through "perceived power differentials," which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when "intoxicated," regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

"Of course, there is no way that everyone who was intoxicated during sexual activity, let alone 'perceived' as more powerful, is going to be charged with sexual misconduct," said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program. "Add to that the provision about an unintentional atmosphere of coercion, and anyone can see that Duke's policy is impossible to rationalize or to fairly and equitably enforce. As a result, this policy effectively trivializes real sexual misconduct, which is a gravely serious crime."

The new policy even makes reporting of so-called sexual misconduct mandatory for any Duke employee who becomes aware of it, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victim.

Furthermore, Duke has made fair enforcement of the sexual misconduct policy even more difficult by establishing different procedures and even a different "jury" to judge sexual misconduct complaints. For instance, sexual misconduct charges are judged by two faculty or staff members and only one student, but all other offenses are judged by a panel of three students and two faculty or staff members. Duke fails to explain why a jury with a majority of one's peers is necessary for charges like assault or theft but not sexual misconduct.

Other problems in the sexual misconduct policy, detailed in FIRE's letter to Duke President Richard Brodhead of March 4, include giving the complainant more rights than the accused, requiring the results of a hearing to be kept secret in perpetuity even if one is found not guilty or is falsely accused, and allowing anonymous and third-party reporting so that the student may never be able to face his or her accuser.

FIRE wrote, "As a private university, Duke is not obliged to agree with the authors of the Bill of Rights about the value of the right to face one's accuser. Nevertheless, Duke ignores their wisdom at the peril of its own students and reputation." Duke has declined to respond to FIRE's letter in writing.

"More than any other school in the nation," Shibley said, "Duke should be aware that its students deserve the best possible rules and procedures for ensuring that rape and sexual misconduct charges are judged fairly. Sexual misconduct is a serious offense. Duke students deserve a policy under which true offenders will be punished but the innocent have nothing to fear."

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

Empowering Women!

2010-04-23T14:33:00.009-04:00

So I am talking to this femtard. She assures me she is neither "doctrinaire" nor "extreme." She isn't a follower of the Femtard Goddess, Oprah, nor does she "hate men." She is a "reasonable" feminist.

So I say to her, "No, you are not a 'reasonable feminist.' Nobody on earth is a 'reasonable feminist' because nobody has ever become a feminist through reason. You are a feminist - to whatever degree - because of your emotions."

"That's the most outrageous thing I have ever heard in my life. I just believe that men and women are equal - that's not emotional, it's a fact." quoth my soon-to-be weeping femtard prey.

"Well," quoth I, "both you and the feminists say that you believe that men and women are equal. But here are two propositions that neither you nor feminists can argue with: first, there are NO facts which indicate that men and women are equal, and secondly, both you AND feminists believe that women are inferior to men."

"Feminists believe that women are inferior to men? You... you're...."

"Exactly," I said. "Listen, I hear your words. I hear you when you say 'Women can do anything that men can do.' I hear feminists say that as well. But I know you are all lying. Lemme ask you something: If women are capable of anything that men are capable of, then why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in the military (for both admission and promotion) so that more women can do what men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of doing anything that men are capable of doing, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in police forces and fire brigades so that more women can get jobs that men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of everything that men are capable of, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards of admission - specifically for women, not across the board - so that more women can be admitted to law school, medical school, and MBA programs?"

"Well, just because a woman can't do everything a man can do physically...."

"Oh, so now you admit that men and women are not equally capable?" I said as I cornered her (the first time).

"Uh, no. No, I didn't say that."

"You just said that women can't do what men can do physically," I reminded her.

"Well, you aren't so stupid to believe that a woman who is 5'2, 120 pounds, is going to be able to do everything that a man who is 6'2, 230 pounds can do?" she replied.

"No, I don't believe that at all. But I am not the one who said women and men were equally capable. You said that. So now you are arguing with yourself?"

"No, of course not. But there are some women who are able...."

"But we aren't talking about some women, we are talking about women as a group. Feminists do not desire to hold women to the same standards as men - which would allow some women, those who are able to perform at the same level as men to get the same jobs or opportunities as men - I am more than happy to have women who are physically and otherwise as capable as men to do the things that men do. But that is not the feminist goal. The feminist goal is to lower standards for women so that women who are not capable of doing the things that men are doing can have the jobs that only men are capable of doing well."

"It's not just women, feminists want equality for everybody," she replied, both off-topic and smugly.

"Really? So what feminists really want is for men who are 5'2 and 120 pounds to be given jobs as firemen?" Trapped again, she was.

"Uhhh, maybe so." She lied, of course.

"Really? Because I have never seen any legislation ever introduced by feminists that would have accomplished that! Rather, what I see is a continual desire to define competency down so that - more women alone - so that women can finally manage to reach the ever-decreasing bar of competency and act as if they are equal to the guys who met minimum levels of competency that were much higher."

"That's outrageous."

"Maybe so. But is it wrong? Did I misspeak? Am I factually wrong? Can you tell me any feminist initiative that would have benefited men that are 5'2 and 120 pounds?"

Realizing she was unable to answer, and therefore refusing to do so, she retorted, "Well, just because women are not able to do what men can do physically doesn't mean they are inferior."

"Well, it certainly means they are physically inferior, if physical output is the measuring stick. But we aren't just talking about physically are we?"

"If there is any real difference between men and women, it is physical," she insisted.

"That may or may not be, we haven't established that yet," I replied, as if I knew a secret that she didn't. "But I can guarantee you that feminists do not believe what you just said. Feminists actually believe that women are also intellectually and morally inferior to men."

"I can't do this anymore..." she whined.

"Oh, come on. Don't let reality crowd your neurosis there, OK? You aren't afraid of the truth are you?"

"What you are saying is not the truth."

"How would you know? You haven't even tried to counter it!"

"But I've never heard all this before...."

"Of course not. Feminism depends on the ignorance of the populace - it can't prosper any other way. A mind that had ever been acquainted with merely ONE fact would thoroughly reject the 'Long ago in a land far away' ideology of feminism. But aren't you glad you are hearing it now for the first time?"

"You say such outrageous things. How do feminists believe that women are morally inferior?" At this point, my prey is near tears and is visibly shaken. Her voice quakes.

"Not just morally, but also intellectually inferior. Yes, feminists believe that. They reveal that they believe women are intellectually inferior when they attempt to lower standards for admission to law school, medical school, and MBA programs (among others) so that more women can be employed in the professions. Again, it is pretty clear that if women are equally capable, there is no reason to lower standards."

"No," she said, "what you don't get is that those 'standards' were set by men." When she said "standards," she indicated quotation marks with her fingers.

"What difference does it make who set them? If men and women were equally capable, women should have no problem meeting the standards whether they were set by God, the Queen, or a passing UFO. I mean, which aspect of 'equally capable' do you not understand?"

"Because women were not allowed to give input when these standards were set...."

"Foolishness," said I. "Nobody consulted me when the rules of basketball were designed. That has nothing to do with whether or not I am equally as capable at basketball as is Michael Jordan. Nobody consulted me when the rules of backgammon were designed. Nevertheless, if I am gonna play backgammon, competently or otherwise, I am expected to abide by the rules that were set by somebody else. And by the way, nobody consulted me when VAWA was passed either, and VAWA has far more impact upon men than the rules of backgammon, so your indignation seems both hypocritical and misplaced.... But who makes the rules is irrelevant. We all live in situations in which the rules have been provided by someone else and we are nevertheless expected to excel or demonstrate competence. If I want to claim to be equally as capable as Michael Jordan, then no matter who made the rules, I have to perform with him."

Silence. So I continued.

"So when feminists demand that standards to professional schools be lowered so that women can be admitted and practice law and medicine and whatever, when men have already been entering, leaving, and practicing from Harvard Law for a century or more, they are admitting that they do not believe that women are 'equally capable' with men intellectually.

"Now, let's talk morals..." I continued. "Feminists also do not believe that women are as morally sound as are men."

"See, this is what I hate. You are just being silly now." Smug again. Confident. Right where I want her....

"Well, OK. When feminists changed the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] under Bill Clinton, it was the legislative enactment of the feminist myth that 'women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.' Of course that silly little fairy tale first gained wide exposure during the Clarence Thomas hearings, when that braying feminist ass, Anita Hill, was revealed to be lying about sexual harassment. And so people rightly guffawed at the myth at the time. But that pissed feminists off so much that they began to seek to have their mythology codified into law - one result of that compunction to enact feminist fairy tales into law was VAWA."

"I don't see what that has to do with women's morals," she interjected. Fair enough. I had been interrupting her as well. Though for two different reasons: I interrupted her because what she was saying wasn't worth hearing, and she interrupted me because she didn't want to face the truth.

"You don't see it because you are talking when you should be listening," I said quite righteously. "Now, as I was saying, the femtard fairy tale that 'women don't lie' was codified in several ways - in the presumption of guilt for those accused (inescapable in Domestic Violence Protective Order [DVPO] proceedings, where the standard of evidence is the 'subjective fear of the woman', but present also in rape proceedings where a woman is referred to as a 'victim' even when she is revealed to be lying about rape, and in shielding her identity without shielding the identity of the one slandered by her), in the exclusion of relevant evidence from courts (so-called 'rape shield' laws, but they represent the only time that I know of in Western jurisprudence in which character evidence that has a direct bearing on the allegations being brought are excluded, even though they could indicate that the accuser is lying), and a lowering of evidentiary standards. Again, the standard of evidence for issuing a restraining order prior to VAWA was 'the probability of harm.' In other words, if the order was not issued, it was probable that harm would accrue to the petitioner. But for a DVPO, the standard of evidence was changed to 'the subjective fear of the woman.' In other words, if a woman can convince a judge that she 'fears' her husband/daddy/lover, then she can take everything he owns and have him treated as a criminal - no evidence necessary."

"What the &^%$ are you talking about? I don't see this!" she objected.

"Let me ask you something: If women are so morally superior to men that they never lie - even if they only never lie about certain things, like sex or violence, why is it necessary to lower the standard of evidence? And by the way, they didn't just lower it, but they lowered it to the extent that it is essentially no standard of evidence at all - merely to make the claim is to be considered to be telling the truth by a court (quite a violation of the "innocent until proven guilty" tradition in Western jurisprudence, wouldn't you say?). If women are morally equal to men, shouldn't their ability to tell the truth be tested by the same standards of evidence that have always tested the testimony of men? Shouldn't the men that they slander be considered innocent except for objective evidence proffered of their guilt? Shouldn't women who slanderously accuse men have to meet the standards of evidence of 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' 'a preponderance of the evidence,' or 'probability/likelihood of harm?' Sure they should! They should, that is, IF it is true that they are just as capable of telling the truth as are men! But by insisting on an impossibly LOW standard of evidence for the complaints that only women make, aren't feminists simply demanding to be believed for the sake of their own complaint? And if I insist that YOU believe ME just because, am I not admitting to you that there is something wrong with me or my story, and asking to be given the benefit of the doubt? And if I am asking to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to telling the truth in court under oath, am I not admitting that in the moral matter of telling the truth, I am morally inferior to those who must prove their complaints with real evidence?"

"You know, I don't think either of us is going to change each other's mind," she stated, rather than trying to rebut my exquisite logic.

"Of course we aren't. You won't change my mind because I am right and you are wrong. And I won't change your mind because you are not interested in truth and facts."

"What you are saying isn't the truth," she stated again.

"Then why won't you show the error in what I have said?"

"You know," she said, "It's not all about facts. People's opinions matter."

"No, people's opinions don't matter at all. They are all different, and generally contradictory. How can they all be true? And if they are not true, how can they matter? After all, it is our responsibility to form our opinions based on reality, not to try to bring reality into conformity with our opinions, as feminists do."

"There's more to it than that," she said. "It's not all about facts and truth. It's about self-worth and self-esteem. It's about a world in which I can feel good about myself."

"Thank you," I said.

"Thank me for what?" she asked.

"Thank you," I said again, "for admitting that you are a feminist because of feelings and not facts. As I said when we started talking about this, no feminist ever became a feminist intellectually. It's all about feeling, emotions, and a certain neurotic preference for castles in the air rather than cold, hard, reality."

Full circle....

Women Don't Lie About Rape or Molestation - Chapter 8652: The Oprah Winfrey "Show"

2010-04-14T12:26:00.007-04:00

Women do not lie about rape, sexual molestation, domestic violence, or sexual harassment. I know and believe this in the inner reaches of my soul. I know this because feminists assure me that it is true.

Of course, on the rare occasion that a woman DOES lie about rape, sexual molestation, domestic violence, or sexual harassment (though I know that never happens - and I came to this knowledge because feminists assured me of it), that it is always a symptom of poverty or mental imbalance. Normal women don't lie about rape. And of course, very powerful women do not lie about such things either - for they have no need to lie. Of course, this is all a very theoretical discussion, since NO WOMAN LIES about these things, but, just for the sake of discussion, you understand, IF THEY DID, relatively sane women and women who are sufficiently empowered would NOT be among those who lied about such things.

Enter, Oprah Winfrey....

Surely, The Big O is the most powerful woman in the world. She has been powerful longer than Michelle Obama, and will likely be here long after the other Obama is gone. She is more powerful than Hillary, having endorsed Barack Obama against Hillary and thoroughly spanked her! She is likely more endeared by middle class women than even the very Queen of England, or, unbelievably, the recently departed Princess Diana! Oprah is so powerful that she has appeared on the covers of Time, Forbes, Newsweek, and even more important: Cosmo! She is a force to be reckoned with in the economic, political, literary, and cultural worlds. She has the power to tell middle class white women what to think - and they obey (making Oprah far more powerful than the husbands of those same women)!

How odd, then, that The Big O would find it necessary to embellish the events of her life....

We all know the story of Oprah Winfrey's life. From a dirt-poor existence in rural Mississippi - so poor that she, in fact, "adopted" a couple of cockroaches as pets! - she arose and clawed her way to the top, empowering women forthwith, and proving that black women particularly are strong, independent, powerful persons of infinite and moral character. And of course, her story was made even more astounding because, at an early age of minority, she was the victim of child sexual abuse. Poor Oprah was raped, for the first time, at the tender age of nine....

The story in and of itself is enough to inspire simultaneous joy and weeping. It is enough to confer hope upon the hopeless. It is enough to justify her rise to what may be the most powerful, trustworthy, and influential voice on the earth.

Fancy, with such a story, an investigative writer such as Kitty Kelly even attempting to write a book? What exactly was Ms. Kelly's intent - to IMPROVE such a story? Hardly possible.

Nevertheless, with such annoying constitutional rights as freedom of speech at risk, Ms. Kelly set off to do her "research" on the life of The Big O: Oprah Winfrey. As if such "research" were necessary - I mean, Oprah has already told us the story, has she not? - Ms. Kelly then set off to talk to literally dozens of people to get the information for her book! Did I say dozens? Surely, I meant at least 100 different people! Did I say 100 different people? Actually, Ms. Kelly claims to have interviewed more than 800 different people as well as having worked with primary and secondary sources over a time span of four years!

Many of those were family members who knew her during the time periods in which she was teaching tricks to cockroaches and surviving the emotional devastation of sexual molestation.

Oddly, many of those family members took a great deal of resentment at Oprah's representations about her poverty and sexual molestation.

“Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth and roaches I have no idea,” Katherine Carr Esters said.

"She may be admired by the world, but I know the truth," [Vernon Winfrey, Oprah's father, with whom she went to live at age 14] says. "So does God and so does Oprah. Two of us remain ashamed."

Apparently, Katherine Carr Esters, Vernon Winfrey, and God did not get the required memo from the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminists that women do not lie.

In fact, it turns out that Oprah lied about quite a bit. She wasn't so poor that she wore dresses made of potato sacks, as she has maintained. In what I consider to be a bombshell, but which I have yet to see repeated in the mainstream media, Oprah, at least for a time, is said to have willingly worked as a prostitute. There were never any pet cockroaches. In fact, according to Kitty Kelly, there was no child sexual molestation.

NOW is going to have to do a much better job of circulating this "women-don't-lie-about-rape" memo. Apparently Kitty Kelly didn't get it either.

But, Vernon Winfrey did say a rather interesting thing: he said that even Oprah knows the truth (though he implicitly denied that she has enough moral fiber to feel ashamed - as he is, and as he reckons God Almighty to be - about her lies). Katherine Carr Esters took it one step further, in recounting one of her confrontations with The Big O about the lies that she is prone to tell....

“I’ve confronted her and asked, ‘why do you tell such lies?’ Oprah told me ‘that’s what people want to hear. The truth is boring.’”

At least Oprah is consistent in her behavior. Though she presents herself as being something of a "feminist-lite," she apparently regards the truth with the same skepticism and disdain as do her more radical femtard sisters when she admits that "The Truth is Boring."

Now, Ms. Kelly has found other parallels between Oprah and the feminist mainstream:

* A preference for lesbianism.

* A sham marriage/not-quite-marriage.

* An attitude of entitlement.

* A boiling cauldron of anger, just waiting to be released upon some unsuspecting innocent.

And staffers were, *ahem*, encouraged to help keep these, and other factoids, "out of the tabloids."

But perhaps it is the lying about rape that is most disconcerting. Nay, certainly it is her lying about rape that is most disconcerting.

Notice the sheer ease with which such a lie is presented and maintained. Katherine Carr Esters says to Oprah, "Why do you tell such lies?" Oprah simply replies, "It's what the people want. Truth is boring." They want an entertaining and inspiring story. I just give them what they want. Reality be damned.

Or, as summarized by wire sources:

Oprah Winfrey embellished her poor upbringing and made up stories about sexual abuse to boost her ratings, her relatives say in Kitty Kelley’s new biography, the New York Post reported Monday.

The women who lie about rape, child abuse, molestation, and sexual harassment are the very pinnacle of beings so morally corrupt that they scarcely qualify to be called "human." Their worth is so little as to demand that the earth itself swallow them alive and keep them from being any further burden upon the earth. They are pigs. Children. Worthless. Satanic. Vile. Beyond redemption. Deserving only of utter and eternal destruction in Hell, and certain to find exactly that.

But, on the other hand, at least the common woman who lies (and there are millions of them!) is lying for something. At least with most of them, there is custody at issue. Money at issue. A job promotion at issue. Vengeance at issue.

For Oprah? No custody or promotion or any other issue... she is willing to lie because that is what people want and expect. She lies because, rather than being a millionaire, she'd prefer to be a billionaire. She lies because not to lie would simply produce a life that is insufferably boring....

In Oprah's mind, as in the minds of all unthinking women (i.e., "feminists"), reality doesn't matter nearly so much as "what I or the people want." Life is not about honor or truth or morality - it is about a series of exciting templates - mental crutches that those who are incapable of thought rely upon in order to properly (they feel) understand life. Or be "empowered." Or increase their "self-esteem." Or whatever the folks at Lifetime are warbling on about these days....

And of course, to this unthinking herd of cattle, the most exciting template of all is the template of the victimized woman who nonetheless rises to the top.

From "The Burning Bed" to Harlequin Romances, women who are incapable of building real character or engaging in real thought are pumped full of templates all of their lives. Acceptance of these templates inevitably turns these emotionally-overwrought and irrational women to feminism. Feminism, of course, demands that one believe templates rather than comprehend truth, because if one who respected truth became a feminist, they would immediately begin asking uncomfortable questions like, "If men and women are equally capable, why do standards to law school, medical school, business school, the military, the police, and the fire department have to be lowered so that more women can do what men are already doing?"

Feminists, of course, do not appreciate such uncomfortable questions. When women are trained to mindlessly repeat the tenets of a feminist-designed template, such insights are happily avoided.

And because feminists are incapable of thought and are quite averse to reality, they have bequeathed to non-feminists (as well) certain templates that it is necessary to accept. Like the myth of the violent man. Or the myth which notes that women make the best parents. Or the myth that women don't lie about rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, or molestation and abuse.

On the sacred pages of Objectify Chicks!, it has been noted time and again that women will lie about rape for just about any reason under the sun: for money, out of a preference for neurotic existence, for a pack of cigarettes, to make a political point, to be vindictive, to cover their own questionable behavior, as a means of exciting sympathy to avoid getting into trouble, in order to get a day off from work, or even for no reason at all.

It is odd, is it not, that in engaging in her program of propaganda and lies, by adopting the most convenient template for her crusade of marketing and manipulation, Oprah Winfrey has destroyed that template?

It is now known that upwards of 60% of all allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse are manufactured - and all of the manufactured allegations are made by women or by children at the behest of women. The next time you are on a jury and someone repeats this howler: "Women don't lie about rape," you know right away that you are being lied to. You know it, because you know that even Oprah Winfrey lies about rape.

And if a lawyer or judge will lie to you about something as basic as that - when it is their responsibility to rather remind you that all accused are presumed innocent (with the corresponding necessity that all accusers are presumed to be lying till evidence establishes otherwise) - perhaps you should ask yourself: "If this judge/lawyer/"victim"/witness will lie to me about something so basic, I wonder if they are lying about everything that they have said?"

For if a woman as powerful, wealthy, respected, and (allegedly) sane as Oprah would lie about rape for absolutely no reason at all - what woman wouldn't lie?

Easter: A Sacrifice to Political Correctness

2010-04-02T09:01:00.003-04:00

While signing into my various web accounts this morning, I happened to see a retweet of an article from the False Rape Society Blog titled: "Good Friday: The Day When God Allowed His Son to Suffer the Greatest Injustice of All - a Wrongful Conviction."

Wrongful convictions are part of the warp and woof of Feminism, because Feminism encourages false allegations. They do this when they simultaneously instruct courts that women never lie about rape (in spite of incredibly-escalating evidence to the contrary) and instruct District Attorneys that to prosecute women who DO lie about rape will "discourage those who have been raped from coming forward." Feminists encourage false allegations by classifying such ridiculous non-acts as "failing to consider a woman's feelings" as Domestic Violence while designing a law, the Violence Against Women Act, in which the presumption of guilt is transferred to men as a class, and the rewards of that transference are high: custody of children, increased alimony payments, and possession of marital property.

Feminists - 100% of them - are liars by nature. It is not possible to honestly hold to the tenets of feminism. And feminists have historically been responsible for the most extreme abuses of the courts in modern history. Feminists supported the "Satanic Sex Abuse" witch hunt of the 80s. They supported and used the "Recovered Memories" fiasco of the late 80s and early 90s. They invented the twin fake crimes of "Date Rape" and "Domestic Violence" in the 90s. And with the turn of the century, there has been an explosion of false allegations of rape, domestic violence, and abuse as women use the power that politicians, district attorneys, and courts willingly confer upon them to get what they want - the power of slander.

As we enter the Easter season, it is time for religions folk - especially professing Christians - to recognize that the kneejerk confidence that believers (because they firmly grasp that government is supposed to function as a divine representative on earth, and because they generally have a vested interest in maintaining societal order) often place in the police and the court system is woefully misplaced. Police today recognize that the vast majority of allegations filed by women against men are allegations of opportunity, carefully crafted (often with the help of women's shelters) to obtain money, an advantage in court, or revenge. Yet knowing this,many (if not most) police knowingly participate in the persecution and imprisonment of innocent men out of deference to feminist dogma.

As for courts, they have traditionally been enemies of righteousness and fairness and have been the enemies of the innocent. One need look no further than the Bible itself to comprehend this: from false allegations of rape which imprisoned Joseph (Genesis 39:7-20) to the politically expedient imprisonment of Paul (Acts 26:32) and the slaughter of innocent Jesus (Luke 23:13-25), the Bible is replete with instances of the hostility of the supposed "justice system" to those who are innocent (Gen. 39:7-20, I Sam. 20-32-34, I Sam. 24:11-15, Job 16:17, Daniel 6:22, Matt. 27:15-26, Luke 23:13-25, John 18:38, Acts 26:32, Rev. 6:9-11) and the damage perpetrated by those willing to destroy the innocent by means of false allegations (Job 1:11, Matt. 26:59-60, Rev. 12:10).

As Jesus Christ was subjected to false allegations at the hands of the forces of political correctness in His day, thousands of men are languishing in prison, are separated from their children, and are supporting worthless women -at the demand of the courts - who are otherwise destined to become wards of the state. Their reputations have been stained. Their freedom has been compromised. And many of them have paid the ultimate price in resisting the evil that is the Feminist False Allegations Industry.

While it is easy to blame these injustices on feminism - and it is right to do so - we can never forget that those of us who knew better have been cowed by their faux morality into allowing them to transform the courts from a place where justice was once the goal, to a monstrous mechanism of injustice and oppression. As the crucifixion of the Christ by the state manifested His rejection by us all, the destruction of families, men, the economy, the courts, children, and even women, by the Feminist False Allegations Industry makes all of us participants in the injustice that they have designed and desired.

It is time for us to recognize and repent of the evil that is in our midst. As we enter the Easter season, many of you will find yourself at services memorializing the death of Christ on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. As you contemplate the injustice and sin involved in His execution on the altar of an ancient political correctness, also sorrow for those men and unborn children who are being continually sacrificed up to the goddesses of political correctness today by the vilest evil in all of human history - feminism

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 7472: Guest Column by Paul Elam

2010-03-21T10:13:00.002-04:00

Sadism, Sodomy, and Other Forms of Justice

a guest column by Paul Elam

Renada Williams got mad at her boyfriend. So she had him beaten, raped and tortured.

According to Philadelphia police, Williams, who was angry at her 29 year old lover for undetermined reasons, orchestrated a plan of revenge so sadistic and unconscionable that readers must be warned in advance that the details are graphic and disturbing.

Williams lured the man into her bedroom with the promise of sex. At some point, she excused herself from the room and returned with two assailants, including one juvenile, whom she had recruited to express her considerable displeasure. She enlisted the men’s help by alleging that the victim had previously raped her.

The two attacked the innocent man in William’s presence, pummeling him with fists, even as he denied having committed rape.

Then the beating worsened. The assailants dragged the man from the bed and tied him to a sofa where they went after him with a 4 by 4 wood plank, extension cords and a mop. Police reported that the wood plank inflicted multiple lacerations. The perpetrators doused the open wounds in Clorox bleach and ammonia.

Next, they sodomized him repeatedly with a mop handle, which they lubricated with Pine-Sol cleaner.

The attack lasted 24 hours, and would likely have continued to a deadly end had Williams’s roommate not arrived and managed to free the victim, despite attempts by the trio to prevent her from dialing 9-1-1 and notifying authorities.

The reaction from police to the case was predictable. “This type of crime shocks your consciousness,” said Detective Captain Jack McGinnis.

There was no indication if he was referring to the brutality of the two men, or the vile scheming of the woman involved. Perhaps it was both.

With due respect to the police, it hardly matters.

Because, our repugnance aside, we might at some point need to wonder what difference there is between Renada Williams and Crystal Gail Mangum, the infamous liar and false accuser of the Duke Rape case, other than they each sought a different form of power to enforce their will.

And I say we “might” wonder, because it seems apparent that we should actually be asking a question that is really more to the point.

What is the difference between the assailants in this case and the criminal justice system itself?

As it applies to the crime of rape, the answer is as simple as it is disturbing; negligible.

With all the indignation and repulsion we feel for the almost unspeakable things happened to this man, we learn absolutely nothing from it if we don’t recognize that what happened here is not so different than what we sanction and justify routinely in the name of justice.

When it comes to rape, even the substantial number of them that are of the concocted variety, we pay officials to react with the same destructive mindlessness as those two disgusting automatons acting on behalf of Williams. Indeed, we cheer them on as surely as she must have done while they violated and abused an innocent man.

So, perhaps we should not be so outraged when private citizens emulate the actions of people that we vote for and admiringly call the guardians of the public peace. Thugs with mop handles are thugs with mop handles, even if we dress them in black robes, or call them Mr. Prosecutor.

You see, those two culprits weren’t torturing a human being. No, no, no. They were delivering some by-god-law-and-order on behalf of us decent folk. The enforcers acting at William’s behest were doing so with no less regard for presumed innocence than Mike Nifong or a slew of other state functionaries strewn across the Kafkaesque landscape of the American legal system.

It’s the stuff of Mel Gibson movies; Charles Bronson in slightly older school terms; not justice, but naked vengeance. And as a culture, we eat it up like beggars at a free buffet.

It is a biologically driven bloodlust to protect women by playing hero for them. Any of them. At times we play that role so well that we look at a lying, skanky, and drug addled hooker- and imagine that she is actually a damsel in distress. Then we can go after a bunch of college kids, who have never committed a crime in their lives, and do everything we can to destroy them.

We created rape shield laws so that even when the accuser is a lying, skanky, and drug addled hooker, it can’t be taken into account by jurors in determining her credibility. School administrations, like the one at Duke University, will host rallies, light torches and instigate other fomentations. Media outlets across the land saturate us with the story and run features on the plight of women to drive in some emotional punch.

And unless the accused is able to prove quadriplegia or clinical death at the time of the alleged attack (and often when he can), most of us will sit and wait for the orgasmic moment that the hammer comes down on his head.

When those falsely accused are convicted, as many of them have been, they are sent to prisons where they are regarded as the lowest of the low, and are often subjected to the very tortures for which they were wrongfully convicted- over a period of years.

Yet we are outraged about this being done summarily, and on the street, rather than through the system?

Please.

The culprits in this case are nothing more than vigilantes that cut into the action of a system that routinely does the same from behind a thin facade of legal decorum that is every bit as manufactured as Williams’ phony story.

Rape vigilantism and rape justice have simply become two different railroads, the latter only distinguished from the former by the pomp of placebo credibility, and the fact that vigilantes actually believe they are going after guilty people.

One might imagine that the scores of innocent men now imprisoned are not so comforted by all of this. That comfort is left to be enjoyed by the masses who patronize, buckets of popcorn in hand, the criminal justice systems theatre of lies.

And in the end, the poor unfortunate in this case may well have been lucky. His accuser could have sought, and would have received, help from the state, had she chosen them to act out her rage rather than a couple of hoodlums. The way things stand now, he has escaped with his life and his freedom, and he will get one benefit that seldom falls on those falsely accused.

There will be some who will believe his innocence and see him for the victim he actually is.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief or Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

Women Never Lie About Rape - Chapter 7245: Tim Cole Vindicated

2010-03-20T14:14:00.006-04:00

To merely ponder some truths is to be fully persuaded of the mental illness and moral vacuum that is feminism.

The Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer (March 20, 2010), from wire reports, states that the family of a man from Forth Worth, Texas, who died while imprisoned for a rape he did not commit cried and hugged at his graveside Friday, holding a framed copy of the first posthumous pardon granted in the state of Texas' history.

Gov. Rick Perry had already granted Timothy Cole's pardon nearly three weeks ago. He gave Cole's relatives the pardon document earlier Friday.

Cole was cleared by DNA testing in 2008 (though please note, he had always been innocent, unlike his accuser, who presumably wobbles around scarfing down huge amounts of chocolate, discussing Oprah and American Idol, and continues to refer to herself as a "victim" even as we speak), nine years after he died in prison at the age of 39 consequent to asthma complications. He had spent the final 13 years of his life behind bars.

On several occasions, Cole had been offered opportunities to walk free and receive a pardon if only he would admit his guilt in the rape. He had always refused, maintaining till his untimely and tragic death that he was innocent.

Cole served his country in the United States Army and would have graduated from Texas Tech University excepting for the false allegations made against him by feminist icon, Michelle Malin.

Women Never Lie About Rape - Chapter 7019: The Vanishing Allegations against David Copperfield

2010-02-18T14:29:00.005-05:00

For my next trick, I will make these false allegations disappear!

Before going any further, let me state that I understand that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. I know this because feminists tell me that it is so.

I know that the social costs - such as fear of embarassment, being victimized a second time by the system, and the personal fear of being hunted down by their abuser - is so great that women simply cannot gain by lying about rape. On top of that, I understand that women are far too righteous to ever manufacture charges against the innocent for any reason. The womanly virtues of compassion, cooperation, unity, nurturing, and respect for humanity would never allow a woman to participate in such activities. It is the male characteristics of greed, dominance, vengeance, and competition that lead to immoral behavior, of course.

For instance, if I were an aspiring male model and I were having a difficult time becoming established in my chosen trade, I might do something immoral just to give my career a boost. I
might, for instance, appear in a porn movie, or move into O.J. Simpson's guest house, or manufacture false allegations against somebody famous in an attempt to raise my profile. After all, men are, from a very young age, through all that yucky sports and all that other competitive nonsense, taught that what matters is not how you win, but that you win.

On the contrary, however, if I were an aspiring female model and I were having a difficult time becoming established in my chosen trade, I would likely just suffer in silence while writing
feminist poetry about how the deck is stacked against me, or perhaps get a job as a waitress and hope to be discovered while brightening people's day with my uber-heart-of-gold and making all kinds of sacrifices to raise awareness about breast cancer and be a good mother to my kids.

So, as I say, I get all that. Women don't lie.... heart of gold... etc. etc. Which makes the strange case of David Copperfield's disappearing charges all that more difficult to interpret. For the story seems to fly in the face of what I know to be true, having been told the truth by feminists.

On January 25, 2007, Lacey Carroll, age 21 (as of this writing, age 23) of Kirkland, Washington, who was recently named the first runner-up in the 2010 Miss Washington USA pageant, was
attending a performance by magician David Copperfield in the Seattle area. As she and her entourage entered the performance, she was approached by one of Copperfield's staffers, who are apparently trained to scope out foxy chicks prior to performances and sit them in special seating - seating from which "volunteers" for certain tricks will be solicited during performances. And, *ahem*, from the sound of it, it seems as if Mr. Copperfield might sometimes solicit volunteers from this group for special, backstage performances, if you get my drift.

Lacey Carroll, the vile face of feminism: lie and lie again, because it really is all about you!

Copperfield later invited both Ms. Carroll and her family to dinner, and, in classic "I'm-a-famous-producer" fashion, promised Ms. Carroll that he could help her with her modeling career.

One wonders if Mr. Copperfield was wearing mirrored sunglasses and a hefty collection of gold necklaces when he extended this offer, but I digress. One also wonders if this "helping her modeling career" was phrased in terms of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch my itch", but I digress again.

Whether for counseling purposes, a photo shoot, or a meeting with Stephen Speilberg, or perhaps Copperfield had some really great recommendations on the illusions made possible by makeup, we may never know - but Copperfield, after exchanging email with Carroll for some time, eventually worked up the nerve to invite Ms. Carroll to his private compound on the island of Musha Cay, 85 miles from Nassau, Bahamas. Undoubtedly, Ms. Carroll believed that she would be meeting Mr. Speilberg, if not on the island, at least through a conference call when she arrived.

Alas! When she arrived on the island in July of 2007, only Ms. Carroll and Mr. Copperfield were present on the island! Horrors! Had David Copperfield made all the Hollywood producers, famed photographers, and (gasp!) even Stephen Speilberg disappear!?!?

So for two days, Ms. Carroll stayed on the island. Unfortunately, so did Copperfield. And Copperfield, of course, raped and beat her repeatedly, nay, constantly during the two-day stint.

But then, you didn't need me to tell you that, did you? Because Copperfield is a white male, and white males exist only to rape, dominate, pillage, and harm.

At the end of this two-day orgy of violence, Copperfield did something very strange: he let Carroll go, put her on a plane, and made her promise not to tell.

This is the problem when one is spinning a tale - it is easy enough to simply use the prefashioned templates provided by the local women's shelter in trying to get the tale spun: white male, violence, rape, patriarchal society, fear, sexism in math class. But eventually you have to use some creativity to properly craft the denoument. For a man has violent as Copperfield, merely
putting a chick victim on a plane and eliciting her mild promise not to tell doesn't sound very convincing. Next time, she might want to use that whole "sexism in math class" angle. But again, I digress.

The progress of the story, once it was spun, is pretty predictable thereafter except for the ultra-cool international angle and the FBI raid on one of Copperfield's warehouses: she tells her family that she was taken advantage of, she goes to the local women's shelter where they take a rape kit and coach her on her story (in the future, make sure you spend as much effort in devising an effective ending to the story as you do on the whole rape & pillage part, willya?), the "rape" is reported to Seattle police - who do nothing (Typical patriarchal authorities! Don't they know that women don't lie about rape???) because they have no jurisdiction in international cases (oh, sorry), so they call the FBI who promptly become involved and convene a grand jury for investigative purposes in October of 2007.

No indictment seemed forthcoming... and no charges. Just an endless investigation. As 2007 ended, and 2008 ended, and then 2009 ended, the investigation continued....

And apparently the hopes of becoming the next Tyra Banks had, uhhhhhh, vanished.

So it is important to find a source of reliable income while waiting for your criminal charges to come through so that you can adequately extort a proper settlement from Mr. Moneybags, uhhhhh, Mr. Copperfield.

So she turns to one of the oldest professions in the history of feminism. Prostitution, you guess? No, I said in the history of feminism, not in the history of the world. Rather, Ms. Carroll turns to the finely-tuned feminist fundraising method of extortion.

So yeah, she hangs around in hotel lobbies and fondles the clientele like a normal hooker. But the truth is that most hookers have a slightly more evolved system of ethics than does Ms. Carroll. Most hookers won't manufacture fake charges when guys refuse to become their clients....

So she meets a guy. On a streetcorner, in a hotel lobby, in a bar, or at the restaurant where she works - who can say? She fondles him. Drapes herself all over him. Suggests sex. Suggests a threesome. Becomes so graphic in her suggestive loquaciousness that a second girl abandons the party as being a mite too vulgar for her tastes. So Carroll and her male victim continue the petting party, travelling to and fro looking for a short-term hotel set up, eventually arriving at the Bellevue Westin. While the party waits for their room key, groping, kissing, and all sorts of "romantic" activity occurs - in front of the security cameras. Ms. Carroll, according to hotel staff, is heard to regret that the other chick had abandoned the party, inasmuch as she found the prospect of a threesome quite appealing. She even offered to make a few calls and maybe scare up an additional chick....

Now see? If she hadn't pissed Copperfield off so badly, maybe he coulda made the threesome happen by sawing a woman in half or something!

According to the Bellevue (WA) Reporter:

"Carroll allegedly engaged in foreplay with a 31-year old man in a Bellevue hotel room and then offered to participate in additional sexual acts for $2,000."

Lacey Carroll, liar and feminist, shown here passed out in a car and being taken advantage of while complaining that a threesome seems to be less likely than earlier in the evening.

A bit pricey, if you ask me.

Apparently our 31-year old protagonist thought so as well, inasmuch as he perfected a vanishing act in dispatching Ms. Carroll forthwith. He then called police and reported that he had been the victim of an extortion attempt. Phone call time: 11:02 p.m.

In the meantime, noting that the hotel staff weren't exactly responding to her claims that the man she had been making out in the lobby with, and whom she had willingly ascended into a
hotel room with, had "taken advantage of" her, Ms. Carroll called and reported a sexual assault. Phone call time: 12:30 a.m.

Police arrive. With great seriousness and sincerity, statements are taken. The statements of the hotel employees seem to square more with the accused than the accuser. No matter - the
police checked the security cameras. And they see Ms. Carroll willingly making out with the guy. They see her taking an elevator, alone, while he orders drinks. Somehow, the police are
having trouble squaring all of this with Ms. Carroll's story that she had blacked out in a car and only awakened in the Westin's room with some lumbering brute on top of her.

Wellllllllll, OK. But we are cops, and we know that women don't lie about rape. We know this because we have been in dozens of indoctrination programs sponsored by feminist organizations that taught us that women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, and abuse. So in spite of all the evidence, we are gonna do a rape kit on this chick.

So Ms. Carroll is taken to Overlake Hospital. A rape kit was completed.

But, oddly enough, police do not, in most jurisdictions, have an automatic right to examine the results of a rape kit without a court order. Normally, this presents no problem, inasmuch as
victims (both real and fake) will sign a waiver allowing the private medical results to be revealed to police. They do this, whether they are telling the truth about rape or lying (now, again, I
realize that women NEVER lie about rape), because generally there IS, in fact, the sperm of the accused within them, so it becomes a question of whether that sperm entered her consensually or not. The presence of sperm within a woman obviously always helps her case, because cops know that women do not lie about rape. If the sperm is there, they know the woman was raped! All neat and tidy, huh?

Odd. Ms. Carroll refused to sign over the results of the rape kit to the cops.

"Well, now honey," muttered Sgt. Mumblefuster of the Bellevue Police Department, "if you don't let us have the results of the rape kit, how can we prosecute? Why won't you sign over the results to us?"

"Because," replied Ms. Carroll, "the results of this rape kit might adversely affect my case against David Copperfield."

So the federal investigation of David Copperfield, magician, has disappeared. Any promise of Ms. Carroll enjoying the fruits of extortion have similarly, likewise vanished. And several
chimeral aspects of the Feminist False Allegations Project are revealed....

1) Women DO lie about rape - and it happens frequently. In fact, there are some chicks who are professional liars when it comes to the feminist-favored sexual allegations of rape, domestic
violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.

2) Women are vicious in their capability to lie about rape. Lacey Carroll lied about rape in regards to two seperate innocent men in a period of only a couple of years - both in attempts to
extort money. If the relatively minor amount of $2,000 for a sexual foray that never took place is sufficient to motivate a woman to lie about rape, do you honestly think that they will not lie
for custody, to cover up their own adultery, to ensure a favorable disposition of marital assets, or to gain vengeance on a husband or lover?

3) Women recognize that they no longer even have to be crafty in their use of false allegations. Feminism, the state religion of the legal system, has so corrupted judges, lawyers, police
departments, and every other aspect of the legal system by making them receptive to false allegations that, no matter the evidence, the allegations are welcome. And unless you have
millions of dollars to spend on legal defense (as the Duke Lacrosse players or David Copperfield did) or the good fortune to have security cameras nearby, the wheels of injustice simply start to turn until its innocent victims are ground up.

4) Lacey Carroll, likely because she was a prostitute, is being charged for her false allegations. Remember, however, that less than 5% of women who file false allegations are charged. Even
today, Crystal Gail Mangum has never been charged with the crime of filing false allegations against the Duke Lacrosse team.

What any fool would know, but mind you, feminists are not just any fools, is borne out by the spate of false allegations that are plaguing the country. When you make it easy to bring false allegations, people - whether they are men or women - will accuse with bluster. When you not only make it easy to bring false allegations, but remove the consequences of doing so, people will bring them by the ton.

Let's hope that you, who may or may not have millions to spare, are as successful at dispelling the false allegations when they hit you.

Women Don't Lie About Rape, Chapter 6321 - Even Nutty Chicks Can't Lie!

2010-02-12T07:15:00.005-05:00

Dating back to the time of Joseph in the book of Genesis (cf. Genesis 39:), mankind has recognized that women file false charges of a sexual sort as a means of exacting vengeance on men. More recently it has become widely recognized that such charges are filed as a means of getting one's way (i.e., custody battles) or eliciting sympathy.

And when women who are reckoned to be sane by our culture are prone to falsely accuse merely out of a desire for vengeance or control, how much greater is the propensity for false allegations when a woman has a diagnosable mental disorder? It should also not be overlooked that one of the primary correlatives of false allegations is what is nominally called "mental illness", but what really isn't illness at all, but what many professionals consider to be "character malformation."

"The growing prominence of character disorders... may be seen as a natural and inevitable response to - or an expression of - our contemporary culture. As Christopher J. Lasch notes in The Culture of Narcissism:

'Every society reproduces its culture - its norms, its underlying assumptions, its modes of organizing experience - in the individual, in the form of personality. As Durkheim said, personality is the individual socialized.'

{Kreisman continues} American culture has lost contact with the past and remains unconnected to the future" (p. 62).

{And}

"Over the past two decades, therapeutic settings have seen a basic change in psychopathology from symptom neuroses to character disorders" (p. 66).

From I Hate You - Don't Leave Me: Understanding the Borderline Personality by Jerold J. Kreisman, M.D., and Hal Straus

Kreisman continues that certain personality disorders are reckoned to be the nearly exclusive domain of women - by a factor of two to one or more - and that one of the reasons for this is the inability of women to reconcile the expectations of the nouveau-feminist culture with their innate sense of what they really want and what they really are, based on their prior role models and personal capabilities and desires (p. 67-75).

Enter John Fund, an intrepid reporter of the old school (meaning that he reports facts rather than the neurotic perceptions and preferences of a libtard establishment and is therefore labeled "conservative" and "reactionary")....

John Fund, an innocent man who was raped by feminism.

John Fund was a contributing writer to U.S. News & World Report who worked his way up to a job as a contributing editor at the Wall Street Journal. He was a man odious to liberals for his writing (such as the notorious "Arkansas Project," which formed the backbone of what Hillary Clinton believed to be a "vast, right-wing conspiracy") during the various Clinton scandals, which of course means he told it like it was rather than giving Billy Bob Clinton and the Arkansas Mafia the pass that, say, CNN and the New York Times was pleased to give him.

Fund met a woman named Morgan Anne Pillsbury who was aged 29 (though her passport says that she is named Carolyn Anne Pillsbury and is 36, but then again she was born as Carolyn Barteaux) and began a relationship with her. By his accounts, it wasn't all that serious precisely because she was a smidgen unstable. By her accounts, they were planning to be married.

Further, by her accounts, one night Fund simply walked out on the marriage plans and then beat her up. She was raped. He dated her mother and impregnated both her and her mother. Worse than all that, Fund was revealed to be a terrible housekeeper {shudder!}.

Fund was arrested - all the while maintaining his innocence. Police were unresponsive to his protestations because, of course, rape is such an intimate violation that women never lie about it. Of course, they learned this during the Anita Hill slander-fest, in which one feminist after another mechanically mouthed that "it is the seriousness of the allegation, not the nature of the evidence, that matters," giving birth to the New Era of Feminist Inspired False Allegations. The media, though there were indications from the very beginning that the story didn't quite jibe, didn't really care about innocence or guilt - the liberal media rejoiced that Fund was finally getting what he deserved for his participation in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

Eric Alterman, a liberal journalist, wrote,

"...the smearing of Fund raises questions that define us morally and politically. It did not take a lot of investigation on my part to conclude that Pillsbury was not the kind of source one could legitimately use to hang a man in public. Why were so many so eager to use her that way? No principle was at stake. It was all about payback."

Fund retained counsel and began to spend thousands of dollars to prepare for his defense. He was, however, unable to keep his arrest out of the media, and he eventually lost his prestigious job at the Wall Street Journal and was demoted to writing for opinionjournal.com.

Then documents began to drip out from Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury. An affidavit. A letter to the Wall Street Journal. Various public statements. The rape didn't occur, but the beating did. Well, maybe the beating didn't. Actually, none of it did. Well, it did, but Fund made me write that it didn't with the threat of imminent force. Did I mention that I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder?

She admits that one of the distinguishing features of Borderline Personality Disorder is the inability to distinguish fantasy from fiction - in either the perception thereof or the telling thereof. How many lies have you told in your life, Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury? "Too many to name."

Fund, of course, is widely recognized today to be the innocent victim of a slanderous, vengeful, and unstable woman's flights of fantasy. The problem was, it was apparent from the beginning. Did the police care? No. Did the District Attorney care? No. Did the media care? No. In fact, the media kind of approved - Fund bested our boy (Clinton), and now he is getting his from this crazy woman.

Fund, though innocent, has never regained his position at the Wall Street Journal.

John Fund is an innocent victim of a feminist culture which encourages the use of slander as a weapon in the culture war. John Fund, and millions like him, is an innocent victim further of a feminist-designed culture in which women are encouraged to use false allegations as a way of settling accounts. Feminists have brainwashed law enforcement into believing that all allegations of sexual misconduct are valid by their mere utterance - arrests MUST be made, and no-drop prosecutions follow, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Yet it is now known with certainty that the rate of false reporting for feminist-favored crimes such as rape occurs at a rate anywere from seven to twelve times that of false reporting for other crimes! (The Washington Post estimated that the rate of false reporting for rape exceeds 30 per cent, but other estimates exceed 60 per cent.)

See how feminism works: It produces a culture which encourages maladaptive thinking and behavior patterns in women (Sometime when you have a moment, try to reconcile the twin feminist assertions that "Women can do anything that men can do!" and "We need to lower standards so that more women can be admitted to law school/serve as policemen and firemen/become generals and admirals like men are already doing!" and see if YOU don't blow a mental gasket.). It persuades law enforcement and media that failure to treat the consequent neuroses as reality is a sign of incipient "sexism" and is evidence of the existence of a "patriarchy." It removes procedural hurdles to keep neurotic women from assaulting the innocent (The standard of evidence for the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order in most states is "the subjective fear of the complainant," and police are allowed, nay, encouraged to use the complaint itself - filed under this wholly subjective standard and irrespective of any evidence -as a basis for the filing of charges!). And then it denies that when you make it easier to lie about something that people have a tendency to lie about anyway, you will get more lies (Did you know that, under Bill Clinton's modifications to the Violence Against Women Act, women cannot be charged with perjury based on the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint? Has anyone heard about the Durham D.A.'s plans to prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum yet?).

The truth of the John Fund story is this: at least one rape did, in fact, occur. John Fund was willfully, coldly, and intentionally raped by a neurotic woman, the legal system, and the media. And whether we are talking about his professional life or his personal life, he will likely never recover. And John Fund's story is a valuable morality play in that it demonstrates how thoroughly the system itself has been corrupted by feminism: now the innocent are willingly sacrificed to the feminist goddesses because evidence simply doesn't matter in a world dominated by a false ideology.

The entire culture has been corrupted by feminism: and the police, the legal system, the population at large, and even the media are willing to substitute feminist neuroses for the perceptions of their own eyes. So corrupt has the system become that even after a man's name is cleared of all wrongdoing, he can expect to pay the price for being falsely accused for the remainder of his life.

John Fund, as of this writing, is still a columnist for Opinionjournal.com. He has never regained his original position with the Wall Street Journal.

________________________

See this for a summary of John Fund's story by the liberal writer, Eric Alterman:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/alterman

Women Don't Lie About Rape Chapter 5997 - Worthless Whores

2010-02-10T16:35:00.004-05:00

In the world of prostitution (so I hear – I have never knowingly been in the presence of any prostitutes other than Democrat politicians) there is a sharp dividing line between streetwalkers, viewed as the bottom-feeders in the world of whoredom, and escorts, who command large fees, are viewed as being largely “clean,” and who often serve/service a top-line clientele (such as the Attorney Generals and Governors of various states).

I am thinking that a new category is going to have to be created.

Now, I don’t smoke, so I stand open to correction. But it is my considered opinion that a pack of cigarettes can generally be obtained for anywhere from $3 to maybe $7 tops.

Now again, I don’t frequent hookers, but at least from watching movies, I am guessing that the sort of bottom-line ballpark price for a streetwalking hooker is in the realm of $20. Based on my movie observations, one can expect either significant upselling to take place from there or can expect to be murdered by a sociopathic whore for the price of a mere $20. Again, I welcome any corrections in this regard.

Two Tennessee women recently were arrested for filing false rape charges against a man whom they had agreed to, ummmmmmmm, service, for a paltry fee of one pack of cigarettes.

I thought all the chicks in Tennessee smoked corn-cob pipes! Why, then, do they need to engage in “sexy time” for Marlboros?

So anyway, more about my proposed tripartite division of the hooker genre: I am for keeping the terminology already in use, the “escorts” can be young, fresh, talented, high-class pleasurers of the rich and famous while the “streetwalkers” can be those whose vocabulary has yet to progress beyond, “Need a date, Sugar?”

But then what do we do with the hookers who screw for a $3 pack of smokes?

Well, for one, we load up on antibiotics…. I mean… well, the way I see it, the $20 whore is cheap, so we can’t really call these cigarette whores cheap, can we? I mean, they are whores for sure, but what is of a lower value than cheap?

Worthless.

So I propose a new category for whores who can’t even garner the regular $20 fee and have to screw for packs of cigarettes or packages of bacon or books of stamps or what have you. So, from here on out, the term “worthless whore” will be used to refer to our protagonists.

So 18 year old Jessica Kathleen Alexander and 29 year old Tammy Nicole Ortega were flirting (or, based on their pictures, belching) with a guy on one of those telephone flirt lines. And maybe the guy says something like, “You chicks sound really hot, but I gotta go smoke a Camel.” Perhaps one of the worthless whores then responded, “We are so broke right now we can’t even afford tobacco [pronounced “backer” in Tennessee] for our corn-cob pipes. How about if the two of us bang you for a while and then you give us a pack of them there Camels?”

You'd have to pay ME, and not in cigarettes!

Contracts in Tennessee, it turns out, often are bereft of certain necessary legal language….

Well, who wouldn’t be up for that kind of a deal? Three dollars in smokes - why that works out to only a dollar and a half per whore! What a bargain!

Actually, though, based on their pictures, I think I would have insisted that they each give ME a pack of cigarettes. And again – I don’t smoke!

Now the story really gets interesting (!). Turns out our intrepid dude wasn’t a very good lay. Apparently our worthless whores were disappointed in his, uhhhhh, performance.

This is where a clause demanding a multiple-hour foray into sexual misadventure could have easily been inserted into the contract by a competent lawyer, by the way.

So the worthless whores gathered up their panties (which were undoubtedly in a wad, based on the events which follow), their cigarettes, and their disappointment, and they run off to the police station!

What?, you ask, the worthless whores ran off to the police station?

Indeedy. Truth being stranger than fiction, they ran off to the cops and….

Now, before we finish that sentence, let me go ahead and admit that I truly understand that women do not lie about rape. I am well aware of the fact that Susan Estritch once noted that the primary accomplishment of feminism was to have removed all suspicion that women might not tell the truth about such a thing from the collective mind of the legal system. I am not, after all, a barbarian. I get that women are victims of a patriarchal society by virtue of their mere existence within it, and I get that women are continually re-victimized, both by the system and by their own feelings of guilt and shame. I get all that. So, let that be the prism through which the following statement is interpreted….

The worthless whores ran off and lied to the cops, claiming to have been raped.

Why did they make such a claim? According to a Washington County Sheriff’s department press release, because they “didn’t enjoy the sex.”

Now, don’t get me wrong – I know that women do not lie about sex. I know that the social cost of being a victim is so high that women never lie about rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, or abuse. I know that, when a woman is getting divorced and is faced with the prospect of getting a job and supporting herself or living off of ex-hubby’s salary for a year or so, monetary gain and a year of ease is not enough to motivate her to lie! I know that, when a woman’s adultery and/or drug and alcohol abuse is revealed in court and she is about to lose custody of her kids (and the umpteen years of child support payments that accompany them!), even the loss of kids (and child support) is not enough to motivate her to lie! I know that when a woman is passed over for a job promotion that she really wanted, with all of the money and prestige and “self-esteem” that goes along with it, she could never be persuaded to lie about sexual harassment. I know that women are never vindictive enough to lie about sex – that their anger and instability could never be so intense as to motivate them to simply seek to destroy what they cannot control! No, women are not like that. Women would not lie about sex when REALLY BIG matters like thousands of dollars in child support and alimony are at stake. They would not lie when REALLY BIG matters like custody are at stake. They would not lie when REALLY BIG matters like job promotions are at stake. I know this because feminists assure me that it is true.

But oddly enough, feminism seems to have fostered a culture in which women feel perfectly comfortable lying when REALLY SMALL matters (no pun intended) like whether or not you enjoyed sex with a stranger for a pack of cigarettes are at stake.

But wait… maybe I am wrong. Maybe the truth is that if we now live in a cultural climate in which false allegations are so much a part of the fabric of society that women feel comfortable lying about rape, violence, sex, and abuse when only small matters are at stake, could they feel doubly comfortable in lying when really important matters are at stake as well…?

Or maybe feminists would have us to believe that we have a society in which women can feel comfortable lying over a dime, but in which they blush to lie over a dollar?

It appears to me that, with the story of the two Tennessee worthless whores, we now possess objective proof that the false allegation is the tool of choice for any woman in Western culture to solve any problem, no matter how big… or small.

Women (and Children) Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 5942

2010-02-08T12:40:00.003-05:00

A recent issue of the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer demonstrated the utterly contrariness of modern feminist dogma, and the conundrum in which it places our culture. An article in the January 15, 2020 issue by Hilary Kraus titled "Facility's sex stats scrutinized" recounts a recent sex scandal at a detention center. This story profoundly illustrates that what we all know by
sheer common sense about feminism is true....

We all know that women don't lie about rape. They do not do this, feminists say, for several reasons, not the least of which is the sheer moral superiority of the woman. So beyond sin is
the character of the woman that it could never happen that she would lie about rape (or domestic violence, or abuse, or sexual harassment - even if to do so would give her a great amount
of leverage during custody battles, divorce proceedings, or consequent to not being hired or promoted, etc.). We know that women do not lie about rape also because they are so horribly
victimized by "the system" that for a woman to merely complain of rape to the authorities (who are likely to be unenlightened white males who read Plato or the Bible at some point in their lives!) is to submit to being victimized twice: once by the rapist and again by police and the courts.

We have seen much evidence that women do not lie about rape in recent years. We have seen that strippers performing for Lacrosse teams do not lie about rape. Oh, wait a minute....

Well, anyway, we have seen that women never try to seduce college basketball coaches and then extort money from them using false allegations of rape. Oh, *ahem*, well, anyway....

So at least we have seen that well-known performers are never targeted with false allegations of rape....

OK, so journalists are never targeted....

But of course, feminist activists never manufacture false allegations of rape, because they know what is at stake!!! Oh, wait....

Well, anyway, thank God for feminists who tell us that women never lie about rape! Otherwise, the sheer weight of the evidence to the contrary likely would have convinced us that they might deign to do so!

But even if women sometimes do lie about rape (even though we know they don't!), at least children never lie about rape or molestation. Children are, of course, morally unsullied and can be relied upon to not have been brainwashed by tactics endorsed by women's shelters - which encourage women to manufacture false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault as a means of furthering their own personal interests and as a means of snagging federal funding for the shelters. Of course, since children have never been in women's shelters, and because they are, by nature, quite innocent, we can be assured that children merely need to be listened to when they make allegations. Children, of course, would never lie about such things.

Unless, of course, such tactics were now so prevalent that one could learn them merely from existing in a culture which encourages the creative use of false allegations for all kinds of purposes. But inasmuch as feminists assure us that there is no culture of false allegations (because, of course, feminists tell us that the rate of false reporting for sex crimes is identical to that of, say, property crimes!), we can be sure that children have not picked up any such strategies or motivations from our culture.

Enter the Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, North Carolina. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sponsored a survey which queried youngsters anonymously at various youth centers about conditions inside. Apparently, one area of concern for the DOJ was how many children were being sexually exploited in these youth centers.

It must be that most youth centers are run, managed, and manned by white men, as we know that white men by their very nature are quite violent and spend most of their off-hours raping and pillaging (except, of course, when they can fit such activities into their actual work hours!).

The statistics returned from the Samarkand Center were so alarmingly high - termed in the article "among the worst" for centers taking the survey - that the North Carolina Department of Social Services was called in to investigate the scandal. Nearly 21% of respondents claimed that they had engaged in sexual misconduct under the duress of force. Nearly one-third stated that they had engaged in some kind of sexual acts with adult staff members.

Lo! and behold! Could it be??? These unstained children??? Whoda thunk it?

Nevertheless, I quote the article: "One of the reasons the facility's statistics were among the worst is because some of the residents didn't tell the truth." Do tell....

According to an investigation by the North Carolina Department of Social Services, many of the girls "admitted to law enforcement officials that they falsified information."

Translation: they lied. How improbable! That they were both women and children, and yet these most unsullied of creatures lied about the one thing that such unsullied creatures never lie about?

I admit, the story is confusing.

Oddly, Linda Hayes (whom we assume to be a woman), the secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in North Carolina, stated that "gathering data anonymously from youth with histories of behavior problems can be unreliable."

Linda Hayes, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, maintains that rape allegations must be filtered
according to the accuser's background, should not be anonymous, and should be
compared with existing evidence. Secretary Hayes must not be a feminist!

Ms. Hayes obviously did not receive the "Women Don't Lie About Rape" memo.

Now wait a minute here....

Let's take that statement about at-risk youth and examine it.

Feminists tell us that when allegations of rape or sexual misconduct are made, the sexual history of the complainant makes no difference.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that people with "histories of behavior problems" can't necessarily be trusted.

Feminists also tell us that making the identities of rape victims known re-victimizes them and is unnecessary to a complete investigation.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that when data is harvested anonymously, it can be unreliable.

Feminists assure us that women simply don't have any motivation for lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, and therefore the negative effects of false reporting are an assurance that false allegations are kept to a minimum.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that anonymously requesting data on sexual misconduct can be "unreliable," even when NOTHING is at stake; these girls were, after all, just filling out a survey.

One might reasonably ask the question: if little girls hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and recognizing that they exist in a legal and cultural mileu in which false allegations are not only tolerated, but often rewarded, will lie about rape, violence, abuse, and harassment when they have absolutely nothing to gain, how likely is it that others, who stand to gain or lose custody, property, promotions, or other perks, would lie under a similar cloak of anonymity and gross tolerance of falsehoods?

I'm just wondering. But since I am a guy, perhaps we could ask Linda Hayes...?

New Mutual Fund Focuses on Women's Business Leadership! Insiders Warn: Accept Lower Returns!

2009-12-03T11:19:00.003-05:00

On U.S. News & World Report, an article was recently posted regarding the 10 strangest mutual funds/ETFs.

One of them, the Women's Leadership Fund, has not yet been launched, but has duly been included in the article because, let's face it, chicks get credit for what they WANT to do the same way that dudes get credit for what they HAVE done.

I have often stated on this website (and likely elsewhere, and to my wife, family, and friends till they are all ready to weep) that women generally are not qualified for certain key social positions - military combat (because of physical limitations), military leadership (because, being unqualified for combat, they can't possibly possess adequate understanding of combat leadership skills), for the NFL (because of physical limitations), religious leadership (because their tendency to rely on feelings clouds their moral judgment), and business and political leadership (because their tendency to interpret reality in light of feelings and existing relationships is antithetical to correct decision-making in these two fields). However, when a (rare) woman comes along who can play with the big boys (Joan Jett, Margaret Thatcher), society should certainly stand out of the way and let her produce - as long as her production is comparable to that of the men she is competing with!

The fund in question targets investments in companies that have "significant female representation in leadership."

Wonderful.

So now, finally, we get to see that female leadership leads to increased RESULTS in the form of HIGHER RETURNS? Now we finally get to see that where women are unleashed in business, their superior abilities, collaborative thinking, and general righteousness is going to lead to an increased bottom line?

Uhhhhh, not so much.

We are being warned, by backhanded, politically-correct implication, that investors may have to expect... errrrrrr, "accept," somewhat lower returns...

"Any time you buy a fund that has investment restrictions on it—whether they be social or religious or industry-related—you have to be willing to accept lower returns in exchange for things that are important to you," says Adam Bold, founder of the Mutual Fund Store, an investment management firm with more than 65 U.S. locations. "That doesn't mean that you'll get lower returns, but going into it . . . you have to be willing to accept them."

How's that whole "Anything he can do I can do better!" thingy workin' out for you femtards?

Planned Parenthood Official Witnesses Abortion on Ultrasound, Joins Pro-Life Movement!

2009-11-02T16:41:00.003-05:00

While no comment is really necessary on the below video, I can't help but be amused with the response of the murderous femmedromes at Planned Parenthood: if the facts get out, people will not support us anymore, so we must obtain restraining orders to keep the facts from getting out!

Typical behavior of liars and those who know that their position cannot be buttressed by truth.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Be Aware!

2009-10-03T03:59:00.009-04:00

October, as per usual, is Domestic Violence Awareness month. Given that this month is devoted to raising awareness about Domestic Violence (DV), I thought it would be a good time to devote my blog to doing exactly that. What you will be hearing in the media this month is mythology. If you want a genuinely awareness-raising experience, keep reading....

Did you know...?

* The standard of evidence for determining whether Domestic Violence has occurred in most states is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "a preponderance of the evidence," but is, rather, "the subjective fear of the woman?" In other words, if a woman can convince a judge that she is genuinely afraid of... something... then she has met the standard of evidence that will often result in her husband/boyfriend/whatever being carted off to jail, charged with felonies, being thrown out of his house, losing custody of his children, having child support levied against him, having fault principles applied to increase his alimony, and having fault principles applied to the property division in his soon-to-be divorce, regardless of whether the evidence actually shows that he has done anything wrong or not?

* Women often file false charges of Domestic Violence against the men in their lives for leverage in court, because they are neurotic, or to simply enlist the power of the state when they are having conflict with a man.

* It is well-known in the professional community that women routinely lie about Domestic Violence. Policemen know that women lie, but often choose to arrest anyway and, in some states, are required to arrest even if they know the woman is lying under "must arrest" policies. Attorneys admit that women are known to lie at a rate anywhere from 10 times to 30 times higher than the "normal" rate of false reports for all crimes when it comes to rape, domestic violence, abuse, and sexual harassment. Even media outlets have been forced to admit that false DV allegations are out of control. The Domestic Violence Industry (that group of organizations and individuals given to the "manufacture" of Domestic Violence claims) depends upon perjury for an ever-increasing hysteria about Domestic Violence to ensure a constant and increasing flow of federal funds.

* The feminist fixation on Domestic Violence in light of the facts is considered by some to be a hysteria.

* Even Domestic Violence proponents admit that DV is a political crime.

* The founder of the world's first Domestic Violence shelter asserts that DV is a scam that feminism uses to facilitate fundraising.

* Contrary to popular belief, Domestic Violence does NOT equal "assault," "battery," "kidnapping," "rape," "murder," or any other recognizable crimes. Why would a new category (domestic violence) need to be invented for existing crimes (assault, battery, etc.)?

* Domestic Violence equates with "ignoring or minimizing a woman's feelings."

* Domestic Violence occurs when a woman "feels hurt or scared" regardless of whether anyone has done anything to make her legitimately "feel" that way.

* Domestic Violence occurs when someone calls a woman a name, feels jealous about her, or "denies her feelings."

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man "blames a woman for how he feels or acts," but women are encouraged to blame men for how they feel or act in gaining Domestic Violence Protective Orders (i.e., if a woman feels "hurt," "controlled," "neglected," or "afraid" it is because of the man in her life).

* Domestic Violence occurs when a couple conducts their marriage or relationship according to strict gender roles, as do many Protestants, Catholics, and Muslims.

* Domestic Violence occurs BOTH when a man "threatens to leave" a woman AND when he is "clinging" to a woman, obviously placing him in an impossible catch-22.

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man exhibits "unpredictable behavior," but not when a woman is in the throes of PMS.

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man tells his wife she is no longer pretty.

* Domestic Violence occurs both when men "insist on having their way" and when the fail to give in to women who insist on having them their way! Obviously, any situation other than a woman running the show is Domestic Violence.

* Attorney admits, Domestic Violence is "whatever a man does that a woman doesn't like."

* Men have been found to have engaged in Domestic Violence when they had never even met their accuser.

* The Violence Against Women Act (the federal statute that produced the Domestic Violence Industry) encourages states to revise their laws to allow for the filing of criminal charges based on the unsubstantiated allegations in a Domestic Violence complaint alone.

* False Domestic Violence allegations drain $20 billion a year out of the economy.

* David Letterman, Shawne Merriman, and Vanilla Ice have all been the victims of false allegations of Domestic Violence.

* The Domestic Violence Industry is built upon the perjury of plaintiffs and on spreading lies in the media - both the statistics that DV proponents use and the anecdotal evidence (like the famous "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women" myth) have been proven to have been false.

* Women admit that Women's Shelters encourage them to lie about Domestic Violence as a means of getting custody, property, alimony, or "leveling the playing field" in court when a woman is guilty of some wrongdoing in a marriage or relationship.

* Women admit that Women's Shelters coach them in how to fabricate evidence of Domestic Violence for use in court.

* The Domestic Violence Industry and False Allegations of Domestic Violence are tools used by radical feminists who are hostile to the family because the destruction of the nuclear family is seen as being necessary for the accomplishing of feminism's goals.

Most people don't know it, and you will not hear it from any of the major media outlets who will be pimping the Domestic Violence Hysteria during October, but to the extent that violence within the family is a problem, women are primarily guilty for its spread.

* Both ABC News and a social scientists have noted that women commit spousal abuse more than men.

* Women are more likely to initiate spousal abuse than are men.

* Women are the sole perpetrator of spousal abuse 70% of the time.

* Women commit 58% of all child abuse.

* Mothers are 25 times more likely to kill children than are fathers.

* Women commit 78% of all fatal child abuse.

Your awareness has now officially been raised. You now know more truth about Domestic Violence than any of the folks who will be warbling on about it on television, at community events, and in newspapers for the next 30 days.

So remember, when a women's shelter or other representative of the Domestic Violence Industry hits you up for money, blankets, or cell phones this month, think long and hard about the real victims of Domestic Violence - the men who have been slandered and the children who have been placed in the most dangerous place on earth for a child to live (the home of a single mother in the West) - and tell them that, because you are aware of the truth about DV, you won't ever be donating again.

And remember these facts the next time you are called to serve on a jury....

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 4762

2009-09-29T11:16:00.005-04:00

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!)

2009-09-28T09:02:00.006-04:00

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

2009-09-28T06:14:00.006-04:00

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.