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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But of course, feminists are neither reasonable nor moral.

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

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

Now, notice the moral void that is the feminist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Shame Project: Calling a Bulldykefemtard a Bulldykefemtard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, what is the truth about feminists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism and Socialism

Kathleen Parker simultaneously answers the question as to why feminism's pink is so red and does a fine job of confronting the elephant in the room....

When you start talking about family values as a defense against totalitarianism, you risk being dismissed as reactionary.... As it happens, the brand of feminism that insisted equality could be achieved only by women evacuating the home and outsourcing child care found common cause with Communist ideology. Breaking up the family was not incidental but central to [Communism's] ideology and was one of the main ideas upon which Lenin insisted most strongly. Karl Marx and Frederich Engels were unsubtle, if also incoherent, when they wrote, "Abolition of the family!" as a central plank in the Communist Manifesto.

Between weak families, absent fathers, a culture that sexualizes the innocent, and government bureaucracies that are designed to grow themselves, one doesn't have to be paranoid to envision a time when freedom as we have known it will be compromised beyond recognition....

As long as [men] are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by the family courts, as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honor, and as long as [children] are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.

Feminism: A Philosophy of the Mindless

"There is an ideological commitment to the notion that any differences occurring between males and females represent a failure of society to create equal and perfect opportunities for everyone so that the sexes will end up the same. This is a mindless concept."

Lionel Tiger, Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology, Rutgers University

What About Moderate Feminists?

What exactly is a moderate feminist? Another person has, by way of analogy, alluded to "moderate Nazis," and while the average person who believes that The Daily Show and Oprah actually broadcast news might find that a tad illiberal, there is a kernel of truth to what he is saying.

The truth is, I can envision a member of the Nazi party who simply said, "You know, I love Germany. I am a nationalist and I think we need to get control of immigration. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of this country and this Adolf guy seems to be all over that stuff. I don't agree with everything he says, but he seems the only one who can drag us out of the economic morass we are in, so I voted for him, and joined the party - and the pay is good as a party member; lotsa opportunity! So I do it for my wife and kids."

He has no hatred of Jews; no desire to rule the world; doesn't approve of the use of corruption and violence as political tools - his agreements with the movement are entirely pragmatic.

But doesn't the presence of such a man in the Nazi party lend credence to its less noble goals? While HE sees National Socialism as a decision regarding infrastructure and national greatness, OTHERS see his participation in the movement as an implicit approval of the wider goals of the party. And let's not forget, that whether he agrees with Nazi goals or not, there is strength in numbers, and the party of the concentration camp is made stronger by his mere association with it.

But the real problem, it seems to me, is not that our mythical moderate is lending credence to something he doesn't agree with, but rather that to associate with a lie not believed is simply the calculating act of an evil person, and to believe less of a lie than someone else does not confer any amount of truth upon the original lie. All who believe a lie, even if they do so to varying degrees - nevertheless believe a lie! And all are morally culpable for choosing the lie - though they choose less of it than another - when the truth was apparent.



But if we could draw a line between "radical feminazis" and "moderate feminists," does anyone have any idea where that line would be drawn? Are there certain basic beliefs that a moderate feminist would have? Likely, in my opinion, she wants an expansion of or maintenance of abortion rights. Likely, she is on board with the Domestic Violence bandwagon - and even if she admits that men are often victims rather than perpetrators (an exceedingly moderate stance), she still likely agrees with the feminist definition of DV - including "failing to take another's feelings into account" or "trying to withhold money" or "being controlling" - and of course the idea that a person simply trying to look out for his own interests, balance his budget, or keep his wife from harming herself or leaving him are criminal deeds to be equated with assault and battery is part of the neurotic radicalism that is radical feminism, no?

As an aside, as a former resident of South Carolina, I have followed the Mark Sanford scandal with some interest, having been personally acquainted with him years ago. I notice that his wife kicking him out of the house and refusing to let him see his kids for a period of time while he took time to think through his adultery has not once even been suggested to have been Domestic Violence! Yet I have been in court and seen men have Domestic Violence Protective Orders continued against them for threatening to take the kids away, for threatening to leave, and even for trying to keep a woman from leaving him! Odd, no?

Or perhaps it isn't abortion or domestic violence: maybe it is wage equity that is the issue of "moderate feminists." First, since all reasonable people know that wage equity (at least in America) has already been achieved, focusing on this non-issue is much like focusing on Domestic Violence or Global Warming: throwing governmental money and power at a made-up issue in an attempt to expand governmental power. But that governmental power IS and WILL BE expanded: at the cost of discriminatory policies against men. Do "moderate feminists" find it OK that more highly-qualified men are routinely discriminated against so that less-qualified females can have jobs? Is that best for society? The client? The economy? The men and women involved?

Or maybe it is the family that is the issue? Perhaps the moderate feminist simply despises the male-headed home. She despises evangelical Christianity, the Patriarchy, traditional values - however she characterizes it - and feels that women are equally qualified to hold authority and lead the home. Now, of course, she feels this in direct opposition to the facts, since we all know that the plague of divorce is a female concoction (with 2/3 of all divorces - the vast majority utterly groundless - are initiated by women) and that children are harmed by growing up in a home headed by a woman alone. But of course, it is not the children or society or all the millions wasted on family lawyers or even the fact that eight years down the road she will call somebody like me and say, "You know, I thought I would be happier/married again/whatever if I left my husband, but looking back I see I destroyed the greatest situation I ever had." - no, it is not any of these things: for the stability of society and the good of children and even the truth itself are expendable so that a woman can get what she wants.

To say nothing of the fact that, if a woman truly feels she is competent to head a home (and consequently destroy it), there is a great harvest of manginas out there who would be more than glad to agree to such an arrangement. There is no need for a political movement legislating such - but you see, it is not her own freedom that the feminist desires (for she will gladly exchange "slavery" to her husband for "slavery" to the government!) - it is merely the unadulterated hatred of men and their authority that she despises. It is not her submission to a man (which would never occur) that she hates, it is the willing submission of other women - reminding her of her own neurotic fears of men, and illustrating that they are, in fact, neurotic fears, since women in male-headed homes seem to do quite well.

And every once in a while, the emotions begin to rear their ugly collective head, and these "moderate" feminists forget that the TV camera is on, and even such moderates as congregate in the Church of Oprah forget themselves and let the truth slip, showing the vicious hatred, the neurotic fear, the irrational departure from reality that is the feminist mindset - even among the more "moderate" of their ilk:

"You're trying to get your hunger needs met," Dr. Smith tells Melissa. "What are you hungry for? To be loved? To be cared for? To feel special? These are not things to be ashamed of. You're asking a great question: 'How can I stop this?'"

Dr. Smith says that a lot of young girls are treating their bodies like trash cans. "Trash cans for what? For boys' sperm. For boys' insecurities. The boys come and drop their trash in our bodies. … It keeps going until we decide that we aren't receptacles for garbage. That my body is a temple; it's sacred. … I'm not the place that boys come and drop their sperm, their insecurity so they can pump their muscles up as I shrink down into nothing."

Well, since Oprah Winfrey is the very definition of "feminist lite" or "moderate feminism," given this quote, can you tell me exactly what is the difference between a "moderate feminist" and "radical feminazi?"

Feminism in all of its strains is a neurosis - a mental illness - because it is at its root a departure from reality and a flight into neurotic fears ("all men are abusers/rapists")and neurotic fantasies ("I can do whatever a man can do so lower all the requirements to accommodate me!").

We are happy whenever we find a bipolar patient whose illness is under control. She is always better off than the person committed long-term who cannot even come outdoors and live life. But at the end of the day both are sick. Very sick. Painfully, woefully, and pitifully sick.

And these "moderate feminists," though they may be married, though they may spout platitudes about men being victims of domestic violence, and though they may sing in the choir at church, (and though, like our moderate Nazi above, they may preface every discussion of feminist ideology with the phrase: "Well, now I don't agree with THAT....") are just as surely living a neurosis - a reality constructed only in their mind - as are the more rabid radicals whose rite of passage is the abortion and whose worship service is The Vagina Monologues.

And who, exactly, is prepared to characterize the violent destruction of the human child, engaging in systematized perjury as a means of getting money (or one's way), the use of government force to deny opportunity to others, and the destruction of the family - the very foundation of society and the only truly safe place for women and children to dwell - as a position of moderation?

The Most Widespread Form of Child Abuse

"Child Abuse," like "domestic violence" and "sexual harassment," is one of those concepts that is becoming about as concrete as the concept of the "widget" in economics - it generally means whatever somebody wants it to mean (and if you don't believe that, then check out Alex Baldwin's book, below, but that is a side issue that I don't want to get distracted about...).

The partial definition of "child abuse" in Black's Law Dictionary includes:

"...a parent's... failure to act that results in a child's exploitation [or] serious physical or emotional injury...."

If one accepts this definition (and I am not sure that I do - how does one define "emotional injury?" how is "emotional injury" measured for seriousness?), then it is hard to imagine a context in which children are more systematically or widely exploited and emotionally (and intellectually!) injured than in the government schools of the United States. Neal Boortz writes in Somebody's Gotta Say It!...

Child abuse is neither always obvious nor intentional.

The most rampant form of child abuse in this country is not only legal, but committed routinely. It is the act of taking what arguably is, or should be, the most precious things in your life - your children - and placing the responsibility for their education i the hands of the government.

There's no escaping the fact that our country has problems... huge problems. I believe, however, that these problems have a common cause - that being the ignorance and stupidity of people whose "education" (if you want to call it that) was inflicted at the hands of government schools.

Year after year, our wonderful government education system cranks out hordes of young men and women who are completely unable to cope with, let alone understand, our culture, our history, our institutions, and what it takes not just to survive but to thrive in America.

We've reviewed the alarming facts already. Average high school graduates cannot tell you the responsibilities, or even the names, of the three branches of government. They can't tell you the name of the vice president, and probably do't kow that there is a designated third in line in the presidential succession.

They can't make change or do basic mathematical computations without a computer or calculator. They can't read apartment leases, balance their checkbooks, or read maps. They certainly have no understanding of capitalism, or free enterprise, and couldn't write a one-paragraph description of what constitutes profit.

{snip}

Would you think I'd finally gone off the deep end if I suggested to you that these government schools really don't exist for the purpose of truly educating your child in the first place? What if the people who developed our system of government-run, compulsory education had other goals in mind?

Allow me to suggest to you that our government schools were designed not to foster excellence through knowledge, but rather to insure that the American masses are relegated to an insipid, dull existence where they have barely enough knowledge and drive to sustain themselves in an anti-individualist society, but not enough of an education to understand how thoroughly our system of government is destructive of individual initiative and th quest for excellence.

Ominous thoughts....

I once taught at a private school in South Carolina. Our tuition was $95 a month per student (on the ten-payment plan). The local public school spent an average of $8,000 per student per annum.

Whenever a government-school student transferred to our school, there was a mandatory one-month period in which they were required to attend after-school care.

Why?

So that their reading skills could be brought up to the same grade level as the students in our school.

Is sending kids to government schools abuse? Probably not. But it is hard to argue with Boortz's points. And it is also hard to deny that keeping kids in government schools ultimately does more harm to their intellect and psyche than does living at home with the strictest of parents.

Since telling kids, "No, you can't have a car," or "You're grounded" is often characterized as "abuse."

Women Are Far Crazier Than Men!

Check out a document on the World Health Organization's website called "Gender and Mental Health" (http://www.who.int/gender/other_health/en/genderMH.pdf). You have to really scour this document to come up with anything that is a) reasonable and b) understandable - after all, it is authored by UN-type international bureaucrats and therefore they can't really say anything that is politically incorrect (like for instance, "women are crazier than men"), but once you wade through the attempts to normalize mental health between the sexes by counting things (such as criminal acts) that do not directly relate to mental health as if they are in fact, directly related to mental health - here is what you come up with.

1) The primary purpose of the document is to argue that, internationally, more money needs to be spent by non-governmental organizations to improve the availability of mental health treatments for women.

It is difficult to justify this as anything other than raw sexism unless it is in fact true that women NEED mental health treatment more than men. In other words, ask yourself, why exactly do we need international initiatives that specifically target women for mental health treatment if it is men who are the more emotionally imbalanced "species" (as the OP phrased it) to begin with?

2) There is a diagram at the end of the document that shows a study of the use of psychotropic drugs as a ratio. Where men and women consume psychotropic drugs at exactly the same rate, there would be a reading of "1" on the diagram. Where men consume more psychotropic drugs than women, there would be a reading of less than "1" on the diagram.

Across sixteen countries, EVERY reading is greater than "1" - indicating that in every country surveyed, women consume psychotropic drugs more than men. And in many countries, women consume psychotropic drugs FAR more than men. In Brazil, France, and Spain, women are under drug treatment for psychiatric reasons at a rate of around THREE TIMES that of men. In the US, Canada, and the UK, the ratio is around twice as high for women.

It is interesting that the argument cannot be made that this situation prevails only in Western countries (perhaps for some perceived slight such as patriarchy, capitalism, or what have you). One arguably second-world country (Brazil) and one arguably third-world country (Nigeria) were included in the study and showed the same imbalance. Further, in arguably the most liberal nation represented in the study, France, the imbalance was highest, approaching four times more consumption by women as men.

I am often asked whether the increase in the number of broken families is the fault of one sex or the other. It is hardly a coincidence that the sex most likely to need psychiatric medication is also responsible for initiating 67% of all divorces in the United States. Of course, a culture in which feminism leavens all thought and convinces women that they really can do anything men can do is also to blame, as such philosophical nonsense sets women up for lives of failure and frustration - compounding the apparently innate emotional brittleness.

Feminism And Subjective Irrationality

Objectivity - i.e., an ability to make decisions and be informed by facts outside of one's self, has been replaced by subjectivity - i.e., an inability to be moved by anything other than one's own personal prejudices and feelings - in modern politically-correct society. This is why feminism prospers.

Feminism, and all identity-politics, depends on the irrationality of its audience in order to survive. There are literally NO assertions of feminism that are intellectually defensible. Facts disprove all of them, from the so-called "wage gap" that does not exist (when wages are normalized for the actual amount of time a person has spent on the job rather than by the mere age of the persons surveyed, women earn as much as men) to the silly contradictions of feminist dogma (How is it that women are as capable as men, yet need entrance and promotion standards LOWERED so that there can be more women in the military, police, and fire departments?).

This is the psychological/spiritual Catch-22 of feminism. Feminism is easily disproved by facts, but women have been taught by Oprah that facts do not matter - only feelings. So women are not likely to be moved from their feminist stance by disproving feminism's claims, which again, is easily done.

Sadly, our culture has divorced women from the only thing likely to redeem them - wisdom. No amount of logic, fact, or reasoning is likely to destroy the lie that is feminism. Only an individual woman looking at the ruins of a life that could have been - and feeling bad about it - is likely to lead to her redemption.

Unfortunately, by that time, younger women than she will have been captured by feminism's lies.... And the cycle of irrationality, self-centeredness, and destruction will begin again.

Crazy Feminazi

The rock band KISS was criticized when they made their first live album for tweaking the missed notes, garbled lyrics, and crowd noises to make their album sound better than it really did in concert.

I found a couple of videos of a typical, hormonal, hate-filled feminazi rambling on about something or other - I'm sure it makes sense in the fevered imagination of the feminist. But I was having trouble figuring out which one was NOT doctored. I think I have it now, though.

This is the ORIGINAL, before translation....




And here is that speech in TRANSLATION....

What Is The Impact of a Missing Father?

The impact of the loss of a father on both boys and girls is wholly negative, in spite of the feminist myth that only mothers are necessary to effectively rear children.

The impact upon boys is well-known. When boys do not have a positive male role model in their lives, the middle part of the behavior bell-curve tends to be erased. Young boys tend to adopt extremes in behavior - becoming prissy (even adopting homosexuality, see sources below) or becoming so frustrated with an emotional mother attempting to act as a stable authority figure that he rebels and becomes aggressive, overly macho, or even criminal.

The impact upon girls is just becoming known (see sources below). Studies show that the single greatest factor in predicting "success" for a teenage girl (no matter how it is defined: avoidance of addiction, avoidance of jail, progression in education, stability of a future marriage, etc.) is the presence of a stable male authority figure in her life. Girls without fathers show exponentially higher likelihood of pregnancy prior to marriage, of contraction of STDs, of psychological instability, and of criminal tendencies.

Following Columbine, there was significant interest in the "profile" of unstable, delinquent, and violent teenagers. Numerous studies were done to try and determine the significant factors that might indicate a child would grow up into a troubled teen or adult. One Columbia University study found that, in single-parent homes where the mother is the head of the home, a child is 30% more likely than the average child to become involved in drugs, alcohol, and violence.

The FBI conducted a similar study and found that, in the history of school shootings there was a peculiar profile which was called "The Classroom Avenger" profile. All 17 school shooters up to the time of Columbine had in common that they were from homes in which the father was absent, distant, or not involved in parenting.

For 30 years, Johns Hopkins University attempted to find contributing factors to various social and medical ills, including suicide, mental illness, and heart disease. After following 1377 people for three decades, there was only one factor common enough to bear a causal relationship to all of these various maladies: that factor was closeness to parents, and particularly the father.

In my opinion, what these studies show is not necessariy the value of the father per se - I expect that the same sorts of problems would be produced by a culture that endorsed motherless homes in the same way that our culture has endorsed and encouraged fatherless homes. But rather, it is not that a child needs a father in order to have the best chance at success in life, but a child (male or female) needs BOTH a father and a mother.

An incredible harvest will be reaped by our world in the very near future. We may simply consider the alternating aggressiveness, flatness, overmedication, lack of ambition, and frankly, lack of intelligence and morals to be a social problem adhering to this generation of fatherless children. But someday this generation of fatherless children is going to grow up.... What then?


Sources:
Caroline Thomas and Karen Duszynski, "Closeness to Parents and the Family Constellation in a Prospective Study of Five Disease States," Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, May 1974.

James P. McGee and Caren R. DeBernardo, "The Classroom Avenger" in The Forensic Examiner, May-June 1999.

"Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality" by Joseph Nicolosi

National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (www.narth.com)

"Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" by Meg Meeker, M.D.

Why Do Some Believe There Is No Wage Gap?

In any discussion with a feminist, after she has been proven wrong on every other issue, her position will eventually devolve to the trump card: "Well, I just believe women ought to get paid the same amount for doing the same work, don't you?"

This is the appeal to the "wage gap," that amount that women don't get paid for doing a man's work. The wage gap is, of course, buttressed by hundreds of newspaper stories, conferences, and senile legislators every year who go about warbling about the unfairness of it all.

But people who are responsive to truth and facts do not believe in the wage gap.

Because, the fact is, there is no wage gap. Any rational human being (which excludes everyone affiliated with NOW in any way) can dispassionately look at the evidence and see that there is no wage gap. However, feminists run to the supposed "wage gap" when they lose all other arguments concerning justice, morality, and the supposed "equality" of men and women, as if the one final, irrefutable reason why everyone should agree that feminism should still exist is because women are being abused by underpaying employers.

In fact, women have achieved parity with men in terms of pay. It is a continuing feminist myth that there is a so-called "wage gap," but once you dispense with simplistic feminist thinking on this issue, it is apparent that no "wage gap" exists.

One way of determining job performance is promotion - but since the positions which folks are talking about are very few and tend to be highly selective, I think a better means of discussing the performance of women as a group (and whether their performance is adequately rewarded) is by peering into the so-called "wage gap." Wages, of course, is the reward given to women as a group - so it is the most direct means of determining how women as a group are treated.

In any survey of men and women aged 35, there will be a stark difference in the median wages of the respective groups - men will always be anywhere from 8 cents to 15 cents on the dollar higher, according to the studies that I have seen. Feminists take this as an evidence of a glass ceiling, reasoning, "Every 35 year old should be making roughly the same amount of money in the same job. Since that is not so, the cause is necessarily that we live in a patriarchal society that discriminates against women."

Of course, this is politically convenient - but as with everything that feminists say, it is not true.

Because, in any grouping of 35 year old people, the males will have worked, on average, 10 years longer than the females in the group. This is because men begin working sooner (or, at least among the current crop of 35 year olds, they did - it seems like kids never work at all today, but that's another discussion), and tend not to have childbearing, sickness, and moving gaps in their work careers.

When the two groups are normalized, i.e., only women who have never had children remain in the group, then the discrepency in the wages drops to a mere 2 cents - which is a reasonable risk premium on the part of an employer that the female MIGHT get pregnant and drop out for 5 years, might move, etc. Of course, such a minor variation could also be explained by imbalances in performance, sickness or other absenteeism - but on the whole 2 cents is statistically insignificant.

The same could be said of the so-called "glass ceiling" issue with promotions of women. If the average woman has worked less and performed less effectively than the men in her peer group by age 35, she is not likely to ever be invited to become a CEO (or any senior officer) of a corporation, simply because she is far behind the curve as far as the experience level of her peer group.

There is no wage gap and no glass ceiling. There is only underperformance by women.

An excellent source on the wage gap myth is Carrie Lukas in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

Even Cops Admit: Women Use Claims of "Domestic Violence!"

It is the dirty little secret of America's family courts and the legal system generally. Liberals will not admit it because it is politically incorrect, and conservatives will not admit it because they have been brainwashed into believing that it sounds unchivalrous.

But inside the legal system, there are faint whispers of recognition that all feminist jurisprudence is a failed experiment. Repeatedly, I have heard from lawyers statements like, "The pendulum has swung too far...."

The false allegation is one of the primary weapons in the arsenal of feminism. Feminist organizations suborn the perjury of individual women as part of the larger war against men, promising them a brighter day of happiness and the transfer of assets consequent to their lies. Feminist leaders glaze the eyes of the public with ridiculous assertions that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse (despite all evidence to the contrary). And feminist jurisprudence covers for the perjurers by insisting that any attempt to properly punish these feminist-favored perjurers will result in legitimately-wronged women being made afraid to "come forward."

Yet even among professionals who work in the Feminist False Allegations Industry (FFAI), the strain is beginning to show. Liberal constitutional scholar and appellate lawyer Alan Dershowitz has stated, "Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime - and women are not being punished for those crimes."

In my own personal experience, lawyers who work on both sides of the FFAI refer to Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearings as "show trials," "star chambers," and "kangaroo courts." And even cops, who routinely arrest men based on what they know are false allegations, will secretly admit that perjury is a common occurence when a woman is committing adultery, seeking custody, or desires to be rid of a man but keep a hefty sum of his assets.

But rarely does one hear a policeman publicly decry the FFAI.

In an April 27 story, Tulsa's news channel 6 carried a story on its webpage by Lori Fullbright titled "Tulsa Woman Falsely Reported Rape." Fullbright quotes Tulsa Police Sergeant Gary Stansill of the Tulsa Sex Crimes Unit, "It's just a fact, in sexual assault investigations, we have false reports."

Two points: First, this is the evaluation of someone whose livelihood and profession is intertwined with the FFAI. This is brutal honesty masquerading as understatement. And unfortunately, it appears that our investigator has become jaded enough by all of the false reporting that he simply accepts it as "just a fact" of life.

Secondly, note that from the perspective of the annoyed police investigator, what the FFAI calls the "cries of the victim" and what courts call "perjury" is merely a "false report." Clinical. Clean. Administrative. No real harm, just a waste of time.

From the perspective of the falsely accused, however, it is a false allegation. A lie. A lifechanging slander. Vicious. Brutal. The needless persecution of the innocent.

And keep in mind, though feminists, with their amoral newspeak, continue to call such miscreants as the still unnamed criminal liar who slandered a man for no reason a "victim," there is only one innocent party here: the man who for years to come will still blanch anytime that he hears the word "rapist."

I recently picked up a book by an ex-Miami cop, ex-FBI agent, and former instructor of cops on the issue of "domestic violence." The book is titled, "Arrest-Proof Yourself" and the author is Dale C. Carson.





The book is decent enough, giving general advice on how to appear (or disappear) so that cops can't see you, how to be polite and protect yourself. The book is targeted to a general audience excepting two chapters: one chapter pertains to minorities, helping them overcome the propensity cops have for arresting minorities.

The only other chapter narrowly targeted is titled, "When Girls Tell a Tale that Sends You to Jail." That chapter begins, "This chapter is addressed to men. It will infuriate women.... It advises men how to defend themselves against women...." Odd way of putting it, don't you think? Because if the author were merely trying to get men to obey the law, wouldn't he say "here is how to protect yourself from cops!"? But rather he says, "You need to defend yourself against women."

Odd.

He then notes that, unfortunately, when a "girl tells a tale that sends you to jail," men often find themselves dealing with predominantly female judges, cops, and lawyers. This can be a dangerous spot, asserts the ex-FBI agent and teacher of cops on the subject of domestic violence, because "some of these women are on a mission from God to make men miserable."

Again, odd. Shouldn't these women be on a "mission from God to enforce the law?" But the author does not choose to put it that way....

He then goes on an extended discussion of avoiding arguments with women. He states, "Arguments that once might have been resolved by participants now result in arrests and imprisonment." Now note, he is not talking about beatings here, he is talking about arguments. The ex-FBI agent is admitting that merely arguing with a woman puts one at risk for imprisonment.

If so, that certainly lends credence to the idea that a controlling man is merely a man who refuses to cede control to a woman.... And of course, the greatest felony in the feminist rulebook is to be a controlling man.

Our author then continues, "Men and women argue. They yell. It may be a natural occurrence, but it can also be a crime." Wow, what an admission. Arguing is a crime. That which our author describes as a "natural occurrence" is, under feminist jurisprudence, now a crime? How long before belching, another "natural occurrence," is similarly criminalized?

But wait. This chapter is written to men, not to women. As a matter of fact, the author warned in the beginning that the chapter will "infuriate women," doesn't he?

Could this be an implicit admission on the part of our ex-domestic violence teacher and ex-FBI agent that arguing is only a crime for men? That which is "standing up for your rights" for women is "domestic violence" for men?

It seems that is precisely the conclusion at which one is to arrive. For in the practical advice section which follows, our ex-cop advises men, "Do not talk with the woman for at least three days.... Telephone calls, answering machine messages, or notes may be considered stalking.... [D]o not be in the woman's presence without a witness." No corresponding advice is sagely distributed to the woman.

Why in the world would such advice be granted to one sex and not to another? Glad you asked. For our ex-domestic violence teaching hero advises us at the end that such absolutist abandoning of a relationship is necessary for the following reasons:

* "The woman might lie and induce others to lie."

* "The woman might injure herself before police arrive so as to increase the charge against you from misdemeanor disturbance to felony battery."

* Women can recruit the power of the state to take their side in disputes with men, with disastrous consequences."

The moral? Cops who are honest know the following:

1) The law is written to place the state on the side of women in relationship disputes, regardless of who is ultimately at fault.

2) Women routinely act out and lie in order to recruit the state to help them dispose of inconvenient men, secure child custody, or capture assets.

3) Men are by default guilty of wrongdoing in any dispute with a woman, under feminist jurisprudence. There is no presumption of innocence, and the only "evidence" needed in most cases is to determine where the male is so that he can be locked up.

What is most disturbing about these stories is the disjuncture between what cops know to be true in real life and what courts actually suppose to be true. Cops know that women lie, and lie repeatedly, when it comes to issues of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse. They lie because they are vindictive. They lie to get their way. They lie because they are encouraged to do so and because there are no consequences to being found out.

Yet, for a man accused of any of these sins in either civil or criminal court, there is an assumption of guilt not found anywhere else in the law because of the most outrageous lie in all of feminist theory: "women don't lie about sex."

Do Women Lie About Rape and Domestic Violence?

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that false allegations of rape, sexual misconduct, child abuse, and domestic violence do occur. Credible estimates on how often range from 20%-60% of the time. Given that the rate of false reporting for all other crimes hovers in the 2%-4% range, it is obvious that women do lie, and that they have a really serious problem with lying about rape.

The reasons range far beyond mere spite and hatefulness, though that is a common motivation (a woman in my county made up false rape allegations about her ex-boyfriend and three of his friends to punish him for breaking up with her at the party at which he broke the news to her that he was moving on - the district attorney, as per usual, did not take any action against her, though the four men [one of whom was not even at the party] spent almost a year in jail).

Take a look at the link below and you will see some of this discussed. In the mid-80s, the US Air Force did a study on false reporting of rape within its own ranks and found that upwards of 30% of all reports were proveably false. Several congresswomen, upon hearing about the investigation, demanded that the investigation be stopped and all records of it destroyed for the usual political reasons. You will need to read down into the comments section of the page to get this information.

Women lie for a host of reasons, including spite. One of the comments on this law professor's blog notes that women often lie to "solve a problem." They get pregnant, get an STD, get a hickey, or are found to have been cheating on their significant other and one way of making their problem go away is to claim to have been raped.

Of course, it is common for false allegations of rape, domestic violence, or child abuse to be leveled in custody, alimony, or equitable distribution hearings, where a show of fault can result in greater legal rights for the offended party.

A reason that is just coming to light why women lie is to level the playing field. Where women are going through custody or divorce and are known to be guilty of adultery, assault or battery, substance abuse, or something else, they are being taught at women's shelters to play the "domestic violence" or "rape" card as a means of making sure that they are not the only ones who appear in court with negative information on their record.

It is now a very common ploy - evidence of which I keep in my files - for attorneys who volunteer at women's shelters to (at the behest of the supposed "victim") file false allegations of domestic violence, rape, child abuse, or whatever, and a week or so before a hearing to send an offer of settlement which says, "If you give my client, the "victim", all or most of the property and/or the custody rights, we will drop this claim against you."

(Of course, they also fail to mention in such offers of settlement that for criminal cases, the authority to "drop" charges rests with the D.A., but that is another issue....)

Crystal Gain Mangum, in the Duke Lacrosse case, claimed to have been raped as a means of keeping herself out of the drunk tank on the night she was taken in for questioning. And, by the way, this woman has never been taken to task for her wrongdoing either, has she?

The reasons women lie are multitudinous. The main benefit seems to be that false claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harrassment, or whatever else helps them to appear to be a victim rather than irresponsible, or simply helps them to get their way when they otherwise wouldn't.


Sources:

Criminal Law Professor's Blog (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html.)

Do Feminists Care About Equal Rights?

It is commonly asserted that feminism is simply about securing equal rights for women. That sounds an awful lot like "feminism wants the same rights for women as men already possess," doesn't it? But if "the same rights as men" is the standard of equality, then the answer is, No, feminists do not care about men's rights, in the same way that assassins do not lobby in behalf of the rights of politicians.

While it is a common mis-assertion that feminism is about "equality," this is the Goebbels-like lie that makes it easier to swallow the unpleasant truth: feminism exists to procure superior rights for women at the expense of men, children, other women, and indeed, of society itself.

The inarguably false assertion that feminism is "all about equality" has been made even in response to this question itself. However, feminism's PURPOSE is more accurately revealed in its GOALS than in its deceptive political speech. And what are the goals of feminism?

1) Feminism glorifies the autonomy of the individual woman to the extent that it even romanticizes the irresponsibility of women. The wedding vows of women are worth nothing in the feminist mind. The responsibility of women toward their own children is irrelevant if said responsibility infringes on the autonomy of a woman in any way. Even the stability of society itself is not to be valued if such stability depends on the subjective, perceived "happiness" of any individual woman.

2) Feminism wants women to earn the same wages as men without turning in the same performance as men. Because women work less time than men (for a variety of reasons, ranging from starting work later, to taking time off for sickness and pregnancy, to voluntarily taking time off for child care, etc.), the average woman at age 35 has worked a full 10 years less than men who are her peers at age 35. Yet feminists want all 35-year olds employed in similar occupations to make the same money, in spite of the fact that women bring much less experience, generally fewer accomplishments, and such risks as pregnancy or moving to the table.

3) Feminism says that women are equally capable as men in all traditionally-male professions, then lobbies to have entrance and promotional requirements lowered so that more women can be hired and promoted in law enforcement, fire departments, and the military.

4) Feminism says that women should have the RIGHT to fight on the front lines in the military, without having the OBLIGATION to do so - an option not available to male soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

5) Feminism says that women are equally as strong as men intellectually and emotionally, then claims that women are victims of "domestic violence" if a woman's feelings are not duly regarded by her husband and that women are victims of "sexual harrassment" if they happen to spot a bikini calendar in the workplace.

6) Feminism, while vocally maintaining that men and women are equal, in fact, considers women to be more equal than men. Feminism argues that women are morally superior to men and have propagandized the legal system to hold that women are the superior parent and that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse, although the evidence suggests that women lie about such matters a majority of the time.

The fact is, feminists realize that feminists (not women) are NOT equal with men, and they despise men for being able to stand on their own, resist the government, lead families, and blaze moral, entrepreneurial, and artistic trails for all the world. Feminists (not women) resent the obvious superiority of men (over feminists - not women) and have banded together out of hatred to harness the power of government to harm men - a concept rightly classified as "misandry."

No feminist anywhere can give an example in which feminism has actually LOBBIED for anything approaching "equality." While the mouths of feminists are filled with empty, meaningless sloganeering such as "equality" and "empowerment," the fact is that all of the ACTIONS of feminists are directed toward securing superior rights for women, regardless of the irresponsibility and immorality of the individual women involved.

Any talk of "equality" among feminists is misdirection. Don't listen to their words - watch their hands!

Women Abuse More Than Men: But Who Cares?

When it comes to alleged abuse of women by men, society has a "zero tolerance" philosophy. When it comes to women abusing men, which actually happens more often, "every person must perform their own calculus to determine whether to get involved."

Women abuse men more than men abuse women. Nobody cares. Not even cops.

So says this ABC News report.





The cult of the battered woman is a religion like all others, requiring only faith to be a part of it. However, it is a particularly vicious cult, in that it is based on absolutely no truth known to man, and it is devoted to the destruction of men through the use of false allegations in the legal system... and perhaps even greater destruction can be both encouraged and tolerated.

Mary Winkler, of course, whose false allegations of "abuse" extended to the sheer horror of her husband asking her to wear platform heels in conjunction with sex, was convicted of shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun, butserved only 67 days of a potential 60-year murder sentence.

Now, as the former judge states in the following video, any man who makes a woman "feel bad about herself" is apparently susceptible to murder, and the woman is certain to find great sympathy and serve only a token sentence. This is the real legacy of the "all women are victims/all men are abusers" lies told by feminism for going on 40 years.





Does it come as a surprise that there is a boyfriend?

There is nothing so evil as a woman convinced by our Oprahized culture of her own victimhood. Except, perhaps, those who defend such a woman. Notice how immediately, in the local news blurb below, feminist apologists begin making existential leaps and excuses, accusing the REAL victim, the murdered father, of crimes that even his own murderous wife did not imply.





... As if to say, "Well, if the female murderess' crime was not justified by the story she actually told, then there must be something even more sinister than the story she told. For we know, no woman would ever murder her husband without cause. Because everybody knows that all men are abusers, and that means all women are victims, and are justified in whatever steps they take to deal with their victimization."

Did I mention that there is a boyfriend?

For an extensive bibliography examining the incidence of female on male violence, click here.

The Biggest Feminist Lie: Domestic Violence

It is commonly stated by feminists that 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence. Remember, these are the same people that told us about 10 years ago that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman," because supposedly every woman's husband would beat her at halftime. That ridiculous assertion, after it had been used to raise money for femtard organizations for a few months, was disproven. And the "1 in 4" statistic is just as much a lie as the "Super Bowl Sunday" claim was. The "1 in 4" statistic is only true if you accept a feminist definition of what comprises "violence."

In the U.S., the Violence Against Women Act was changed by the Clinton administration as a payoff to the feminist lobby in the mid-1990s. Where the act had formerly dealt with instances of real violence, the feminists were not getting enough federal money into their women's shelters and academic programs to suit them. So they argued that the definition of the word "violence" ought to be changed. As a payoff for their support (and likely because Hillary - a flaming Marxist feminist to begin with - supported the idea), Clinton changed the VAWA to accommodate feminist notions.

Not only was the definition of violence itself significantly broadened, but the standard of evidence required was changed. In the English common law tradition, there have traditionally been only two standards of evidence: for criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt has traditionally been explained to mean something approximating "the evidence must be so compelling that no other explanation is reasonably believable." The preponderance of the evidence standard has variously been explained as "most likely," "51%," or "more likely than not."

However, given that many allegations of "domestic violence" have traditionally not occurred until a child custody, divorce, or alimony case has arisen, feminists became perturbed that women seemed to not "win" enough of these cases. Sometimes, the claims were so outlandish that the cases were not even heard - a situation which feminists likened to "squelching the voice of the victim!" [Keep in mind here that most of the "victims" of "domestic violence" in America these days are slightly less credible than Crystal Gail Mangum.]

So feminists decided that the standard of evidence for the issue of domestic violence was all wrong. The important question to ask was not, "Did something happen?", but rather the important question is, "Does a woman believe that something might happen?"

So the standard of evidence was changed to something brand new in the history of the common law tradition: the standard of the subjective fear of the complainant. If you can convince a judge that you are "afraid," then you can have that judge issue a DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order, a specialized form of restraining order that incorporates this new standard of evidence; traditional restraining orders required a showing of "likelihood of harm.") and deny a man access to his home, his savings account, his tools, his car, even his children.

"Domestic Violence" thus became an exercise in prevention rather than a claim to be made for someone who has actually done something wrong. Claims of "domestic violence" are based on what a woman fears a man might do, not what a man has done.

Imagine this ridiculous standard of evidence in any other case:

PLAINTIFF: Your honor, I am bringing a suit today for Breach of Contract against Defendant.
JUDGE: All right, tell me what happened.
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, we made this contract, see?
JUDGE: (waiting impatiently) Is there more?
PLAINTIFF: More what?
JUDGE: Where is the breach? What has the Defendant done that was a breach? Has he failed to pay you on time? Has he not delivered promised goods or services?
PLAINTIFF: Oh, no, nothing like that. It is just that I FEAR that he might breach the contract!


DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are here, your honor, in the matter of State v. Jones, a case of first degree murder.
JUDGE: Very well, what are the facts of the case?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mr. Jones is very mean. Frankly, he is a prick. And he owns guns. And he yelled at his wife. And he got in a fight when he was 17. And many of his co-workers think he is quite odd. He is one scary dude.
JUDGE: Very well, now, tell me about the murder.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, your honor, the State FEARS that there might be a murder someday.

I have sat in on over 100 "domestic violence" hearings. In the 100+ hearings that I have witnessed, only 1 time was the man not found to have committed domestic violence (A "conviction" rate that is unimaginable with any other offense - even DWI convictions in which someone has blown above the legal limit have a conviction rate of only in excess of 80% in my jurisdiction.). But, in only ONE of those 100+ hearings has anything that approaches the layman's definition of "domestic violence" even been alleged - and then so incredibly that it was obvious that the woman was lying.

Rather, the following are allegations for which a man has been found liable for "domestic violence" in hearings that I have witnessed:

* A man threw a sock at his wife.
* A man pushed his girlfriend off of him to try to escape while she was beating him about the head.
* After being hit in the head by a candle thrown by his wife, a man picked it up and threw it back on the bed on which she was sitting.
* During an argument, a man ran into another room, and in a fit of anger, punched a hole in a window.
* During a disagreement over separation, a man threatened to use his family's extensive wealth to win sole custody of his children.
* A man who discovered his wife was an adulteress called her a c**t, a w***e, and a s**t.

None of these, obviously, are domestic violence. But under the redefinition of domestic violence enacted in the 1990s, each of these men were found liable for committing domestic violence.

"Domestic Violence" and "Violence Against Women" don't really have anything to do with violence in the traditional sense. Rather, these ideas are a part of a complex social engineering strategy designed by feminism to do three things:

1) To make men more willing to "settle" in a manner advantageous to women upon the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, so that women have a constant stream of money from ex-husbands and ex-lovers, increasing the assets of women without making them work for it.

2) Increasing the flow of federal dollars and private grant monies into ideologically-driven "women's shelters" where radical feminists are employed and where future feminists are recruited.

3) Undermining the stability of the family so that the feminist utopia of "independent" women who totally control the rearing of children without any non-monetary contribution from men is easier to achieve.

Doubt me? I encourage you to take a look at the University of Virginia's Sexual and Domestic Violence Services website, where you will learn:

1) Failure to listen to a woman's opinion is a sign of a relationship that is susceptible to Domestic Violence.
2) Holding strong conservative, Biblical, or traditional convictions about gender roles, such as those held by most deeply religious people, is an act of Domestic Violence.
3) Saying hurtful things is an act of Domestic Violence.
4) Threatening to kill HIMSELF is an act of Domestic Violence against YOU! (This one really puzzles me!)
5) Failure to acknowledge the "feelings" of a woman is an act of Domestic Violence.

Poke around the website (link provided below), and then ask yourself, "If this is what 'Domestic Violence' is all about, then is it really true that 1 in 4 women are victims?"

And the answer, of course, is no.

Just as a postscript - I am always entertained by the propensity of feminists to engage in sheer contradiction while never even suspecting that such lunacy is evidence that their silly little theorems are bogus.

Think about it - women are capable of fighting on the front lines in combat (a feminist axiom) but are being "sexually harassed" by a bikini calendar in the workplace and are victims of "domestic violence" if I fail to properly acknowledge their "feelings?"

My, my, my... feminism just gets curiouser and curiouser.


Source:
http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/