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?

What's Really Behind the Domestic Violence Industry?

Modern feminism is powered by perjury.

Women's shelter's teach it, women propagate it, and the family court system indulges it. Of course, this is the reason why in most states a woman cannot be charged with perjury for anything that she alleges in a complaint to secure a Domestic Violence Protective Order.

Holding women accountable for telling the truth would be bad for two things: it would be "bad for business" for the Feminist False Allegations Industry and it would be bad for the feminist Myth of the Dangerous Beast Named Man.

"Domestic Violence" is a political crime of the nature of "Criticizing the Glorious Proletariat" in a Communist regime. It is vague, contradictory, and unconnected to real violence of any kind. It represents an offense to a viewpoint rather than an actually-definable crime.

People are alternately amazed, incensed, and incredulous when they learn that it is considered "domestic violence" to fail to take a woman's feelings into account, or withhold money from her, or make her feel that relationship problems are her fault.

Because, of course, rational people realize that quite often, an individual's feelings can't really define a course of action. Much more important issues such as morality, necessity, and opportunity sometimes dictate one's decisions, and our feelings - if we are mature adults (and this is the crux of the problem for spoiled feminists) - simply have to follow behind. What is claimed in court as "withholding money" can actually be a version of "what we can afford right now," and its opposite would sound like, Sure honey, feel free to bankrupt us! And to imply that making a woman feel that relationship problems are her fault is somehow a crime, is of course to deny that relationship problems can ever be a woman's fault - an irrational leap possible only for the same illogic that gives birth to modern feminism.

But too, the goal of the Feminist False Allegations Industry, whether domestic violence or "date rape" or sexual harassment or any of an endless number of manufactured offenses is concerned, is ultimately political. That is why, in family court, no matter what a man's testimony is, he simply can't win. If he works hard, he is neglectful of her needs and distant. If he spends time at home, he has failed to earn enough to provide a decent living for his wife.

The brazen, naked politics of the Domestic Violence Industry is made quite plain in the below quote:

"As a feminist sociology professor and a researcher with specializations in family studies and criminology in general and domestic abuse specifically, expert witness work on behalf of battered women has evolved naturally from my research, teaching and community work related to families, crime, and domestic abuse. I was able to read, teach, and research about domestic abuse – the politically motivated terrorism of women and children held hostage by batterers in our patriarchal social order – for only so long before I was compelled to act. I consider my expert witness work on battering and its effects as a form of feminist activism that follows naturally from the expertise I have gained as a researcher, teacher, and author of domestic violence. It is creative applied sociology."

These words were spoken by Ann Goetting, a professor of sociology at Western Kentucky University.

"Creative Applied Sociology," methinks, was once called "junk science."

Trudy Schuett on Women's Shelters

Women's shelters "often make the divorce process seem simple, even desirable. They don’t tell prospective clients that divorce can be emotionally and financially devastating, and in the cases where there are children, drag on for years of acrimony with effects extending outward to other family members and friends. We’ve seen cases where fictional abuse, contrived for the purposes of leverage in court, became a reality. Relatively minor cases of abuse, which might have been addressed had other ways been available, have become violent and out of control.

Divorce is seldom any kind of solution to the problem. Still, it is the only one offered.

Other dubious “services” provided by shelters include a barrage of feminist propaganda...."

See Trudy Schuett's three-part series on so-called "Domestic Violence Shelters."

The Real Child Abusers

"HHS studies report that 'children in mother-only households were three times more likely to be fatally abused [murdered] than children in father-only households. Females were 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse [murder] and 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children.'”

F. Roger Devlin, "Rotating Polyandry - and its Enforcers," in The Occidental Quarterly.

Mike Nifong: Feminist Hero!

I have been convinced since it became obvious that Crystal Gail Mangum was lying that Mike Nifong has been getting a raw deal. Since the 1970s in this country, feminists have been telling us that, when a woman makes an allegation of rape, society must ALWAYS believe the woman!


This is what Mike Nifong did! In the face of overwhelming evidence, he believed the woman. Shouldn't feminists be rallying to his side? Didn't he just obey the feminist dictat that has come down for the last 30 years? Mike Nifong isn't a corrupt District Attorney - rather, he is a faithful feminist! Right?

What We're Missing in DV Debate

I was recently turned on to the writings of K. J. Wilson and Susan Murphy-Milano by a posted question by a poster who calls himself "MadShangi." His questions about these two feminist writers were so intriguing that it sent me to the library to request their books by interlibrary loan.

While reading Defending Our Lives: Getting Away from Domestic Violence & Staying Safe by Susan Murphy-Milano, a profound thought occurred to me: we are asking all of the wrong questions about domestic violence.




The typical debate on the issue of domestic violence revolves around a few predictable axes: are men or women more often the victim of DV? By how much is DV over reported statistically? How often is DV falsely alleged?

These are important questions, but they are only mildly important when the central question is asked: Isn't DV really just a chimera?

Whether DV occurs a lot or a little - ultimately, it is all fake. Whether it is a male vs. female or female vs. male problem, it is all fake. And no matter how many times someone intentionally makes up a lie about it (and statistics and experience suggest that is more often than not), it is all ultimately a lie, even when it meets factual legal requirements.

Murphy-Milano's book begins by the story of her own life. As a child, she became acquainted with very real violence first hand. The stories of her seeing her mother's head being banged into an iron bedstead are harrowing. One can only imagine how horrifying it was to see one's mother taped up, beaten to a pulp, and apparently only inches away from life support in a hospital. And then, there was the murder.

Her father, an Illinois policeman, murdered her mother and then killed himself, leaving a note saying,

"To whom this may concern. This is business only. I did what I had to do. No one leaves me and gets away with it...."

One can only imagine the very real emotional trauma experienced by a little girl who watches her mother go through a nightmare such as this, and then comes home one day to find both parents lying dead in the home.

But up to now, I have related very real crimes: assault, battery, murder.

But in Murphy-Milano's book, directly opposite the page which contains this sentence:

"My father had shot my mother in the back of the head at close range..."

... is a chapter titled "Recognizing Domestic Violence."

We move from the clearly definable lines of assault, battery, and "shot my mother in the back of the head" to nebulous concepts like "wife abuse" (which I learned was the "most common" crime in the U.S.) and "domestic violence."

"Oh," say you, a typically-informed member of the general public, "they are the same thing!"

Really now?

Because in an attempt to define "domestic violence" (and let's face it, if it looked like what happened to her mother, would it really need defining?), Ms. Murphy-Milano proposes such answers as:

* Name-calling or yelling.
* Using angry expressions or gestures.
* Humiliation, either in public or private....
* Accusations of infidelity....
* Constant questioning of the other person's judgment or decision-making abilities.
* Threatening to leave....
* Ignoring or minimizing the other person's feelings....
* A desire to have sex for the wrong reasons.
* Insistence that you do things his way.
* Clinging to you constantly....
* Unpredictable behavior.

Then she plainly states, "Domestic violence is a combination of threats, control, insults, and insane jealousy."

Notice how glibly and blithely she glides from "he shot my mother in the back of the head" to "clinging." As if the two were first cousins. As if the two were even remotely related by species.

Why does she glibly and blithely so glide? Is it because she is such a raging idiot that she does not comprehend that there is a difference between the two? Or is it because she is manipulating her audience with the first story in order to gain acquiescence on her minor points - "clinging" and "angrily gesturing?" Are we to consider her serious? Honest? Sane?

Now, don't get me started, I see the Catch-22 she is pleased to place men (notice the masculine pronouns) in. Both "threatening to leave" and "clinging to you constantly" are domestic violence? Who exactly determines what the right reasons are for having sex? Why is insisting on having his way domestic violence, but insisting on having her way is assertiveness? And unpredictable behavior? Who on this planet is more unpredictable than a woman who is under the tender ministry of PMS? Murphy-Milano is good enough to warn us that "unpredictable behavior can become life-threatening!", so take heed, men!

Like I say, don't get me started on the utter childishness of all of this.

Except that the nonsense that is this book is now the law in most of the 50 states of the USA.

Now, don't get me wrong, it isn't the law in the sense that some legislator voted on it. But rather it is the effective law, as enacted from the bench in thousands of domestic relations courts throughout this land. Because the ideology of Murphy-Milano's book informs thousands of feminist organizations and women's shelters who are responsible for the continuing legal education of judges and lawyers everywhere.

Nobody denies that Murphy-Milano's father was a criminal, and that what he did was a crime. But what exactly is the relationship between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and

unpredictable behavior... [and] ignoring or minimizing the other person's feelings?

Yeah, I know, this is how ghastly murderers act prior to their murders. I get that. I also get that this is how everybody on earth acts on alternating Wednesdays and Thursdays. They do it before having a bath, and after eating cucumbers, and in some strange concurrence with swimming. So we can, by the same logic that makes "unpredictable behavior" and "ignoring or minimizing another's feelings" either DV or the precursor thereof, design a new DV statute which reads

Any person found to have eaten cucumbers or to have engaged in the sport of swimming at any point in the past 30 days may have his movement restricted and his access to wife, children, and home denied...

... because studies have conclusively shown that all abusers have engaged in swimming and eating cucumbers. There is certainly as much correlation between cucumber consumption and domestic violence as there is between anger and domestic violence.

Except for one thing: women are not neurotic about cucumbers. Well, most of them anyway. And herein lies the tragedy that is feminism - feminism has provided the forum for the most neurotic and emotionally damaged of women to project their neuroses upon the rest of us. Apparently one woman's neurotic, irrational fear of a man raising his voice or gesticulating when he talks translates into a reason to undermine, or even destroy, the whole institution of marriage and even society itself.

"Domestic Violence," as it exists in the law, is simply a projection of the fears of neurotic women. Their "perception" of fear or danger or being "controlled" has no more correlation with reality than does the schizophrenic's perception of pink, flying elephants. It may be very real to him, but it is not real.

To this extent, the whole Domestic Violence Industry and subculture functions as a representation of feminism itself - all modern feminism is really just an attempt to project and objectify (make real) the subjective and neurotic fears of women: fears that they will not be treated well, fears that they cannot do all that men can do, fear that they are weaker, fear that they are not strong enough to chart their own course.

I have argued dozens of times that the concept of "domestic violence" is to the law what the concept of "widget" is to economics - a thoroughly empty word willing and able to be filled with whatever meaning a person might desire. But let's be honest for a second. If "domestic violence" is what Ms. Murphy-Milano says, then we are all domestic abusers. Both plaintiff and defendant, child and parent, husband and wife. Any person who has ever thought his own needs superior to those of another is guilty, and must be imprisoned forthwith.

This can't be serious, except that it is. Men are in jail right now whose crime is "failing to take their spouse's feelings into account."

I have sat in on over 100 domestic violence protective order (DVPO) hearings in my state. Only one of them alleged what an average man on the street would even recognize as "violence," and then so oddly that one was left with the feeling that he had happened into an episode of The Twilight Zone (The complainant claimed that her husband beat her with a riding crop, then admitted that she bought the same from a porn store for that very purpose - turns out she was into S&M play, and then simultaneously claimed to have been burned with hot coffee, beaten with a rod, strangled nearly to death - all without the benefit of any bruises. Thankfully, Ms. Murphy-Milano set me straight on this one when she wrote that one is always to "be supportive.... Believe her. Don't say 'That's impossible' or 'I find what you are telling me hard to believe.'"). Yet I have only ever seen one DVPO that did not result in a finding of civil liability, and often arrest.

What the general public doesn't know, and probably doesn't want to know, is that "domestic violence" has nothing to do with "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and it has everything to do with "failing to regard her feelings."

One who was being less than charitable might assume that Murphy-Milano's view of what constitutes "domestic violence" is informed less by a real concern for finding a cause and effect relationship than by a desire to treat all men as if they are abusers, and all relationships as if they are inherently abusive.

I know, that is taking things too far. I'm a conspiracy theorist....

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." Linda Gordon

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." Robin Morgan

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women.... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey." Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." Sheila Cronin

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to f**k/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, even if she does not feel forced." Judith Levine

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin

You get the idea.

So here is my theory: anytime that you are in a courtroom and you are listening to a "domestic violence" hearing, and there are no charges of assault, or battery, or what have you, you are listening to a lie whether or not the legal elements are met.

You are listening to the institutionalization of a lie. It is a lie in one of three ways:

1) It is a lie because it suggests that there is no difference between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and "he failed to take my feelings into account."

2) Or, it is a lie because it intentionally blurs the line between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and "he failed to take my feelings into account."

3) Or, it is a lie because it is the product of a neurosis that is genuinely unable to see the distinction between "he shot my mother in the back of the head" and "he failed to take my feelings into account."

What we are missing in our discussions about DV is this: we treat the category itself as if it is legitimate, and we argue about how to properly apply the category.

But listen, if I beat you, I get convicted of assault. If I shoot you in the back of the head, somebody utters the word "homicide."

But when I hear "domestic violence," what am I actually hearing?

After reading Murphy-Milano, I think I am hearing "I feel victimized, but I don't have any evidence to prove it."

I am no longer going to argue that a certain percentage of claims of "domestic violence" are false. They all are false. One hundred per cent of them.

Because any claim that is real will be called "assault," "battery," or "murder."

False Allegations Video: WCVB (Boston)

Abuse of Domestic Violence Protective Orders against the innocent. The one thing that the story gets wrong, because it is a feminist talking, is when she says that the vast majority of domestic violence restraining orders are based on legitimate claims. Of course, far more than 90% of them are not.

Why Do Women Make False Allegations?

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.

But one question that may seem somewhat elusive yet is why? What on earth would motivate someone to level such a charge falsely? What advantage could be gained?

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 CrimLawProfBlog 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 provably 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 Gayle 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?

Other reasons come to mind: radical feminists have levied such charges to illustrate their own cause (see my blog entry on the NOW president who made a false rape allegation), to get attention, or just because our society says that lots of women get raped, and they don't want to be left out of such noble victimization.

The reasons women lie are multitudinous. The main benefits seem to be that false claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harassment, 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.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 907

And note how she states, "I FEEL VERY VIOLATED."

Feminists, when are you going to admit that most rape allegations are false?



Why do women make false rape allegations?

Because they can. Because they are encouraged to do so. Because there is no consequence to being found out as a liar. Because it helps them to get their way.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 732

Of course, it is a (false) doctrine of the feminist movement that women do not lie about rape. They also do not lie about domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harassment, their age, their weight, or their breast size. Come to think of it, when feminists maintain that men and women are equally capable at everything on the planet, we must obviously carve out a single exception: women are not capable of lying.

Like every assertion of feminism, however, the evidence seems to diverge rather sharply from the feminist dogma. Without rehashing old ground like the Duke Lacrosse case, the NOW chapter president in Florida who made up false rape allegations as a means of ginning up interest in her FemmeFascist ideas, and the half dozen other ridiculous stories that I have documented on this blog in the past, we have The Case of the Surreptitious Photographer.

It seems that a 41-year old man who owns a multimedia company in Britain was invited over to the flat of a 27-year old female. Oddly enough, the 41-year old's identity is not private, while the U.K.'s Daily Mail steadfastly refuses to print the name of the lying wench who falsely accused him.

The two of them had sex. Apparently, it was, ummmmmmmmm, sex with gusto. Exhuberant sex. Sex so embarrassingly, ummmmm, "active" that the judge warned the jury that they might find it "extremely distasteful."

Something went wrong after all this great sex (when will men learn to simply leave the apartment after the sex is over?) and the two argued. The 27-year old perjurer and the 41-year old, whose name I refuse to print because I have higher ethics than London's Daily Mail, had an argument. Somebody called the police. The 27-year old female "rape victim" alleged that the two were fighting because she had been serially raped. And the innocent 41-year old businessman was arrested on the spot and charged with four counts of rape.

During the trial, the woman told the jury that the accused "forced her to perform a sex act on him and then raped her in the living room."

Then, during cross-examination, something both strange and wonderful happened. The accused's cell phone was produced. Now, remember, the accused owns a "multimedia company."

So a short film was shown to the jury. A film of, oddly enough, the night in question's proceedings.

Yes, our Multimedia Man had secretly used his cellphone's camera function to film himself and the "rape victim" having sex.

So after the film, the accused's defense attorney stated to the "rape victim," "You and Mr. [X] were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other's presence." Apparently that was an understatement, given the participatory nature of the "rape victim's" sexual calisthenics.

To which the "rape victim" then essentially admitted that while she was very comfortable with the sex, she wasn't happy with the conversation that followed it.

The judge then warned the prosecuting attorney not to present further evidence. You see, the "rape victim" is protected from perjury charges by so-called "rape shield" laws, but anybody else who offered evidence could very well have faced the full wrath of the court for either perjury or contempt.

The jury went into chambers and cleared the accused of all charges.

This despite the "rape victim's" claim that, "He wanted to be intimate. Maybe he thought he could force me into it but he went too far."

Emphasis added to show the direct, unequivocal nature of the false allegations.

It's a good thing that we know that women do not lie about rape, or child abuse, or sexual harassment, or domestic violence. Otherwise, cases like this one might make us believe that they do.

Oh, and by the way, those who work in the "industry" do, in fact, recognize that not only do women lie about these things, but that claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual harassment are MORE likely than other claims to be false. Some say that the majority of such claims are lies.

Like the U.S. Air Force, whose study is referenced in the comments section on this page, where lawyers discuss the phenomenon of false rape claims. Or RADAR's story on false rape claims.

It is certainly worth asking, and a question that Western society ought to be asking itself repeatedly until the significance of both the question and its answer sink in, as to why the normal rate of false reporting for all crimes hovers around 2%-4%, but these feminist-privileged offenses (rape, domestic violence, child abuse and molestation, and sexual harassment) have estimated rates of false reporting exceeding anywhere from 25% to 60%.

Chick Makes Up Rape For A Day Off From Work!

A woman in Marlow, OK recently made up two rapes in an attempt to get some much needed R&R from a job that, undoubtedly, was "stressing her out."

Trisha Bonney, 18, reported that upon returning home on a given night an intruder had been in her home who attacked her, threw her onto her bed, and raped her. Bonney was spotted by a nursing home worker across the street from her home, sitting on a chair and crying.

Police, of course, responded with overwhelming force - increasing the number of street cops by up to 30% on shifts while looking for the perpetrator. Three innocent men were brought in for questioning and tested for DNA matching.

About a week later, Bonney reported a second intruder in her home who also raped her. Nearby contractors (working on the next door home), dudes hanging out in an alley smoking, and physical evidence (or rather, the lack thereof) indicated that either there was no perpetrator in this case, or that the rapist was the beneficiary of new hovercraft Nikes - allowing him to walk above the ground without leaving footprints - and an Invisible Man coat.

Upon sharper questioning, the "victim" admitted that she had made up the second rapist to lend credibility to the first claim of rape. Apparently she didn't appreciate it when cops began to actually investigate her claims of rape rather than merely accepting them. These cops apparently didn't get the memo from the neighborhood women's shelter, "Always believe the victim."

Oddly, Bonney has actually now been charged with a crime - unusual for perpetrators of false allegations (can anyone say Crystal Gail Mangum?). She faces a criminal trial for falsifying a police report.

If all women who made false allegations were similarly charged, two things would be true: 1) There would be fewer false allegations, and 2) there would be a greater need for women's prisons.

Link below:

http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9247223


Article: More than Half of Rape Allegations are False

NOW President Lies About Being Raped!

It is a common assertion by Feminazis that women do not lie about rape, molestation, and domestic violence. However, studies indicate that, while the normal rate of false allegations for every other crime category is approximately 2%-4%, false report of sexual or other violence by females against males can extend has high as 60%.

"In a forensic study of 556 investigations of rape allegations, 33% were proven (by DNA and other evidence) to be false. In another 27% of the cases, the woman either failed a lie-detector test or admitted having lied when faced with the prospect of submitting to a lie-detector test. In other words, it was found that at least 60% of rape allegations are probably false. Even the liberal Washington Post has admitted that at least 30% of rape accusations are false {A rate more than seven times higher than the norm for false allegations of all crimes - ed.}.

"In a review of 350 criminal cases in which a person who had been convicted was later proven (by DNA evidence) to have been innocent, it was found that 23 had already been executed and eight had already died in prison."

Thomas B. James, J.D., Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know, (Aventine Press, 2003), p. 86.

Every single one of these persons falsely accused and either imprisoned or executed were males falsely accused, and then punished, by females.

A story from Florida captivated my attention for its sheer irony: while Feminazis traverse land, sea, and air, complaining that "women never lie about rape" and cursing the patriarchy for being so bold as to insist on actual evidence of such - isn't a woman's mere assertion all the evidence that is needed? - in the face of mounting evidence that there is a serious problem (Lacrosse, anyone???), I found a story of a regional president of NOW (the Feminazi National Organization of Women) who is now facing charges for false allegations of rape.

Link below!


_____________________

NOW President Charged with Making Up Story About Campus Rape


In November, Desiree Nall, told Winter Park police that she was raped by two men in a Rollins College bathroom."The college was on high alert and the neighborhood was in confusion because there was a lot of fear," Winter Park police spokesman Wayne Farrell said.



Investigators told WKMG-TV that Nall confessed to making up the story.

Nall is the president of the Brevard Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Local 6 News reported. Police said she may have been trying to make a statement when she lied about the rape.

{snip}

Nall could spend up to a year in jail and be forced to pay back tens of thousands of dollars police spent of the investigation.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/4359657/detail.html

____________________

I wonder what "statement" Little Miss Feminazi was trying to make? I wonder if it is similar to the "statements" made by the sixty percent of women nationwide who daily lie about rape as an act of revenge, those who lie about abuse and molestation as a means of securing custody, and those who lie about "domestic violence" as a means of securing the best possible custody, alimony, and property settlement when they have given up on their marriage and family?

Just wondering....

Women Don't Lie About Domestic Violence: The Strange Case of David Letterman

A woman in New Mexico filed a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint against David Letterman, whom she had never met. The basis of the complaint was that he used his late-night comedy/variety show to control her thoughts. The DVPO was granted by a judge, at the cost of Letterman's freedom of movement (should he have been in New Mexico) and Second Amendment rights (no matter where he was).

How did such an outrage actually take place in the American legal system? Under Bill Clinton's revision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO was changed to "the subjective fear of the woman/complainant." Somehow or other, the woman - tinfoil hat in hand - must have convinced the judge that she was genuinely afraid of David Letterman being a "controlling male," the ultimate offense in the bedwetting radical feminist litany of possible sins.

Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson was accused of raping a woman he had never met. On the night he "raped" her, he was at a speaking engagement states away. He spent tens of thousands of dollars defending himself against the false allegation before he was even charged.

Two words: Duke Lacrosse.

The Criminal Law Professor's blog, populated by people who have been active in both the prosecution and defense bars, contains estimates that anywhere from 20% to more than 50% of all rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse allegations are false.

Yet in most states a woman CANNOT be charged with perjury for any statement that she makes in connection with a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint. And neither of the actually guilty parties - the so-called rape "victims" in the Tucker Carlson and Duke Lacrosse cases, were charged with a crime.

Do we really want to make it THIS easy for women to lie?

For those not actually acquainted with feminist jurisprudence it is a common assertion among feminists that "Women don't lie about rape/domestic violence/whatever" or, conversely, the more moderate claim is that women only make false allegations of rape or domestic violence at the same rate as fale reports of other crimes (around 2%).

However, every legal innovation sponsored by feminists makes it easier to lie (for instance, excluding perjury from DVPO claims, so-called "rape shield laws", and the lowering of the standard of evidence to "the subjective fear of the woman" in DV cases) and the evidence among those in the know is that claims of rape and domestic violence are falsely reported at a rate from 10 to 30 TIMES as high as false reports for any other crime.

And most people do not realize that Bill Clinton's modifications of VAWA essentially made it easier for women to effectively lie. Not only has the standard of evidence been changed to "the subjective fear of the woman" (whereas the standard for civil claims is "the preponderance of the evidence", i.e., 50%+ likelihood, and for criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt"), but it is now the policy of most police departments to have a "Must-Arrest" policy consequent to any domestic violence allegation - no matter how ridiculous the story told by the woman, or no matter the lack of evidence, or no matter the number of contradictions in her account. No matter the evidence to the contrary - local police MUST arrest the person against whom the complaint is filed on some criminal charge if a Domestic Violence Protective Order is filed.

Women Don't Lie About Rape: The Story of Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson is the former conservative co-host of the CNN political debate show, Crossfire, and later the host of his own political variety show on MSNBC, Tucker. The bow-tie wearing heir to the Swanson fortune is a representative of the hip, libertarian, young new face of American Conservatism.

Following an episode of Crossfire, in 2003, a producer brought a registered letter from an Indiana attorney to Carlson. Cringing already - when do you ever received a registered letter from an attorney that contains good news? - he pulled the letter out and read that the Indiana lawyer's client was planning to file rape charges against him within a few short days.

Her story: Carlson had been in Louisville on a certain day and had met the "victim" in a bar. He had bought her drinks and dinner, then unobtrusively slipped knockout drugs into her drink. Having passed out, the "victim" woke up in her seat at the restaurant with Carlson gone and blood all over her. She "knew" he had raped her. In front of everybody. The whole restaurant. The patrons of which were so cold and calloused that they continued with their various romantic evenings - nobody acted as if anything had happened, nobody called the authorities, and nobody remembered having seen a thing. There followed a round of intimidating correspondences between Carlson and his "victim," so motivated by fear and on the verge of a "breakdown," the "victim" had decided to prosecute Carlson just to make all the pain and fear go away.

On advice of liberal fellow co-host Bill Press, Carlson immediately contacted "insider" Washington attorney Bob Bennett. Over $14,000 in legal fees and one minor investigation later, turned up the following facts:

* Carlson had never been to Kentucky, and was, in fact, giving a speech elsewhere on the night in question.

* The "victim" had been sending Carlson "fan letters" for some time, and had sent him small gifts, each of which he had sent a thank-you note for (as was his custom) - hence, the "intimidating correspondence."

* The "victim" had sent an email to Carlson on his birthday - kept alive, though apparently deleted, by CNNs email archiving - claiming to be his biggest fan and telling him he was "great." This email was sent a full month after the "rape" had occurred.

In light of these revelations, the "victim" decided not to go forward with the criminal allegations. She knew that pursuing criminal charges against Carlson, she said, would hurt her reputation and business. Carlson, in a moment of cosmic clarity, thought, "[she] didn't want to embarrass herself by testifying against a rapist like me." "Irony" fails as an adjective here....

But Carlson was out his $14,000, and felt a little victimized himself. Following the accusations, many sleepless nights had followed in which he actually tried to convince himself that he might have committed the rape of this unknown "victim." After all, he knew, as do all journalists, and as feminist American culture continually (mis)represents, that behind all sex scandals is some small grain of truth. As he himself said....

The one thing every journalist knows for certain about sex scandals is that they're always true. Partly true, anyway. Maybe you didn't rape this woman, they'd think; maybe you just had unusually rough sadomasochistic sex with her and she misconstrued it. Or maybe your affair with her simply fell apart in an acrimonious way, perhaps over your cocaine habit. Maybe you had sex with her but never knew her name. Something definitely happened between you, though. People don't just make up specific allegations out of nothing.

Imagine his surprise when he continued receiving mail from the "victim" even after she had dropped her twisted threat of criminal charges.

"I am glad to hear that Mr. Carlson can verify his innocence to the claim that I had made earlier," it began. "In light of the evidence that you provided to me, obviously the person who had assaulted me was not in actuality Tucker Carlson, but an impostor."

In another missive, the Victim explained that Carlson should actually be ashamed of himself, for she, as the woman always is, is the real victim.

"I don't appreciate the statements that you made about my mental status. I am a highly educated individual, with multiple degrees. I am a manic-depressive. [But] everyone of concern knows that this condition can be very well managed. It is usually the ignorant that sensationalize it. There are some very successful people who have this condition. I know many."

So of course, the real crime was not the ridiculous assertions of the "victim," nor the threat to bring criminal charges, nor the participation by her lawyers and others in perpetrating this travesty, but, as in the case of Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) - the REAL crime is the ignorance, intolerance, sexism, racism, poverty, and other attitudes fostered by the patriarchy that force women into making such claims. "Sensationalizing bipolar affective disorder" is, of course, a greater crime than making false accusations which could have sent a man to prison.

In a few months, Carlson received a clock radio from The Victim with a note attached: "for the misunderstanding." A few weeks later, another note professing that she was still "your biggest fan."

The lessons of Carlson's suffering?

* It took arguably the best attorney in the country and over $14,000 to handle this matter appropriately - before the charges were ever filed! How many men with lesser connections and zero funds can afford "justice?" Remember, the falsely accused Lacrosse players at Duke spent over $1 million collectively on their defense without a trial.

* Carlson's alibi appears, to me, to be airtight. How many single men whose excuse was "I was at home sleeping because I had to work the next day" could do as well? How many men whose alibi was, "I met the girl at a bar but she was too weird for me to try to pick up" could do as well as Carlson did?

* A combination of feminist-inspired credulity and a constant desire by those hiding in the dark corners of the "justice system" to make a buck, make a name, or get a promotion, works in tandem to prop up even the most outrageous allegations. Police and DAs in many jurisdictions no longer even "screen" allegations of sexual misconduct made by a woman - they simply file charges and say "let a jury sort it out."

* The lite feminism of Oprah Winfrey has successfully conjured up a moral climate in which women cannot lose if they choose to make false allegations. If they allege, the mere allegation is tantamount to a finding of guilt. If they allege something preposterous, an endless number of psychological disorders and feminist-defined "syndromes" will serve as an excuse. If they allege and are proven to be lying, they are nevertheless still the victim because of their race, gender, handicap, or social status.

* The presumption of innocence for men, is gone. Men are abusers by virtue of their very existence. So a $14,000 tax on maleness is simply the price men are expected to pay - even if they have never been to Kentucky.

____________________

From various sources, but see Tucker Carlson's article to reference quotes in this post at http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/09/13/carlson_ excerpt/index.html

Fun with Figures

The Domestic Violence Hysteria (DVH) perpetrated upon the unthinking (witless?) American public by the Domestic Violence Industry (DVI) is now an international phenomenon. Not only Americans are subject to this hysteria.

The DVH takes various forms: Domestic Violence is the leading cause of death of women between such and such an age and such and such an age (variously 15 and 44, 19 and 51, etc.). One in four women are subject to Domestic Violence in a lifetime. And who can forget the oldie but goodie, Super Bowl Sunday is "the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman!" due to Domestic Violence by beer-guzzling, football watching Steeler (or, insert football team's name here: ______) fans.




An interesting radio program on the BBC subjects various claims to examination by statisticians.

Uh-oh.

Don't tell me that somebody is going to subject a claim of feminist propagandists to fact-checking, are they? Isn't that misogynistic? Or against the law? Or maybe that is an act of domestic violence itself (Don't laugh - femtard organizations perpetrate the myth that one of the solutions to violence against women is to "validate the experiences" of the "victim," or "always believe the victim.")?

So statistician Tim Harford, upon examining the nonsensical claims of the DVI, notes that their "rogue statistics" are prone to "mutate as [they] circulate" because they tend to move from mouth to mouth - it is a giant version of the children's game of Telephone (remember when everybody lined up and tried to get a message from one end of the line to the other by whispering in one another's ear?). The statistics are never fact-checked - even by legislators or journalists - and they tend to morph over time.

Upon actually checking the figures, Harford found that annually in Britain, 2,000 women died from cancer. Over 1,000 died from all "external causes" combined - which would include domestic violence - but would also include accidents, street violence, and even causes as diverse as an intentionally-inflicted suicide.

Well, we always said that girls were not good with math, didn't we?

So more prodding. Forget about Britain. What about in the world at large? Because, of course, nobody watches the Super Bowl in Britain! Surely all those drooling beasts in America bump up the worldwide numbers, right?

Well, according to Colin Mavers of the World Health Organizations (WHO), the leading cause of death for women aged 15 to 44 worldwide, is HIV. Domestic Violence doesn't even place or show in this race (sorry femtards!), as tuberculosis and suicide are the second and third causes of death, respectively.

Perhaps women should be protected from themselves, rather than their husbands... errrr, intimate partners?

Homicide, of which domestic violence is a subset, is not even in the top ten causes of death for women of this age group worldwide, according to the WHO.

And incidentally, the WHO's measure of disability ("Well, my man didn't kill me, but he sure harmed me!"), tallies the three leading causes as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, in that order.

Chicks are crazy, you know?

When Britain's Home Office (a governmental ministry) was queried as to where their assertions that DV was a leading cause of death and/or disability came from, it issued a statement saying that the stats were merely used "for illustrative purposes."

Well, now.

One must wonder as to why the Home Office did not choose to "illustrate" the sorry shape of the female populace by blaming it all on candied yam consumption. Perhaps that would not have been as politically expedient.

As Tim Harford, our intrepid statistician puts it, "Thank goodness for 'illustrative purposes!' Otherwise, I would be worried that a bogus statistic had echoed around the world, copied apparently without question into official [governmental] reports, news bulletins, and policy documents."

So how are the statistics on domestic violence gathered when they are not simply made up? Well, women are simply asked in surveys.

Because, of course, women do not lie about such things.

But even so, genuine statistics show that only 4% of women experience domestic violence in any year.

Not quite the 1 in 4 figure that femtards insist on, but then we all know that chicks are no good at math.


On the Web, or click the link above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k9p0t/More_or_Less_15_05_2009

The BBC removes links to these radio programs after a few weeks. You will find a (more or less) permalink here:

domestic_violence_statistics_debunked.mp3 - Hosted on SaveFile.com

Or at Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/FalseDomesticViolenceFiguresExposed

Tactics of Women's Shelters 4

We have discussed at length the anti-family, anti-society rationale behind the Domestic Violence Industry in America, and have shown that the trench warfare of the DV Industry is conducted largely from the local "women's shelter," "safe house," or "haven for abused women." We have discussed at length many of the tactics used in the openly-declared war conducted against men by these fortresses of injustice. But any war against the family, which modern feminism loathes, and society, which modern feminism wishes to remake, will necessary involve tactics of subversion and destruction against women and children as well. One does not have to look far to see that women's shelters exist primarily for political reasons, secondarily for the enrichment of those in charge of them, and only on the fringe for the women and children who are encouraged to frequent them. And this group on the fringe, the women and children, are, in fact, abused - but seldom by the men and fathers in their lives. Rather, more frequently by the Domestic Violence Industry itself.

The most common complaint that I have personally heard from the women themselves is that women's shelter workers are prone to make any promise on earth in order to get what they want from a woman who shows up at their door - the filing of a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against a man - but are less than diligent in fulfilling those promises.

Charlotte simply asked for a place to stay for a few days while she contemplated her next step - and her next step might have been to return to her husband, whom she was experiencing conflict with, but who had not hurt her in any way. She was told that she had to file a DVPO against her husband within 24 hours or she would have to leave. As the worker searched for something - anything - that Charlotte's husband had done wrong that could sustain a DVPO, she asked "Has he ever grabbed you?" Charlotte admitted that she remembered once he grabbed her wrist when she started to walk away from him. The DVPO was filed on that basis, and Charlotte was told that she would have at least 30 days to vacate.

When the DVPO was not continued in court (i.e., there was a finding of no civil liability for grabbing a wrist), Charlotte was again given 24 hours to leave. That was a mere 10 days after the filing of the DVPO.

Victoria was promised that she could file a DVPO but that "we will not file charges against your husband." When she asked if that meant no charges would be filed, the shelter worker told her, "You are the victim. Nothing can be done without your cooperation." Of course, days later the District Attorney filed criminal charges against her husband. Victoria was not told, of course, that neither the "victim" nor the women's shelter has control of when criminal charges are filed. Victoria was then left to defend spurious charges that she had invented in order to get "help," and had to leave the state to avoid having to perjure herself in a criminal court.

Time and again, women complain that women's shelter workers and police promise them that if they will file a DVPO, "the system" will always be there to help them. Other than an open door to continue attending "counseling meetings" or "community meetings," there really is no continuing assistance that is rendered beyond the DVPO hearing. This makes sense, since women's shelters are largely funded (at the federal level) based on the number of DVPO complaints that are filed annually. It is simply not cost-efficient to function as a long-term babysitter to women and children whose lives have experienced havoc at the hands of the Domestic Violence Industry. Increases in federal funding only occur when "domestic violence" is shown to be an out of control problem in the community in which the shelter is housed - and this is proven primarily by an escalating number of DVPO filings each year.

Angie said, "I have made a full-time job out of trying to get child support from my ex-husband. They promised that if I filed an order against him, they would always be there to help me and my children, but nobody cares. I pay lawyers and they don't care either. I feel like I was manipulated. I wish I had just separated and seen if he [my ex-husband] could change, but they don't give you any option except filing an order. If I had to do it over again, I would not have gone to the community meetings."

Amy P. said, "They didn't care anything about me and my kids. Here I was with four kids and trying to just get some space to think. When I said I wouldn't file an order, they moved on to the next 'client.'"

But being lied and treated with smug indifference is likely to be the very least of your troubles at a women's shelter.

* A 26-year old shelter worker had sex with a 12-year old boy on a playground in Arizona.

* Young boys become the whipping boys of the man-hating shelter workers, and adolescent males are often denied admission at all.

* In successive weeks at one Florida "SafeSpace" Shelter, a child was negligently killed by a car and a pregnant resident was stabbed to death by another resident.

* At a different Florida shelter, the shelter director was charged with giving alcohol to minors and the driver of the shelter van failed a sobriety test.

* Sexual abuse of children is a common occurrence in some shelters.

* Drug consumption is common in women's shelters.

* Teenagers and other adults are sometimes forcibly "volunteered" to women's shelters to work off community service time. These folks may be watching your kids.

* Lesbian shelter workers have been known to "cruise" women's shelters for companionship.

In fact, one letter, reproduced by Carey Roberts, Ph.D., states (in part):

To: Health and Human Services, United Way of the National Capitol Area, National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, et alia,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been a volunteer worker at Bethany House of Northern Virginia, 5901 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, a private non-profit so called battered women's shelter. I wish to remain anonymous for fear of personal and professional reprisals by my co-workers and the Bethany House staff.

In my experience working at the shelter I am appalled and outraged by what is really going on at Bethany House of Northern Virginia (BHNV). To put it bluntly, it is for most part nothing more than a "one stop divorce shop for emotional and bored housewives who want a change of life".

It is also largely used as a free hostel for women with emotional problems if they are willing to hate their husbands enough and are willing to take out protective orders against their husbands. Women who follow BHNV's agenda are guaranteed residency at the shelter for up to 7 months. All of this in the name of a Battered Women's shelter is sickening to disgust.

From my observations, the goal of Bethany House is to get bored and emotional housewives to leave their marital home after infuriating them with a heavy dose of husband bashing, anti-male talk, patriarchy, and negative motivation. This is carefully planned and executed by the Bethany House staff and volunteers. Simple tasks as cooking, cleaning, laundry, taking care of children are explained to the housewives as abusive and demeaning tasks forced upon them by their spouses.

At one DV shelter, fewer than 15% of "clients" showed any signs of physical abuse. Many DV shelters admit that they do not even consider whether there are any signs of physical abuse.

This is a chance for the victim advocate to evaluate their situation (we do NOT require proof of abuse) and determine if the Crisis Center is the right place for them. Our goal is to provide emergency shelter for victims in immediate need.

Note that those who apply to a "victim advocate" are "victims in immediate need" regardless of any "proof of abuse."

Be careful not to get on the wrong side of the shelter workers. If you appear to be a strong, confident woman, you may be denied entrance. And if you complain too much about a roommate, you and your infant may be released onto the streets with no further questions allowed.

Women's shelters will promise you safety, understanding, support, and sensitive care. How could they do anything else? After all, you are a "victim." But don't kid yourself. These are doctrinaire, manhating feminists in pursuit of federal funds who are going to forget you as soon as your free ride is up, if you make it that far, and may turn you out completely if you happen to not see the world the same way that they do.

You and your children stand a better chance of avoiding abuse living with that oaf of a husband you've got than spending even one night in a women's shelter. If the drug culture, lesbian culture, and child abuse don't sound appealing, maybe it is time to return to the strategies that your mom and grandma used for success in life.

Remember, they didn't have the "abuse excuse" to fall back on? So they just stayed put and worked on their marriages. Like you promised to do: "For better for worse, in sickness and in health."

For additional information, view a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

Tactics of Women's Shelters 3

In one DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order) proceeding, a woman alleged that her husband had beaten her severely in a Sadomasochistic event, and alleged that he had beaten her so severely that he had left bruises in the area of her buttocks.

What she did not know was that her husband had her credit card statement for a card that was only in her name and had been utilized at sex shops while he was out of the country. He testified that he had noticed bruises on her buttocks area numerous times and his wife had told him she had "fallen down the stairs." She admitted to having told her friends the same thing.

Despite her own admission of lying in court, the credit card statement showing that she had been frequenting sex shops while he was out of the country, her admission that on one of those occasions she had purchased "an S&M kit," and the husband's allegations that she was coming home with bruises in her buttocks area, the DVPO was continued.

This should indicate everything that you need to know about "Domestic Violence" in the modern family court system - it is not a concept that responds well to evidence. Because, as stated previously, "Domestic Violence" is to law what the "widget" is to economics - it is anything that you want it to be. The continuation of a DVPO and the consequent criminal and civil penalties that almost necessarily follow is not dependent upon evidence, but rather is based upon the "subjective fear of the woman." Therefore, what you will hear in a DVPO proceeding is not truth, but rather a template. This is a key issue that men must recognize in order to protect themselves.

By a template, I mean that what is needed to find liability of "Domestic Violence" is not evidence of violence, but rather to show that a man acts in such a way as to fit the neurotic, fear-fueled, hate-charged stereotypes pushed by feminists. Many men, once served with a notice of hearing for "domestic violence" have the attitude - "I have never hit my wife or even so much as pushed or grabbed her. She is not going to be able to produce any evidence in court. I don't even need a lawyer."

This ignores two basic facts: 1) The Domestic Violence Industry is fueled by perjury. 2) "Domestic Violence" has nothing to do with any act of "violence" that the average person would recognize. In fact, in my experience there are three issues that are normally at the center of a DVPO hearing: a man is mean, a man is negligent, or, by far the most popular, a man is controlling.

And here are a few of the specific, often used strategies encouraged, taught, and practiced by women's shelters that help women catch their men in acts of "domestic violence"....

First, be aware of any sudden changes in sexual preference on the part of your wife (I will use "wife" throughout, recognizing that by far, most of the perjury associated with allegations of Domestic Violence seem strangely coordinated with alimony, divorce, and custody proceedings, but keep in mind that any "intimate partner" could file such spurious charges). A woman who suddenly develops an interest in S&M, and insists that you participate with her, could be up to something.

Victoria, because she could not simply "leave" her husband without risking the disapproval of her strict Baptist and Catholic family members, tried to lure her husband into inflicting bruises on her through S&M "play" and based a DVPO allegation on that. Charlotte says that she was encouraged to agree to watch pornography with her husband, and then claim in court that she was "made to watch pornography." In any DVPO hearing, being "made to" do thus and so is a recurring theme. Though such allegations never survive the first question (i.e., "HOW did he MAKE you...?"), it is part of conjuring up the appropriate template for a judge to base his decision on: women are helpless victims and men are cruel, dangerous ogres.

Some women have been encouraged to engage in whatever sexual interests they may have - orgies, threesomes, gloryholes, porn, even sex toys (one woman claimed that her purchase of a vibrator was evidence of her husband's "abuse") - then claim in court that their husband "pimped them out" or "forced them to have sex with women."

Men should be very careful about 180-degree turns on the part of their wives. Since a marriage that is on the rocks almost always has sexual problems that are central to the conflict, men may misinterpret their wives' new sexual "openness" as a sign that their marriage problems are on the way to being solved. It may be just as likely that you are being set up. Beware! Make sure that your marriage is on a firm footing long before you delve into new sexual horizons with your wife.

Secondly, women are encouraged to get evidence of a controlling, cruel, or negligent husband recorded either on paper or on tape. When you are having marital problems, do not write anything about your marriage and do not sign any documents authored by your wife!

Victoria was committing adultery with a married father of three when her husband found out and insisted that it stop. Weeks of conflict ensued. One night, she "repented" to her husband, asked his forgiveness, and said she wanted to start anew on a "second marriage." She had him draw up a marriage contract for the "second marriage" stating all the things that they both agreed she had done wrong and stating the resolutions for change that she was willing to make. She then signed the document and posted it on the refrigerator. In the DVPO hearing, the central piece of evidence was the marriage contract, which, of course, Victoria alleged that her husband had "forced her to sign."

This desire for written evidence goes both ways. Angie G. says that she was encouraged to get her husband to write her cards and letters confessing to her any time he had committed some sin against her. This all, of course, became evidence. A boxful of evidence.

Another common tactic is taping. Be careful when your wife is wearing bulky clothing indoors when it doesn't seem indicated. She could be hiding a hand-held tape recorder in a large pocket or inside a sweatshirt. Women are taught to stand in doorjambs and talk across the room to their husband so that he cannot see the tape recorder in their hand. They are taught to place the recorder behind a cushion or pillow and record while they sit.

Beware of any conversation that starts with a series of naked allegations, for which a woman seems to simply be seeking your response. If you hear this, you are likely being taped for some legal proceeding! Look for conversations structured like this:

She: I want to talk to you.
He: OK.
She: You beat me.
He: Huh?
She: You beat me and you are an adulterer and you are controlling and you always hated my family.
He: I beat you?

Note how this conversation can be twisted to be used in court. He is so flabbergasted by the false allegation that he beat his wife that he cannot even respond. But the final question, "I beat you?", can be twisted into an admission, on the theory that, if you did not beat your wife, you would flatly deny such. If that doesn't fly, the attorney can allege, "Well, you didn't deny adultery or being controlling or hating her family, did you?"

And these types of subjective, neurotic, adolescent offenses are all that is necessary to fit one into the radical feminist template of a "domestic abuser."

Beware of conversations that simply come out of left field, and again, are phrased as naked allegations. Imagine a guy at work with his instant messenger turned on, and his wife pops up with an instant message:

She: You love my blow jobs.
He: Hey baby, how are you? Yep, your blow jobs are GREAT.
She: You want my blow jobs all the time.
He: You know it.

In court, this becomes, "He makes me give him blow jobs all the time. We can't even have normal sex. He doesn't care about my pleasure at all. I hate giving blow jobs." Remember, most instant messengers have a record conversation feature.

If a woman knows a long-standing marriage boundary, look for her to start violating it and assume that she has a tape recorder so that she can record her response. If you have asked her time and again to let her watch your favorite sports team in silence, or not to cook fish, or to not wake you during a nap, etc., women are taught to start violating these boundaries of consideration with impunity and to record the result.

One man had a study in which he did extra work at home. He had asked his wife not to bother him for anything unless it was very important while he was working. One day, she walked in, wearing shorts and a sweatshirt. Under the sweatshirt was a tape recorder.

She: I want to talk to you.
He: I am working, is it really important?
She: No. I just want to talk to you.
He: What is it?
She: I don't know. I just want to talk. What do you want to talk about?

Now, look at the position this man is in, who does not know that he is being recorded. His mind is focused on something important for work, and perhaps for years it has been a known boundary in his home that he is not disturbed while he works. His wife has honored this boundary. Her behavior has become peculiar of late - she is gone a lot (committing adultery or attending "Community Support" meetings at the local women's shelter) and seems to be picking a fight with him all the time. She has become uncivil, and has crossed every boundary of simple respect that the two of them have established. He is exasperated.

If he yells at her, it is evidence that he is mean. Anything he says beyond "Get out!" is probably also abusive.

If he calmly reminds her of the fact that he is working and, absent a compelling emergency, he is not to be bothered, he is controlling.

If he ignores her, he is negligent, distant, and does not regard her "feelings."

And remember, above I stated that in the 100+ DVPO hearings that I have witnessed, the issues are normally that the husband is cruel, negligent, or controlling.

Women's shelters encourage women to keep logs of any and all physical contact between themselves and their spouse. Angie G. says, "They didn't really encourage me to lie as much as they encouraged everyone to put everything that happened in the worst light possible."

One of the most effective means of getting a man to "get physical," giving birth to some event that can be presented in the "worst light possible," is for a woman to start feigning psychological problems or otherwise acting out.

One woman would scream and yell at her husband while her tape recorder was on, hoping that he would yell back. When he didn't, but rather approached her quietly and knelt on the floor attempting to embrace her, she kicked him and yelled, "Get off me!" In court, she was kicking him because he was "wrestling her and would not let her go." She, of course, was merely "defending herself." Without video, it is difficult to argue with that kind of story.

One woman would act out by screaming, yelling, and hopping in the middle of the floor while spinning around. Her husband, obviously, thought she was having a mental breakdown. He offered to "get her some psychological help" but she constantly refused because it might threaten her professional career. She would talk to people who were not there, talk to the dead, and zone out in public. Eventually, he became so unnerved by her screaming, waving her arms, and rotating in the floor that he started wrapping her up in a bear hug when it would happen, to keep her from falling and hitting her head on a coffee table or squashing the dog.

Of course, in court, he was "squeezing the breath out of me and wouldn't let me go." He was "trying to kill me."

Admissions of wrongdoing are calculated to provoke an angry, and perhaps physical, response. Women's shelter counselors urge the women who attend "Community Meetings" that they must "live their own lives," "live authentically," "expect your spouse to authenticate your feelings and needs," and other Oprahized claptrap.

What this means is this: tell your husband about the affair and tape the result. If he doesn't respond in a way that is helpful to you, keep talking about it and taping it until he does.

Women's shelter counselors have suggested to some women that they convince an especially attractive friend to flirt with their husband prior to the filing of a DVPO. The results are, of course, admissible in court, and this works especially well to nullify evidence of adultery on the wife's part.

And all women's shelters have a bevy of attorneys and private investigators that can be contacted, so traditional black ops tactics such as bugs, videotaping, tracking by P.I.'s, and general harassment tactics are always possible.

A couple of my favorite tactics under this "traditional black ops" category are these:

A woman admits to her husband that she is cheating on him. She tells him, over a period of weeks, "I am going to X on Thursday. You are not invited." "I am going to Y on Friday. You are not invited." Eventually, he realizes something is up and decides to follow her and catch her with her boyfriend. Of course, he does not realize that a P.I. has been hired to follow him following his wife. In court, this is evidence that he is "controlling," though apparently he is not "controlling" enough to stop his wife from committing adultery.

A man slapped with a DVPO hires an attorney. The attorney begins to delay the hearing, knowing that speed is his enemy (it does take time for lies to start to unravel, so don't get upset when your attorney starts to file continuances and generally tries to gum up the works before your DVPO hearing). In the time between the filing and the month or two that an attorney may be able to delay the hearing, the man who has been falsely accused begins to receive three or four telephone calls per night. Every time he picks up the phone, there is nobody there, but rather a robocaller then dials someone else's number. After the 15th time the poor sap is fussed out by a total stranger for "calling in the middle of the night," and after the fifth straight night without a full night's sleep, he is willing to do most anything - including just give her the assets in return for her dropping the DVPO.

An attorney or police agency obtains a warrant to track your cell phone signal as a way of making sure that you are not "stalking" your wife, since you, as an accused domestic abuser, are also a potential murderer. Now, don't be ridiculous - neither your wife nor her attorney (and probably not the judge either) actually believe that you are a threat to her - they just want to know where you are going and what you are doing on the chance that it may help their property division or alimony case! You are not informed that your cell signal is being used to keep tabs on your location. When you show up for your hearing, you are asked, "Have you ever been to a strip club?" "Who lives at 123 Main Street? You've been spending a lot of time there, haven't you?"

And remember, the attorneys that are accessed through a women's shelter are generally not paid by their clients (i.e., your wife). They are paid by block grants to "Community Organizations (women's shelters) from the federal government under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). So don't think that the same cost restraints that you face with your attorney will be faced by your wife. There are plenty of cases of attorneys still performing pro bono work for a woman that contacted them through a women's shelter even two years or more after the DVPO hearing. Free.

These are but a few of the tactics routinely encouraged or made available at women's shelters. Do you see now why the tactics of women's shelters are not admissible in court in my state?

When you see inexplicable behavior on the part of your wife, whether it looks like anything recounted here or not, protect yourself. The perjury-driven Domestic Violence Industry may be setting you up.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.