Women Want It Every Which Way

So, let me get this straight....

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

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

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

Got it?

You perv....

You Never Know Who is Watching

Click above picture to enlarge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Communities of color?"

Translation: Libtard psychobabble.

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

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

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

*Newsweek* is Dead

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was at this point that I canceled my subscription.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{And}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Eric Alterman, a liberal journalist, wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


________________________

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

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

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

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

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

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 2478

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

Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified



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

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

From reports at WCBSTV.com.

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

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

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

REPORTING: Magee Hickey

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the Members of the Hofstra Community:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBS 2's Kathryn Brown contributed to this report


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

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

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

Attorney Admits Feminist Women's Shelters Feed Justice System its Ideology

See all four parts of this lecture at Opposing Feminism.

Antifeminist Jokes

Each of the following are selections from The Politically Incorrect Joke Book.

Q: How many feminist presidential candidates does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It's going to be dark for the next four years, isn't it?

Q: How many men does it take to open a beer?
A: None. It should be open when she brings it to you.

Q: How many men does it take to fix a woman's watch?
A: Why does she need a watch? There's a clock on the oven!

Q: How many women does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one. She holds it still and waits for the world to revolve around her.

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."

Why Feminists Do Not Answer Questions

Have you ever noticed that when you ask questions which challenge feminist dogma, there is never any genuine attempt on the part of feminists to actually answer those questions?

There is plenty of screaming "Sexism!" "Harassment!" Even "Domestic Violence!"

But there is never any attempt to actually answer the question. So I was wondering, why do feminists never attempt to answer the perfectly legitimate questions or dialogue with the perfectly logical points of those who (rightly) oppose feminism?

I think I have come up with a few ideas:

1) Because they already know the answer, and they know the answer does not support feminism.

2) Because they only teach you 14 vocabulary words in a "Women's Studies" program, four of which are some version of the word "Empowerment."

3) Because, when utterly flummoxed by the truth, it is easier to just scream "Sexism!"

4) Because they are too busy trying to figure out of the "i" comes before or after the "e" in "Glass Ceiling" to put additional effort into forming a real argument.

5) Because YOU are obviously under the bigoted, androcentrist misperception that truth trumps politics.

6) Because thinking can give you a headache and make you have crow's feet. It is much easier to simply drink the Kool-Aid and shout, "Yay for the sisterhood."

Solving The Toilet Seat Crisis

I am tired of the continual controversy over whether a man/boy recently left the toilet seat either up or down.

I am also tired of the mainstream media's orgasmic fixation on the apparently poor economy.

I have an idea that will fix both problems.

The government should provide a bathroom attendant to every single household in America. When a person enters, he/she would ask, "How would you like the lid, sir/madam?" Then he/she would fix the lid and wait patiently while you finish. If you took a particularly long time, he/she could also offer you some gum, a magazine, or call an ambulance. Then, when you are finished, he/she will return the lid to its former state. Routinely, the bathroom attendant will clean the bathroom and replace the TP roll, and might be trained to perform other services such as cleaning out that annoying bathtub ring and perhaps compiling a weekly shopping list for the homeowners' toiletry needs. The bathroom attendant would be paid by the government from a pool of the unemployed. Preference would, of course, be given to people with Master's degrees in "Women's Studies" or "World Peace Studies."

Notice all the problems this solves:

1) Unemployment - one attendant per household will literally wipe out any crises with employment!

2) Disputes - the toilet lids always start the same way and end the same way. We pay somebody to keep men and women from fighting!

3) Responsibility - my plan helps us avoid it! Heck, why should anyone have to be responsible for setting the toilet in the state that THEY want it? Since we have all already obtained an entitlement mentality in the U.S. (and we already want someone else to fix the toilet seat for us anyway) and the government already tells us how much our toilets can flush, let's let the government take care of everything for us! It can even replace the TP roll for us! It can spray after we leave! It can take out the trash! It can provide stimulating conversation for us while we, ummmmmm, wait!!!

This plan, if you don't mind my saying so, rocks! This will be the greatest government work program in history and certainly will also be a hindrance to the growth of domestic violence! What do you say?

How this amazing idea escaped inclusion in President Obama's stimulus package is frankly one of the great mysteries of all of human history.

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.

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?

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.

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."

Why Isn't Child Support Based Upon A Flat Rate?

The reason that child support payments are not based on flat rate schedules which actually bear some resemblance to expenses that could reasonably be associated with the rearing of a child is because child support payments are not, in fact, intended to be used for the rearing of children. Rather, child support payments are intended to be used to transfer assets from a man to a woman.

This is also why courts have no interest in tracking the use of child support payments by a woman. The courts do not care what the money is used for, only that the assets are transferred from the man to the woman. We know that courts are capable of monitoring money - given the eagle eye that they demonstrate in tracking the income of a man who owes child support and given the scrupulous attention paid to men's incomes prior to the signing of an equitable distribution prior to divorce. Since courts are capable of closely supervising men's income they demonstrate that they are equally capable of supervising the outflow of cash from a woman's account. That courts show no interest in doing so indicates that they really do not care about children.

The truth is that child support payments are intended to keep the ex-wife or ex-lover in a comfortable lifestyle and function as a disincentive to marriage so that the swelling ranks of bitter, lonely feminists continues to grow. But as an excuse, "a man has a responsibility to support his children" sounds politically a lot more viable than does "a man has a responsibility to support the wife who committed adultery against him and then sued him for everything he had."

Child support is abusive and should be completely abolished. It encourages the violation of the marriage contract by women (which women demonstrate they are quite capable of violating, given that far more than two-thirds of all divorces and separations are initiated by women) and it ignores that men's commitment to rear children is based upon that contract of marriage. In other words, men never have agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children minus the emotional, intellectual, and physical contact that is necessary for parenting and they have never agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children without a wife/mother to assist them.

If women are just as capable as men (as feminists say that they are) then let them bear the full burden of rearing children when they file for divorce. Let the law say that whoever has the BENEFIT of full custody of the children also has the RESPONSIBILITY to actually provide for them.

Of course, feminism is not about responsibility, so expect such a theory to be viciously opposed.

Such a law would also have the added consequence of functioning as a disincentive for the ridiculous surge in divorce that is ripping Western civilization apart at the seams. Women, and feminists particularly, need to grow up and recognize that they do have a responsibility to their husbands, to their children, and to society. And if they choose to reject that legal responsibility entered into freely and without compulsion at the marriage altar, then let them bear the burden all alone.

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....

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 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.