Feminists Do Not Believe That Women Are Equal to Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• VAWA removed the possibility of perjury charges for any testimony that a woman makes in a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearing.

• VAWA lowered the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO from the “likelihood of imminent harm” standard, which has been the standard for obtaining restraining orders in English Common Law since prior to the establishment of the American experiment, to the much more mushy “subjective fear of the woman.” In practical terms, this means that traditionally, in order to get a restraining order, a person had to prove that absent such an order, there was an imminent probability of harm. Under VAWA, however, any woman willing to manufacture false allegations (and nearly all DVPO proceedings are merely a convenient venue for the airing of generic grievances which have nothing to do with “violence” - it is estimated that false DVPO proceedings drain the economy of $20 billion annually, see http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-False-DV-Allegations-Cost-20-Billion.pdf), against a man need only convince a judge that she possesses fear of that man (and not even that such fear is justified!) in order to be granted a restraining order. Obviously, it is exceedingly rare for a requested DVPO to not be granted, on even the flimsiest of evidence. I have seen DVPOs granted by courts because the husband was an evangelical Christian or, in one case, because a husband canceled an insurance policy – which caused his wife to very dramatically intone in her testimony, “I just don't know who he is anymore. That is not the kind of thing he would do. I feel naked and exposed – I am SO SCARED.” Subjective fear of the woman requirement satisfied: DVPO granted.

• VAWA further continues to corrupt the judicial system by controlling the continuing education classes taken by judges and attorneys on the topic of “domestic violence.” Of course, all such continuing ed courses are taught either by doctrinaire feminists, who view the breakup of the family as a part of their ongoing political project, or by representatives of women's shelters, whose funding depends on an ever-expanding definition of and finding of “domestic violence.” Lawyers and judges at the district court level, where these matters tend to be disposed of, are now thoroughly brainwashed by feminist dogma, which has no relation to facts.

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

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

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

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

God does exist.

And He has quite a sense of humor.

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

If it ever does.

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.

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.