A woman in Marlow, OK recently made up two rapes in an attempt to get some much needed R&R from a job that, undoubtedly, was "stressing her out."
Trisha Bonney, 18, reported that upon returning home on a given night an intruder had been in her home who attacked her, threw her onto her bed, and raped her. Bonney was spotted by a nursing home worker across the street from her home, sitting on a chair and crying.
Police, of course, responded with overwhelming force - increasing the number of street cops by up to 30% on shifts while looking for the perpetrator. Three innocent men were brought in for questioning and tested for DNA matching.
About a week later, Bonney reported a second intruder in her home who also raped her. Nearby contractors (working on the next door home), dudes hanging out in an alley smoking, and physical evidence (or rather, the lack thereof) indicated that either there was no perpetrator in this case, or that the rapist was the beneficiary of new hovercraft Nikes - allowing him to walk above the ground without leaving footprints - and an Invisible Man coat.
Upon sharper questioning, the "victim" admitted that she had made up the second rapist to lend credibility to the first claim of rape. Apparently she didn't appreciate it when cops began to actually investigate her claims of rape rather than merely accepting them. These cops apparently didn't get the memo from the neighborhood women's shelter, "Always believe the victim."
Oddly, Bonney has actually now been charged with a crime - unusual for perpetrators of false allegations (can anyone say Crystal Gail Mangum?). She faces a criminal trial for falsifying a police report.
If all women who made false allegations were similarly charged, two things would be true: 1) There would be fewer false allegations, and 2) there would be a greater need for women's prisons.
Link below:
http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9247223
Article: More than Half of Rape Allegations are False
Friday, May 29, 2009
NOW President Lies About Being Raped!
It is a common assertion by Feminazis that women do not lie about rape, molestation, and domestic violence. However, studies indicate that, while the normal rate of false allegations for every other crime category is approximately 2%-4%, false report of sexual or other violence by females against males can extend has high as 60%.
"In a forensic study of 556 investigations of rape allegations, 33% were proven (by DNA and other evidence) to be false. In another 27% of the cases, the woman either failed a lie-detector test or admitted having lied when faced with the prospect of submitting to a lie-detector test. In other words, it was found that at least 60% of rape allegations are probably false. Even the liberal Washington Post has admitted that at least 30% of rape accusations are false {A rate more than seven times higher than the norm for false allegations of all crimes - ed.}.
"In a review of 350 criminal cases in which a person who had been convicted was later proven (by DNA evidence) to have been innocent, it was found that 23 had already been executed and eight had already died in prison."
Thomas B. James, J.D., Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know, (Aventine Press, 2003), p. 86.
Every single one of these persons falsely accused and either imprisoned or executed were males falsely accused, and then punished, by females.
A story from Florida captivated my attention for its sheer irony: while Feminazis traverse land, sea, and air, complaining that "women never lie about rape" and cursing the patriarchy for being so bold as to insist on actual evidence of such - isn't a woman's mere assertion all the evidence that is needed? - in the face of mounting evidence that there is a serious problem (Lacrosse, anyone???), I found a story of a regional president of NOW (the Feminazi National Organization of Women) who is now facing charges for false allegations of rape.
Link below!
_____________________
NOW President Charged with Making Up Story About Campus Rape
In November, Desiree Nall, told Winter Park police that she was raped by two men in a Rollins College bathroom."The college was on high alert and the neighborhood was in confusion because there was a lot of fear," Winter Park police spokesman Wayne Farrell said.
Investigators told WKMG-TV that Nall confessed to making up the story.
Nall is the president of the Brevard Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Local 6 News reported. Police said she may have been trying to make a statement when she lied about the rape.
{snip}
Nall could spend up to a year in jail and be forced to pay back tens of thousands of dollars police spent of the investigation.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/4359657/detail.html
____________________
I wonder what "statement" Little Miss Feminazi was trying to make? I wonder if it is similar to the "statements" made by the sixty percent of women nationwide who daily lie about rape as an act of revenge, those who lie about abuse and molestation as a means of securing custody, and those who lie about "domestic violence" as a means of securing the best possible custody, alimony, and property settlement when they have given up on their marriage and family?
Just wondering....
"In a forensic study of 556 investigations of rape allegations, 33% were proven (by DNA and other evidence) to be false. In another 27% of the cases, the woman either failed a lie-detector test or admitted having lied when faced with the prospect of submitting to a lie-detector test. In other words, it was found that at least 60% of rape allegations are probably false. Even the liberal Washington Post has admitted that at least 30% of rape accusations are false {A rate more than seven times higher than the norm for false allegations of all crimes - ed.}.
"In a review of 350 criminal cases in which a person who had been convicted was later proven (by DNA evidence) to have been innocent, it was found that 23 had already been executed and eight had already died in prison."
Thomas B. James, J.D., Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know, (Aventine Press, 2003), p. 86.
Every single one of these persons falsely accused and either imprisoned or executed were males falsely accused, and then punished, by females.
A story from Florida captivated my attention for its sheer irony: while Feminazis traverse land, sea, and air, complaining that "women never lie about rape" and cursing the patriarchy for being so bold as to insist on actual evidence of such - isn't a woman's mere assertion all the evidence that is needed? - in the face of mounting evidence that there is a serious problem (Lacrosse, anyone???), I found a story of a regional president of NOW (the Feminazi National Organization of Women) who is now facing charges for false allegations of rape.
Link below!
_____________________
NOW President Charged with Making Up Story About Campus Rape
In November, Desiree Nall, told Winter Park police that she was raped by two men in a Rollins College bathroom."The college was on high alert and the neighborhood was in confusion because there was a lot of fear," Winter Park police spokesman Wayne Farrell said.
Investigators told WKMG-TV that Nall confessed to making up the story.
Nall is the president of the Brevard Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Local 6 News reported. Police said she may have been trying to make a statement when she lied about the rape.
{snip}
Nall could spend up to a year in jail and be forced to pay back tens of thousands of dollars police spent of the investigation.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/4359657/detail.html
____________________
I wonder what "statement" Little Miss Feminazi was trying to make? I wonder if it is similar to the "statements" made by the sixty percent of women nationwide who daily lie about rape as an act of revenge, those who lie about abuse and molestation as a means of securing custody, and those who lie about "domestic violence" as a means of securing the best possible custody, alimony, and property settlement when they have given up on their marriage and family?
Just wondering....
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
International Attempts to Fake "Domestic Violence"
Note that now Asian countries, as Malaysia below, are attempting to follow in the footsteps of the already overly-neurotic and fragile American feminists.
It is amazing that men are expected to believe that women are their equals in every way, yet feminism is shot through with such trenchant childishness as this. Are women collectively so weak and fragile that they can be victimized by mere words, when the average seven-year old knows that "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?"
Note that the law throughout most of the United States is already what the Malaysian government is considering based on this article. The standard for a determination of "domestic violence" in most states is the subjective fear of the woman, which allows for a determination of "violence" if a male "embarrasses you" or "denies your feelings."
The giveaway on the rationale behind such changes is actually provided at the end of the story, when it is noted that there have already been 99 DV filings in the jurisdiction for 2009, while the prior year had had 220 such filings. The eternal attempt to expand the definition of "domestic violence" to the point that it encompasses every conceivable negative behavior is merely an attempt to ratchet up the number of domestic violence filings.
Of course, in the West, an increased number of DV claims translates into more governmental funding for feminist projects, and the transfer of more and more assets to undeserving women in the form of equitable distributions, alimony, and child support payments.
KOTA KINABALU: A husband telling his wife that she is no longer pretty in an attempt to humiliate her can be classified as an emotional violence offence if amendments are made to the Domestic Violence Act (DVA)1994.
The plan is to amend the DVA for the inclusion of a clause on emotional violence against women.
Currently, they are only protected only against physical abuse, Women's Development Department director-general Datuk Dr Noorul Ainur Mohd Nur said.
She said on Wednesday that the aim for proposing the amendment was to safeguard women both physically and emotionally.
Dr Noorul said emotional violence was a form of abuse that would deeply scar a woman and lower their self-esteem, dignity and self-confidence.
“It could be a case where her husband tells his wife she is ugly"....
It is amazing that men are expected to believe that women are their equals in every way, yet feminism is shot through with such trenchant childishness as this. Are women collectively so weak and fragile that they can be victimized by mere words, when the average seven-year old knows that "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?"
Note that the law throughout most of the United States is already what the Malaysian government is considering based on this article. The standard for a determination of "domestic violence" in most states is the subjective fear of the woman, which allows for a determination of "violence" if a male "embarrasses you" or "denies your feelings."
The giveaway on the rationale behind such changes is actually provided at the end of the story, when it is noted that there have already been 99 DV filings in the jurisdiction for 2009, while the prior year had had 220 such filings. The eternal attempt to expand the definition of "domestic violence" to the point that it encompasses every conceivable negative behavior is merely an attempt to ratchet up the number of domestic violence filings.
Of course, in the West, an increased number of DV claims translates into more governmental funding for feminist projects, and the transfer of more and more assets to undeserving women in the form of equitable distributions, alimony, and child support payments.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Child Support Industry
Take a woman who can't afford a child and society calls her a victim or a hero and will grant her an abortion - or an endless supply of welfare checks. Find a man who can't afford a child and society calls him a deadbeat dad and tosses him into jail. At least that is the perspective of Kathleen Parker in Save The Males (Random House, 2008). She writes:
It's hard to cough up the dough [for child support] when your broke, harder still if you're behind bars.... Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2005 that 70 per cent of child support debt is owed by men who owe $10,000 a year or less or who have no earnings at all....
The child support industry has been a windfall for states and for middle-class divorcing women. Economist Robert McNeely and legal scholar Cynthia McNeely go so far as to suggest that... governmental policies [on child support] have led to destruction of the family "by creating financial incentives to divorce [and further incentives resulting in] the prevention of families by creating financial incentives not to marry upon conceiving a child."
Penalizing errant fathers has become the only form of chivalry modern woman will tolerate, but it is chivalry, based on the idea that Uncle Sam must come to the rescue of the nation's distressed damsels. The real result of the child support industry, however, has been the creation of a system that grants bureaucrats unprecedented access to private records and control over the lives of people, most of whom have committed no offense. As investigative reporter Robert O'Harrow Jr. wrote in The Washington Post, commenting on the expansion of federal child support initiatives, "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to... keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing."
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.
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.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Women Don't Lie About Rape: The Story of Tucker Carlson
Tucker Carlson is the former conservative co-host of the CNN political debate show, Crossfire, and later the host of his own political variety show on MSNBC, Tucker. The bow-tie wearing heir to the Swanson fortune is a representative of the hip, libertarian, young new face of American Conservatism.
Following an episode of Crossfire, in 2003, a producer brought a registered letter from an Indiana attorney to Carlson. Cringing already - when do you ever received a registered letter from an attorney that contains good news? - he pulled the letter out and read that the Indiana lawyer's client was planning to file rape charges against him within a few short days.
Her story: Carlson had been in Louisville on a certain day and had met the "victim" in a bar. He had bought her drinks and dinner, then unobtrusively slipped knockout drugs into her drink. Having passed out, the "victim" woke up in her seat at the restaurant with Carlson gone and blood all over her. She "knew" he had raped her. In front of everybody. The whole restaurant. The patrons of which were so cold and calloused that they continued with their various romantic evenings - nobody acted as if anything had happened, nobody called the authorities, and nobody remembered having seen a thing. There followed a round of intimidating correspondences between Carlson and his "victim," so motivated by fear and on the verge of a "breakdown," the "victim" had decided to prosecute Carlson just to make all the pain and fear go away.
On advice of liberal fellow co-host Bill Press, Carlson immediately contacted "insider" Washington attorney Bob Bennett. Over $14,000 in legal fees and one minor investigation later, turned up the following facts:
In light of these revelations, the "victim" decided not to go forward with the criminal allegations. She knew that pursuing criminal charges against Carlson, she said, would hurt her reputation and business. Carlson, in a moment of cosmic clarity, thought, "[she] didn't want to embarrass herself by testifying against a rapist like me." "Irony" fails as an adjective here....
But Carlson was out his $14,000, and felt a little victimized himself. Following the accusations, many sleepless nights had followed in which he actually tried to convince himself that he might have committed the rape of this unknown "victim." After all, he knew, as do all journalists, and as feminist American culture continually (mis)represents, that behind all sex scandals is some small grain of truth. As he himself said....
Imagine his surprise when he continued receiving mail from the "victim" even after she had dropped her twisted threat of criminal charges.
In another missive, the Victim explained that Carlson should actually be ashamed of himself, for she, as the woman always is, is the real victim.
So of course, the real crime was not the ridiculous assertions of the "victim," nor the threat to bring criminal charges, nor the participation by her lawyers and others in perpetrating this travesty, but, as in the case of Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) - the REAL crime is the ignorance, intolerance, sexism, racism, poverty, and other attitudes fostered by the patriarchy that force women into making such claims. "Sensationalizing bipolar affective disorder" is, of course, a greater crime than making false accusations which could have sent a man to prison.
In a few months, Carlson received a clock radio from The Victim with a note attached: "for the misunderstanding." A few weeks later, another note professing that she was still "your biggest fan."
The lessons of Carlson's suffering?
____________________
From various sources, but see Tucker Carlson's article to reference quotes in this post at http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/09/13/carlson_ excerpt/index.html
Following an episode of Crossfire, in 2003, a producer brought a registered letter from an Indiana attorney to Carlson. Cringing already - when do you ever received a registered letter from an attorney that contains good news? - he pulled the letter out and read that the Indiana lawyer's client was planning to file rape charges against him within a few short days.
Her story: Carlson had been in Louisville on a certain day and had met the "victim" in a bar. He had bought her drinks and dinner, then unobtrusively slipped knockout drugs into her drink. Having passed out, the "victim" woke up in her seat at the restaurant with Carlson gone and blood all over her. She "knew" he had raped her. In front of everybody. The whole restaurant. The patrons of which were so cold and calloused that they continued with their various romantic evenings - nobody acted as if anything had happened, nobody called the authorities, and nobody remembered having seen a thing. There followed a round of intimidating correspondences between Carlson and his "victim," so motivated by fear and on the verge of a "breakdown," the "victim" had decided to prosecute Carlson just to make all the pain and fear go away.
On advice of liberal fellow co-host Bill Press, Carlson immediately contacted "insider" Washington attorney Bob Bennett. Over $14,000 in legal fees and one minor investigation later, turned up the following facts:
* Carlson had never been to Kentucky, and was, in fact, giving a speech elsewhere on the night in question.
* The "victim" had been sending Carlson "fan letters" for some time, and had sent him small gifts, each of which he had sent a thank-you note for (as was his custom) - hence, the "intimidating correspondence."
* The "victim" had sent an email to Carlson on his birthday - kept alive, though apparently deleted, by CNNs email archiving - claiming to be his biggest fan and telling him he was "great." This email was sent a full month after the "rape" had occurred.
In light of these revelations, the "victim" decided not to go forward with the criminal allegations. She knew that pursuing criminal charges against Carlson, she said, would hurt her reputation and business. Carlson, in a moment of cosmic clarity, thought, "[she] didn't want to embarrass herself by testifying against a rapist like me." "Irony" fails as an adjective here....
But Carlson was out his $14,000, and felt a little victimized himself. Following the accusations, many sleepless nights had followed in which he actually tried to convince himself that he might have committed the rape of this unknown "victim." After all, he knew, as do all journalists, and as feminist American culture continually (mis)represents, that behind all sex scandals is some small grain of truth. As he himself said....
The one thing every journalist knows for certain about sex scandals is that they're always true. Partly true, anyway. Maybe you didn't rape this woman, they'd think; maybe you just had unusually rough sadomasochistic sex with her and she misconstrued it. Or maybe your affair with her simply fell apart in an acrimonious way, perhaps over your cocaine habit. Maybe you had sex with her but never knew her name. Something definitely happened between you, though. People don't just make up specific allegations out of nothing.
Imagine his surprise when he continued receiving mail from the "victim" even after she had dropped her twisted threat of criminal charges.
"I am glad to hear that Mr. Carlson can verify his innocence to the claim that I had made earlier," it began. "In light of the evidence that you provided to me, obviously the person who had assaulted me was not in actuality Tucker Carlson, but an impostor."
In another missive, the Victim explained that Carlson should actually be ashamed of himself, for she, as the woman always is, is the real victim.
"I don't appreciate the statements that you made about my mental status. I am a highly educated individual, with multiple degrees. I am a manic-depressive. [But] everyone of concern knows that this condition can be very well managed. It is usually the ignorant that sensationalize it. There are some very successful people who have this condition. I know many."
So of course, the real crime was not the ridiculous assertions of the "victim," nor the threat to bring criminal charges, nor the participation by her lawyers and others in perpetrating this travesty, but, as in the case of Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) - the REAL crime is the ignorance, intolerance, sexism, racism, poverty, and other attitudes fostered by the patriarchy that force women into making such claims. "Sensationalizing bipolar affective disorder" is, of course, a greater crime than making false accusations which could have sent a man to prison.
In a few months, Carlson received a clock radio from The Victim with a note attached: "for the misunderstanding." A few weeks later, another note professing that she was still "your biggest fan."
The lessons of Carlson's suffering?
* It took arguably the best attorney in the country and over $14,000 to handle this matter appropriately - before the charges were ever filed! How many men with lesser connections and zero funds can afford "justice?" Remember, the falsely accused Lacrosse players at Duke spent over $1 million collectively on their defense without a trial.
* Carlson's alibi appears, to me, to be airtight. How many single men whose excuse was "I was at home sleeping because I had to work the next day" could do as well? How many men whose alibi was, "I met the girl at a bar but she was too weird for me to try to pick up" could do as well as Carlson did?
* A combination of feminist-inspired credulity and a constant desire by those hiding in the dark corners of the "justice system" to make a buck, make a name, or get a promotion, works in tandem to prop up even the most outrageous allegations. Police and DAs in many jurisdictions no longer even "screen" allegations of sexual misconduct made by a woman - they simply file charges and say "let a jury sort it out."
* The lite feminism of Oprah Winfrey has successfully conjured up a moral climate in which women cannot lose if they choose to make false allegations. If they allege, the mere allegation is tantamount to a finding of guilt. If they allege something preposterous, an endless number of psychological disorders and feminist-defined "syndromes" will serve as an excuse. If they allege and are proven to be lying, they are nevertheless still the victim because of their race, gender, handicap, or social status.
* The presumption of innocence for men, is gone. Men are abusers by virtue of their very existence. So a $14,000 tax on maleness is simply the price men are expected to pay - even if they have never been to Kentucky.
____________________
From various sources, but see Tucker Carlson's article to reference quotes in this post at http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/09/13/carlson_ excerpt/index.html
Should No-Fault Divorce Be Abolished?
As I understand the story (and I am open to correction on this, though I think the broad outlines are correct), Ronald Reagan led the way for the adoption of no-fault divorce when he was governor of California in the 60's-70's.
Prior to that time, divorce in every state had required a showing of some fault on the part of one or the other partners. This was because marriage was considered a contractual matter which required some sort of basis for dissolution of the contract.
But that a showing of fault was necessary led to couples who were simply determined not to live together anymore engaging in what was disparagingly called "collusive divorce," in which one party would admit to some outlandish infraction that they had, in fact, never committed, in an attempt to end the marriage. This had, in fact, happened to Reagan. His first wife had informed him that she was, ummmm, otherwise engaged, shall we say, and that she did not intend to continue the marriage. While he fought for his marriage for a time, he eventually relented and agreed to confess in a divorce court that he was guilty of "cruelty" to his wife. This was, in California, the most common ploy for "collusive divorce."
Rethinking later, Reagan decided that it was a horrible blot on his character to have people believing that he had ever been cruel to the woman that he so loved. He vowed to do something about it, and spearheaded no-fault divorce legislation, signing it into law in 1970.
He obviously never foresaw the moral wreckage that would follow.
In Reagan's day, some people did decide to stay married rather than perjure themselves in court. They worked on their marriage and generally things turned out well. Since no-fault has spread, however, there is now no longer any brake on divorces and more kids will grow up without two parents than grow up with two parents.
In North Carolina, divorce is no-fault, but the division of assets can be based on fault. I know of one case in which the couple divorced on a no-fault basis (the only choice in the state) , but the husband received all of the marital property except for his wife's IRA as a result of his wife's continued adultery.
I would suggest the following modification, which would both avoid the "collusive divorce" of the past and would also place a brake on the unrestrained divorce of the present: Any divorce in which both parties agree - let it be done on a no-fault basis. But any divorce in which one party does not agree for any reason whatsoever (i.e., a contested divorce) should be dissolved only on a fault basis and only at severe cost to the separating party - loss of kids, loss of assets, loss of everything.
Marriage is more important to society and to the people invovled in it than is the "freedom" of any one party. Marriage is more important to society than is the feminist ideology which opposes it and seeks to destroy it. Marriage is (and prior to feminism had always been treated as) a contract - and in no other area of life would we allow a person to simply walk away from a contract without any consequences merely because she "wasn't happy" with it.
The social cost of divorce has become too high. Too many men's and women's lives, finances, and psyches are being ruined by a too-easy divorce law. Too many children are growing up frustrated, neglected, angry, and lost without two parents. It is, imho, time to end this thing.
Do away with no-fault divorce. And while you are at it, let's do away with child support, the subornation of perjury by women's shelters, and the presumption of female fitness in child custody disputes. Feminism has befouled the waters of justice for too long and the evidence of its cancerous nature is plain for all to see. The legacy of irresponsibility and attendant moral chaos begotten by no-fault divorce will be felt in this country for generations to come.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Fun with Figures
The Domestic Violence Hysteria (DVH) perpetrated upon the unthinking (witless?) American public by the Domestic Violence Industry (DVI) is now an international phenomenon. Not only Americans are subject to this hysteria.
The DVH takes various forms: Domestic Violence is the leading cause of death of women between such and such an age and such and such an age (variously 15 and 44, 19 and 51, etc.). One in four women are subject to Domestic Violence in a lifetime. And who can forget the oldie but goodie, Super Bowl Sunday is "the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman!" due to Domestic Violence by beer-guzzling, football watching Steeler (or, insert football team's name here: ______) fans.
An interesting radio program on the BBC subjects various claims to examination by statisticians.
Uh-oh.
Don't tell me that somebody is going to subject a claim of feminist propagandists to fact-checking, are they? Isn't that misogynistic? Or against the law? Or maybe that is an act of domestic violence itself (Don't laugh - femtard organizations perpetrate the myth that one of the solutions to violence against women is to "validate the experiences" of the "victim," or "always believe the victim.")?
So statistician Tim Harford, upon examining the nonsensical claims of the DVI, notes that their "rogue statistics" are prone to "mutate as [they] circulate" because they tend to move from mouth to mouth - it is a giant version of the children's game of Telephone (remember when everybody lined up and tried to get a message from one end of the line to the other by whispering in one another's ear?). The statistics are never fact-checked - even by legislators or journalists - and they tend to morph over time.
Upon actually checking the figures, Harford found that annually in Britain, 2,000 women died from cancer. Over 1,000 died from all "external causes" combined - which would include domestic violence - but would also include accidents, street violence, and even causes as diverse as an intentionally-inflicted suicide.
Well, we always said that girls were not good with math, didn't we?
So more prodding. Forget about Britain. What about in the world at large? Because, of course, nobody watches the Super Bowl in Britain! Surely all those drooling beasts in America bump up the worldwide numbers, right?
Well, according to Colin Mavers of the World Health Organizations (WHO), the leading cause of death for women aged 15 to 44 worldwide, is HIV. Domestic Violence doesn't even place or show in this race (sorry femtards!), as tuberculosis and suicide are the second and third causes of death, respectively.
Perhaps women should be protected from themselves, rather than their husbands... errrr, intimate partners?
Homicide, of which domestic violence is a subset, is not even in the top ten causes of death for women of this age group worldwide, according to the WHO.
And incidentally, the WHO's measure of disability ("Well, my man didn't kill me, but he sure harmed me!"), tallies the three leading causes as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, in that order.
Chicks are crazy, you know?
When Britain's Home Office (a governmental ministry) was queried as to where their assertions that DV was a leading cause of death and/or disability came from, it issued a statement saying that the stats were merely used "for illustrative purposes."
Well, now.
One must wonder as to why the Home Office did not choose to "illustrate" the sorry shape of the female populace by blaming it all on candied yam consumption. Perhaps that would not have been as politically expedient.
As Tim Harford, our intrepid statistician puts it, "Thank goodness for 'illustrative purposes!' Otherwise, I would be worried that a bogus statistic had echoed around the world, copied apparently without question into official [governmental] reports, news bulletins, and policy documents."
So how are the statistics on domestic violence gathered when they are not simply made up? Well, women are simply asked in surveys.
Because, of course, women do not lie about such things.
But even so, genuine statistics show that only 4% of women experience domestic violence in any year.
Not quite the 1 in 4 figure that femtards insist on, but then we all know that chicks are no good at math.
On the Web, or click the link above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k9p0t/More_or_Less_15_05_2009
The BBC removes links to these radio programs after a few weeks. You will find a (more or less) permalink here:
domestic_violence_statistics_debunked.mp3 - Hosted on SaveFile.com
Or at Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/FalseDomesticViolenceFiguresExposed
The DVH takes various forms: Domestic Violence is the leading cause of death of women between such and such an age and such and such an age (variously 15 and 44, 19 and 51, etc.). One in four women are subject to Domestic Violence in a lifetime. And who can forget the oldie but goodie, Super Bowl Sunday is "the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman!" due to Domestic Violence by beer-guzzling, football watching Steeler (or, insert football team's name here: ______) fans.
An interesting radio program on the BBC subjects various claims to examination by statisticians.
Uh-oh.
Don't tell me that somebody is going to subject a claim of feminist propagandists to fact-checking, are they? Isn't that misogynistic? Or against the law? Or maybe that is an act of domestic violence itself (Don't laugh - femtard organizations perpetrate the myth that one of the solutions to violence against women is to "validate the experiences" of the "victim," or "always believe the victim.")?
So statistician Tim Harford, upon examining the nonsensical claims of the DVI, notes that their "rogue statistics" are prone to "mutate as [they] circulate" because they tend to move from mouth to mouth - it is a giant version of the children's game of Telephone (remember when everybody lined up and tried to get a message from one end of the line to the other by whispering in one another's ear?). The statistics are never fact-checked - even by legislators or journalists - and they tend to morph over time.
Upon actually checking the figures, Harford found that annually in Britain, 2,000 women died from cancer. Over 1,000 died from all "external causes" combined - which would include domestic violence - but would also include accidents, street violence, and even causes as diverse as an intentionally-inflicted suicide.
Well, we always said that girls were not good with math, didn't we?
So more prodding. Forget about Britain. What about in the world at large? Because, of course, nobody watches the Super Bowl in Britain! Surely all those drooling beasts in America bump up the worldwide numbers, right?
Well, according to Colin Mavers of the World Health Organizations (WHO), the leading cause of death for women aged 15 to 44 worldwide, is HIV. Domestic Violence doesn't even place or show in this race (sorry femtards!), as tuberculosis and suicide are the second and third causes of death, respectively.
Perhaps women should be protected from themselves, rather than their husbands... errrr, intimate partners?
Homicide, of which domestic violence is a subset, is not even in the top ten causes of death for women of this age group worldwide, according to the WHO.
And incidentally, the WHO's measure of disability ("Well, my man didn't kill me, but he sure harmed me!"), tallies the three leading causes as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, in that order.
Chicks are crazy, you know?
When Britain's Home Office (a governmental ministry) was queried as to where their assertions that DV was a leading cause of death and/or disability came from, it issued a statement saying that the stats were merely used "for illustrative purposes."
Well, now.
One must wonder as to why the Home Office did not choose to "illustrate" the sorry shape of the female populace by blaming it all on candied yam consumption. Perhaps that would not have been as politically expedient.
As Tim Harford, our intrepid statistician puts it, "Thank goodness for 'illustrative purposes!' Otherwise, I would be worried that a bogus statistic had echoed around the world, copied apparently without question into official [governmental] reports, news bulletins, and policy documents."
So how are the statistics on domestic violence gathered when they are not simply made up? Well, women are simply asked in surveys.
Because, of course, women do not lie about such things.
But even so, genuine statistics show that only 4% of women experience domestic violence in any year.
Not quite the 1 in 4 figure that femtards insist on, but then we all know that chicks are no good at math.
On the Web, or click the link above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k9p0t/More_or_Less_15_05_2009
The BBC removes links to these radio programs after a few weeks. You will find a (more or less) permalink here:
domestic_violence_statistics_debunked.mp3 - Hosted on SaveFile.com
Or at Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/FalseDomesticViolenceFiguresExposed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
