The Slaughter of Innocents

I am deeply saddened by the senseless murder of 20 innocent children in Newtown, CT, on 12/14/2012.

I am even more deeply saddened by the senseless murder of nearly 4,000 innocent children in the United States every day since Roe v. Wade (1973), by feminists and their willing accomplices in murder, the Democrat party.

Why Battered Women's Syndrome Was Invented

To a feminist, women are the same as men, unless there is something to be gained by being different....

And to a feminist, women are "strong and independent," unless a court battle can be won by portraying themselves as weak, easily-controlled victims....

The "I Lied to Police and Got Him Thrown in Jail" Act (New York Post)

by Abby Schechter, The New York Post

What's in a name? You are probably for reauthorization of the "Violence Against Women Act." Whereas you may not be in favor of reauthorizing the 'I lied to the police and got him thrown in jail for 10 months' act. And yet the two are the very same piece of legislation.

As the Independent Institute's Mary Theroux points out , VAWA has changes in it that essentially violate the rule of law.

"This Act goes far beyond simple discrimination to actively circumvent law as we understand it: accusers need provide no proof and are not held accountable for lying. The accused can and are summarily jailed, denied access to their children, and put under restraining orders on nothing more than the say-so of a woman who may very well be acting out of anger, a desire to retain marital property or sole custody of their children, or just plain whimsy.

VAWA "has redefined “domestic violence” to include dirty looks, name calling, or simply the “intuition” (imagination) of a woman that the accused is thinking ill thoughts."

And as Theroux highlights from a "Dr. Phil" clip, if VAWA is reauthorized it will become the law of the land that a woman can get her husband thrown in jail for 10 months because "he disrespected" but did not hit or punch her.

Oh, and by the way, VAWA has been around since the Clinton years and has been totally ineffective . A family violence expert said, "There is no evidence that VAWA has led to a decrease in violence against women."

There is also an illegal immigration component that is a slap in the face of current law . "For Hispanic voters, [Sen. Patrick] Leahy added a provision to increase by 50 percent the number of visas given to immigrants who claim to need to stay in the country to help criminal investigations. Ranking committee member Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, was outvoted when he tried to include reasonable limitations on granting these visas, such as requiring that the crime be under active investigation and not beyond the statute of limitations."

Oh, one more small item of note: VAWA was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/the_lied_jail_the_police_and_got_s2zheEr5zwQ1CXY3cbgGCP#ixzz1pwVoDh48

Feminists are Pathetic

Intelligent Feminists (sic)

We have a saying in these parts: "When you throw a stone, the dog that yelps loudest was hit hardest." In other words, when you say something that is obviously true, those who protest the loudest are those upon whom the statement has had its most serious impact.

Objectify Chicks!, the blog, and @objectifychicks, the associated twitter account, has been getting a lot of attention from femtards of late. I presume that femtards have extra time on their hands these days for several reasons, among which is that M.A.'s in Women's Studies can't even get you a job at Burger King in the Obama economy; with all the government funding being cut to feminist projects (there IS a God!), lots of femtard organizations are shutting down (like the YWCA in Raleigh, NC), leaving lots of feminists unemployed and otherwise dependent on government - proving my point, that feminists have exchanged continual dependence upon a husband for continual dependence upon government; and finally, I suppose that abortion season is over, and without innocent babies to kill, feminists have to look for other ways to occupy their time.

So I thought I would use some of this recent activity to prove yet another point about feminists (and their fellow travelers; I realize that, for a lot of reasons, it has become less popular to self-identify as a feminist, but anyone who argues in feminist language for the defense of feminism is a feminist whether they so self-identify or not, so throughout where you read "feminist" please note that I am including their associates, no matter how they self-identify) - that for all of their smugness and ability to smirk meaningfully when given a position on a mainstream news outlet, they really aren't smart. At all. I am going to take that just one step further, and say it the way my wife says it:

"All feminists are stupid. There are no exceptions."

Feel free to substitute the word "morons," "retarded," "semi-retarded," "lunatics," or such words as are to your own taste for the word "stupid" in the above evaluation. I am just quoting my wife.

I started this blog in 2008. So this blog has been going on for the better part of four years as I write. There were many aspects of writing this particular blog that have been surprising to me: that it would get 100,000 hits, that it would lead to radio and television interviews and public appearances where I tell the general public the uncensored truth about feminism, that it would eventually be read in 161 countries (as of today) of the world, and that individuals (including lawyers and judges) would contact me behind the scenes about my blogs on feminism's encouragement of false accusations.

But there is one thing that I was not prepared for: the sheer intellectual vacuity of feminists themselves. Now, having said that, let me insert a couple of caveats....

First, of course I know that all feminists are damn fools. Of course I know that feminism is a position of neurotics and morons. Of course I know that feminism is an emotional, not an intellectual position. One could not read the pages of this sacred journal and not detect the utter scorn that I possess for the supposed "arguments" of feminism (have you ever read the word femtard in these sacred pages? that's a hint....). A person with an engaged brain with an IQ over 40 (who was also honest) could not possibly believe the nonsense that is spouted by feminists: that abortion is about the woman's body? that the solution to alleged discrimination is actual discrimination? that whatever a man can do, a woman can do as well, and therefore standards for admission and promotion in law schools, medical schools, business schools, the military, fire departments, police departments, and everything else must be lowered so that women can do what men have already been doing since the dawn of time? that society's unwillingness to pay for the fornication of femtards by purchasing their birth control amounts to a denial of their "reproductive rights" (whatever the heck that is)?

These are the ravings of lunatics. I get that. Heck, I wrote that!

Secondly, I have not exactly designed this blog to be hyperintellectual. There is a reason for that. If I used too many three-syllable words, feminists would not be able to read it and understand how wrong they are, for instance. But I have also chosen - and this was a conscious choice - to couch my arguments within a generous serving of comedy and to try to make each individual article capable of being understood by the average Joe who may be coming to this blog without a knowledge of feminism, politics, culture, or law. But despite the humor, it is undeniable that a person who reads this blog from beginning to end, along with all the supporting materials, would come to an understanding of the perversion that feminism has inflicted upon life, law, and the family that would give them a level of insight that far surpasses what one would get in a lifetime of watching the CBS Evening News. This blog is not intellectual, but it is intelligent, and it is intended for the common man.

Now, having thrown in those two caveats, back to the original argument. The one thing that has surprised me about writing and managing this blog for four years was the sheer lack of intelligence among its detractors. Admittedly, I wasn't expecting much. But many years ago, I actually interned in a psychiatric ward, and was surprised that for all the electroshock treatment, psychotropic drugs, and people claiming to be Napoleon, that many of the patients were actually capable of rational, and often intriguing (or at least interesting) conversation, and occasionally had great insights into themselves, those around them, the psychiatric process, and the culture.

But if I heard 30 interesting conversations during my brief time interning in a psychiatric ward, that is 30 more than I have ever heard from a feminist. And though this blog has reached literally around the world (most recently, it entered Uzbekistan), in spite of the fact that I intentionally pimp my blog to people who do not agree with its sentiments (using such hashtags as #feminist, #feminism, #NOW, #prochoice, #dnc, #maddow, #progressive, #dailykos, and others) not one person on any continent in four years has made a rational, thoughtful, intellectual response opposing either any single argument that I have made (with something like 150+ articles at this point) or the blog itself. Further, though many of my articles are extensively researched, citing news stories, statistics, law, and other outside, objective sources, not one time has a feminist produced evidence that would counteract any single claim (to say nothing of an article, or the content of the blog itself) made in four years.

In fact, ALL of the responses which I have received from feminists, either on the blog or on twitter, have looked like a catalogue of logical errors which one might find in a freshman-level Introduction to Philosophy textbook. And that is when the responses do not degenerate into mere bumper-sticker sloganeering. So let's take a brief look at some of the recent "attention" (no doubt, ginned up) that Objectify Chicks! has received and see what it is that feminists have to say in light of the impeccable logic and overwhelming objective truth of this blog.

First, the following comment was offered to my article, Independent Women - An Important Piece of Feminist Mythology....

Ah, no legitimate comments posted by women from an intellectual women's perspective, though I am sure you have more than a few placed at your disposal...

Enraging men against women, infuriating women against men, pushing the sexes further apart, to what result? You take this as more than a joke, clearly, what is the point? You defame half the population, decry the faults of some women and claim them as that of the whole, why?

The men who are pussy whipped who you think you are helping, the women who are leaning on men for support that you think will be moved to become more, will likely use this as fuel to their already in place agendas, which is to take solace from "the harsh world of men" in the arms of a woman, or to rob from the men who "took her ability to live."

This blog will push some women further away from the trust of other women, which could end in them losing trust for their own abilities, making them more reliant on men. It could push some men to form a deep seeded Confirmation Bias that debilitates them from seeing women beyond the few qualities they've been fed.

All in all, this blog has no agenda other than persuading anyone who stumbles upon it to enforce their beliefs in insurmountable gender differences, there by securing the "logic" that the opposite gender can never be understood and must be dismissed at "other". Other, meaning to be endured, to be laughed at, to be disregarded as not having legitimate experience in this world.

GLHFDD

Interesting, isn't it, that the comment that complains about not posting any intellectual opposition a) got published and b) wasn't intellectual at all?

OK, so let's get down to brass tacks: there is a proper way to think and converse, and any deviation from that proper way is improper (i.e., wrong, stupid, leading to error, etc.), and feminists do not know the proper way to think. This is why such a hilarious series of supposed beliefs can be propagated among the sheep (though, when it comes to feminists, the proper term is probably "cattle," not "sheep") that comprise feminism. Though, most feminists know that their beliefs are wrong and simply do not care, as they are a convenient way of manipulating others to get what they want.

But here is the proper way to think and converse, when one's goal is the discovery of truth.

Person A asserts X.
Person B produces evidence of non-X.
Person A counters with evidence of non-non-X, or explains why the non-X evidence is faulty.
Person B produces evidence of non-non-non-X, or explains why the non-non-X evidence produced by Person A is faulty.
Ad infinitum, until it is apparent that X is either right or wrong.

Now, people who know that they are wrong (and people who have been brainwashed by people who know that they are wrong) do not like this process, because their interest is not in discovering the truth, but rather in pushing their "perspective" (please note that this word appears in the above comment as "intellectual women's perspective," an oxymoron - there is no such thing as an "intellectual women's perspective," only truth and non-truth, and women are free to subscribe to either, but non-truth does not get "promoted" in importance simply because it is identified as the "women's perspective").

So what do people who know that they are wrong substitute for this kind of evidence based argument? Sleight of hand. Philosophers call it "logical fallacies." Thomas Sowell calls it "verbal virtuosity." My granddad called it "shooting the messenger out of hate for the message." But let's work with "logical fallacies..." and let's see just how many recognized logical fallacies, observable in most introductory philosophy books, we can find in this single comment by an "intellectual feminist."

"Ah, no legitimate comments posted by women from an intellectual women's perspective, though I am sure you have more than a few placed at your disposal."

Logical Fallacy 1: Assuming Facts not in Evidence. In fact, there were NO responses in opposition to this article until the one posted above which assumed that there must have been many. And as for intellectual arguments in opposition to any article on this blog, there have never been any, in four years.

"Enraging men against women, infuriating women against men, pushing the sexes further apart, to what result?"

Logical Fallacy 2: Argument to Moderation. Assuming that truth is always a compromise between two supposedly opposed forces. Truth frequently "pushes people apart," because many people do not care for truth. That is not an indicator against truth, but rather a moral evaluation of those who reject it. Moral Quandry 1: Hypocrisy. Feminists excoriate anti-feminists for "driving men and women apart" when the whole project of feminism from day one has been to drive men and women apart - through divorce, false allegations against men, false victimization of women, and the stirring up and channeling of female resentment against men. Assuming that her evaluation of my blog is on point, is my blog any different from feminism generally? Logical Fallacy 3: Irrelevant Conclusion. Assuming that my purpose in my post was, in fact,  to "enrage men and women against each other," does my unholy purpose thereby disprove anything which was written in the article, which was essentially to say that the construct of an "Independent Woman" is a mythical one? Logical Fallacy 4: Appeal to Consequences. A conclusion is not proven true or false because its truth or falsity may have what are perceived to be negative consequences. Logical Fallacy 5: Appeal to Motive. A premise's truth or falsity may not be determined by an examination of the underlying motives of the person claiming the premise.

Using our evidence-based outline above, a relevant response would have looked like this:

"But 80% of women have never been dependent on either government or men or parents." (Can you imagine what the real statistic on that one is?)

"You defame half the population, decry the faults of some women and claim them as that of the whole, why?"

Vocabulary Failure 1: Defame. The word "defame" demands that something be said that is untrue. Nothing was written that was untrue. It is impossible to "defame" by telling the truth. No evidence, argument, or even assertion that any particular statement I have made in the article or on the blog is untrue is present, merely the vague assertion that something out there is "defamatory." Logical Fallacy 6: Appeal to Emotion. It is easier to claim that an argument "defames half the population," and thus win sympathy, than it is to actually counter the argument.

"The men who are pussy whipped who you think you are helping, the women who are leaning on men for support that you think will be moved to become more, will likely use this as fuel to their already in place agendas, which is to take solace from "the harsh world of men" in the arms of a woman, or to rob from the men who "took her ability to live. This blog will push some women further away from the trust of other women, which could end in them losing trust for their own abilities, making them more reliant on men. It could push some men to form a deep seeded Confirmation Bias that debilitates them from seeing women beyond the few qualities they've been fed. "

Logical Fallacy 7: Gobbledeygook. Huh? Logical Fallacy 8: Appeal to Consequences (see above). Logical Fallacy 9: Argumentum Verbosum. The "proof by verbosity" is a) using so many words that the debating opponent becomes frustrated with "fixing" all the errors in the argument (as is happening now as I am typing) and gives up, allowing the moron to walk away with a sense of, "Well, I told him!", and b) using technical-sounding but ultimately meaningless jargon (like "Confirmation Bias") to give the illusion that one is speaking from a position of expertise.

"All in all, this blog has no agenda other than persuading anyone who stumbles upon it to enforce their beliefs in insurmountable gender differences... blah blah."

Logical Fallacy 10: Straw Man. Rather than allowing the blog itself to tell her the agenda of the blog (notice how up at the top of the page it clearly says, "Defeating Feminism by Revealing Feminism"?), she constructs an alternative purpose that exists only in her mind that she is relatively sure that any readers of her comment will agree with. However, where the blog itself tells you its agenda, it is merely an exercise in slander to ascribe a differing primary agenda without some evidence. But no worries, false allegations are something that feminists are comfortable with.

So, a minimum of ten logical fallacies (that I chose to deal with), one misconstrued word, and one moral quandry (that I chose to deal with) in a few paragraphs. And THIS from a self-classified progenitor of an "intelligent women's perspective."

You see why my wife says: "All feminists are stupid. There are no exceptions."

My twin articles on the mythology of the independent woman and the undeniable truth that "Feminist are Just Communists with Butch Haircuts" apparently was the topic of discussion at a quilting party/crossdressing seminar/vegan feast/Wicca ritual over at the Democrat National Committee headquarters recently, as the following tweets emerged from that particular smoke-filled room, showing yet more of the intellectual heft (or is it hemp?) that comprises the femtard movement....

"lmao look at this idiot @objectifychicks haha when was the last time you saw such a whiny fucking baby" (@AKvltGhost, who later tweeted, with equal intellectual insight, "fart on my balls" and "cure your 'feminist indoctrination' with a bullet through the fetid grey clots in your fuckshit skull" and "fight homophobia with bullets imo").

Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem. Arguing "against the man" while ignoring the argument itself does not disprove any argument that has been made. When one cannot argue against an argument, however, it is a common tactic to simply ascribe negative motives and/or consequences to the argument (as above) or to insult the one making the argument. One wonders, however, how one who seems to have a hobby of allowing others to fart on his balls could reasonably expect to efficiently shame another person...? Maybe that's just me.

"MRAs are just Nazis with smaller penises." and "I wonder how small @objectifychicks 's penis must be. Probably around 4 cm" (@MrPapaya, who later tweeted this intellectually complex assertion: "I'm sure you've put celery in your butt at least once." I am detecting a theme with these folks.).

And...

"@AKvltGhost @objectifychicks waaaah women find me repulsive and won't have sex with me waaaaaah" (@moewytchdog, who earlier said to another twitterer, "Sadly, you are wrong because you have no evidence." Odd, isn't it, that femtards and their fellow travelers have mastered the art of hypocrisy, in holding others to standards that they are not willing to hold themselves to...?).

Hahahahaha! 1) Gee, I had never heard that joke before! Where did you get it? Accusing men who disagree with feminism of having tiny penises and not getting laid??? Brilliant! That sure did let the cat out of the bag! That should shame them into compliance, right? 2) And that certainly settles the argument. People who disagree with feminism are wrong because... they have tiny penises! Of course, the logic is impeccable!

I dunno, something isn't adding up with that argument. Are you sure that's the best you can do?

Would this argument work? "Feminists are wrong because they have A-cups"?

How about this one? "Feminists are wrong because they are lezbos and ugly"?

Now, while it is true that feminists are lezbos and ugly, it is certainly beside the fact that their argument is wrong, as this blog has demonstrated for four years by actually arguing against feminist policy and beliefs while merely noting tangentially that feminists are also lesbians and ugly.

As for the Nazi reference, let's remind our surely public-school educated (which is to say, UNeducated) writer that the term "Nazi" is a shortened form of a really long German word which means "National Socialism." Socialism - like Marx? You know, socialism, like the Democrat party? You know, like feminism? Enough said....

More clever feminist insight...

"@moewytchdog @AKvltGhost lmao if the darth vader avatar doesn't say enough @objectifychicks" (@Kavem4n)

"@gwrthryfel Even that name, @objectifychicks, damn. I simply do not understand what drives the kind of bullshit MRAs spin." (@cgranade)

So let's review.

We have numerous contributions from femtards all over the world (undoubtedly). Their arguments can be reduced to: logical fallacies, hypocrisy, misconstruing arguments and words, attacking individuals who disagree with them, criticizing the choice of screen names and avatars (which a rational person would "get" were chosen with irony and provocation in mind), and questioning the frequency of sex and the size of one's penis.

For the record, I am married, and as luck would have it, married to a woman whose desire is... more than healthy. I'm not bragging, but twice a day is normal. And when we go away for the weekend... well.... And as for size, I would never be so vulgar, but she does not complain. But that really doesn't matter, and I hate to even engage in such discussion, because the fact remains that, even if I am a virgin eunuch, every single assertion and policy of feminism is immoral, neurotic, and/or hypocritical in the extreme, feminism is wrong about everything, and I mean every particular thing (and provably so), and feminism exists only to feed the covetousness of the Commutard female population and to advance socialism.

But back to our argument. The best that a feminist can do to argue against four years of meticulously researched writing on dozens of subjects which have been posted for a multitude of time is exactly what they did in eighth grade. Be mouthy. Insult. Be crass. Ignore facts. Lie.

But the truth is, I knew when I started this blog that there were no rational arguments in favor of feminism. I just didn't know that nobody would ever TRY to make a rational argument in favor of feminism.

It is a basic principle of argument that, when the facts and evidence are on your side, you stick with the facts and evidence. When the facts and evidence are not on your side, you create diversions, lie, attack people personally, and mischaracterize.

All feminists are fools. And though this blog has been cast in the face of feminists for four years, not one time in that four year period has anyone even attempted to make an argument that the evidence presented on this blog is wrong.

The best that a femtard can do to deal with her detractors is to revel in every logical error and moral transgression that has ever been known to man.

So now you know why my wife says, frequently,

"All feminists are stupid. There are no exceptions."

So much for the "intelligent feminist perspective."

Feminism, whether gleaned from twitter or feministing, whether represented by grassroots moronic liberals or Andrea Dworkin, is ultimately a philosophy held by mental midgets and is incapable of being expressed in an intellectual, reasoned, evidence-based context. Feminism is not a coherent philosophy to which intelligent people ascribe. It is a religion. And it is a religion of the worst kind - a wholly existential religion which requires its adherents to believe, not in things which transcend reality, as a legitimate religion might, but in things that directly contradict reality.

Is it any wonder that the character and personality of its adherents is so twisted when people are expected to believe in that which obviously contradicts all truth? Because, if you think these people are normal, when was the last time YOU talked about sticking celery up someone's butt, or asked to have your balls farted on? Whether feminism is the cause or consequence of such corruption, well that's a question for another day.

Feminists Are Just Commies with Butch Haircuts

Feminism is not now, nor has it ever been, about such high-sounding abstractions as "equality," "opportunity for women," "women's rights," or even "women's health." By the way, the English translation of "women's health" is "abortion."


Rather, feminism is now, and has always been, about socialism.

This has become apparent in the recent contraception non-debate, manufactured by Barack Obama because he has no actual accomplishments on which to argue for his reelection, in which the refusal of private parties to pay for the fornicating of others is interpreted by weak-minded feminists (that is, by ALL feminists) as somehow "limiting their access to contraception."



As if the FACE of the average feminist were not birth control enough...!



During a Mitt Romney speech on 3/20/2012, some semi-retarded feminist (yes, I know, that semi-retarded and feminist are both axiomatic and tautological) says to Mitt Romney in her ever-so almost literate way (I have argued many times that feminists have a very limited vocabulary, composed only of variations of the words and phrases "patriarchy," "domestic violence," "reproductive freedom," and "Wanna scissor?")...

"You're all for like 'Yay freedom' and all this stuff and 'Yay pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."

Oddly enough, femtards can't seem to work the logic the opposite way - which is why, of course, they are called femtards. Perhaps the rest of us might also like some free stuff? Free houses would be good. And free cars, food, vacations, dogs, books, big screen tvs, and a host of other toys would make me personally happy. And I am sure that all the millions of men who have suffered under false allegations of rape, child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual harassment because of feminism would have appreciated free lawyers.

I wonder why this femtard getting free stuff is a political issue but me getting free stuff isn't?

It's because feminism is just Communism wearing hiking boots with a butch haircut. Oh, and a propensity for perjury....

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Karl Marx.

Slutty Feminist Philosophy

How to think (sic!!!) and argue like a feminist:

1) Say the following: "The government has no business in my bedroom!"

2) Next, say this: "The government needs to subsidize the activities that take place in my bedroom!"

WANTED: Feminists Needed (To Make Sammiches!)

Independent Women - An Important Piece of Feminist Mythology

"I am a very independent woman."

Who hasn't heard this? In fact, who doesn't hear this 18 times if the TV is turned on for only 15 seconds? And who doesn't hear it an additional 18 times during the day, from all three random women that one might run into and converse with during the course of the day?

But you know me... I very seldom accept things at face value. I have found that if you just ask one question more, all pretense gets blown away.


Woman 1

... is an attorney. Whenever she writes me a personal note, or wants me to relay a something to my wife, she phrases it as if she were channeling the spirit of Bob Dole. Instead of "Bob Dole says" she says something to the effect of "This INDEPENDENT woman says...."

Yet, I seem to remember a day in which her husband came to the office and the two of them managed to have a very public argument about money. He owns a business in a field which has been hit very hard by the recession, and needed a bit of an advance to make his books balance out. In the middle of her assertions that he was asking her for "her money," he sputtered:

Your money? You didn't have any money when I found you! You only had a passle of kids to feed and no money and no job! I put you through college and I put you through law school! Your money? You wouldn't have anything at all, money or otherwise, if it wasn't for me!!!

She admitted that this was true. She still refused to "lend" him "her money."


Woman 2

... is a medical functionary that I had occasion to meet. She, more than being "independent," was also "strong" and "capable of meeting men on their own terms" and "kicking life's a$$."

"So what do you mean by 'independent?,'" I asked.

"I mean," she answered, "that ever since I got off welfare and food stamps I have paid my own bills, clothed my own children, and advanced in my career."

"Food stamps?" queried I. "Welfare?" Follows, a story on leaving her first husband and being on welfare and food stamps for two years while she completed her education, with these two additional tidbits thrown in: her parents lent her $15,000 as a downpayment on her house, and she received government grants and a government job while in college.

"So you are 'independent,' just like a man?" asked I (always the master of the inconvenient question).

"Yes," said she.

"But," I said, "has it ever occurred to you that your male peers never had welfare or food stamps or a government job while in college? And most of them didn't receive government grants [in fact, based on the specialty, NONE of them had government grants]? And all but a miniscule number would have been mortified to go to their parents and ask for a sizable loan so that they could buy a house? And besides, none of them ever received alimony or child support, either!"

"How did you know I received alimony and child support?" she asked.

"Lucky guess."


Woman 3

She was an "independent single mother." She took great pride, the pride of a victim, in being an "independent single mother." She said it all the time. Once, she said it at a poker game, to the amusement of some, and the mortification of others.

"So I had Charlie come over the other day and fix that old motorcycle that was in the shed," she said.

"Charlie?" queried I.

"Yeah, some guy I used to date. He likes spending time with me."

Knowing her personality, I doubted that. Knowing her bra size, I suspected it might be something else entirely. "Maybe he is hoping his act of kindness will encourage you to date him again."

"Oh, no, I'd never do that. He's not my type," she said, smugly.

"I see. He's not your type, but he is the type who... fixes motorcycles?"

"Well, I had to sell it. I needed the money and it was just taking up space out in the shed."

"Wasn't that your husband's motorcycle?"

"EX-husband," she snooted. "And if he weren't three months behind on his child support, I wouldn't have needed the money so badly to begin with!"

Closing in for the kill, I said, "But I though you were living rent-free in a house he owns? Doesn't he get any credit for that?"

"The judge said that was entirely separate and did not relieve him of his duty to pay child support," she replied, with all the confidence of a woman who had been through the judicial system enough to know that it was firmly on her side.

"So, uhhhhh, how's that new car your parents bought you working out?" I asked, changing the subject, but, I thought, making a valuable point.


Now, these are certainly only a few women - all of them real and all of them personally known by me - but I have chosen them because they are representative of the entirety of the group of women who have crossed my path. I can confidently say that I have never in my life met an "independent woman," if "independent" means the same thing for a woman as it does for a man. I have never met a woman who, at some point in her life, was not wholly dependent upon a man for income, child support, or alimony, or who has never been on welfare of some sort, or who has managed to pay her own bills without the aid of a friend, boyfriend, parent, or ex-husband.

Women convince themselves, because women have the innate ability to re-define words in ways that suit them, that they are "independent" because they truly value independence in men. Yet there are precious few, if any, women who have made it through their adult years without being dependent upon a man, a parent, or the government. But such lack of dependence in men is the rule, not the exception.

Feminists, because they hate men and children (and truthfully, they hate women as well, but that's another blog entry), and thus the family, have tried to convince women that they can be as independent of men as men are of women. Yet in convincing them to abandon their families, they have merely convinced women to exchange the natural dependence that women have on men for a much greater reliance - bordering on slavery - upon government. And, let's be honest here, this option for such reliance is not available to men. So much for the famed femtard concern about "equality."

I know many men who have managed to make a life on their own without any sort of assistance on women, parents, ex-girlfriends, or the government. I have even known many such men who desperately needed the kind of help that "independent women" expect to receive, and receive, as a matter of course.

And I have learned that there is a special term for a man that needs the kind of help that women get routinely: homeless.

Everything Men Can Do, Women Can Do Better, Except....

"Women and responsibility go together like salt and snails...."

Feminism = Professional Bitchery: Will the Bitching EVER Stop?

So, yeah, I get it, chicks have a unique perspective and have been silenced by The Patriarchy and we need affirmative action to open up more channels of dialogue for chicks to give us their opinions about politics and family and the economy and strappy sandals and whatnot.

So recently, the Washington Post, in an attempt to bend over forwards for the femtard hoards, started a new blog especially for women, and featuring women, called "She the People." Clever title. If you are in fifth grade. Which is actually four grades more clever than the average Women's Studies program in grad school.

Now, of course, the dirty little secret, unknown to all except for everyone outside of politics, academia, and feminism itself, which is to say, known by almost everyone, is that feminism's only tool is bitching about this, yielding only to bitching about that, and taking breaks on rare occasion to bitch about the other thing.

So professional bitch... errrrrr.... feminist... errrrr.... bitch, Jessica Valenti, whose life is "complicated" enough to get excited about such things, posted her uncompromising approval of the idea of... affirmative action??? Who knew???

Apparently, she feels (for all feminists feel rather than think) that women should, by sheer virtue of their womanness, be given the headline on the front page, regardless of their talent. It is not enough that the Washington Post has devoted an entire blog to the inane drivel and sheer psychosis that is feminism, and it is not enough that, by virtue of such blog, several women are employed who, by virtue of their Master's Degree in Women's Studies from an Ivy League institution, are fit only to be the Assistant Manager at Burger King. No, Valenti believes that those who have talent (and trust me, we are talking about the Washington Post here, so the whole idea of "talent" is quite relative in this discussion) should simply step aside, forfeit their work and compensation, and yield to the femtard hoards. Maybe she wants femtards to take over the Washington Post, and then just devote a sub-blog to the real writers?

Who knows, maybe Valenti and the other femtard "writers" got a new set of crayons at Christmas...?

So she bitches, quite bitchingly:

Here’s the thing: I will always want more women’s (and feminist) voices in the mainstream media, particularly in politics. There’s an overwhelming byline gender gap and that needs to change. But The Washington Post’s new lady blog, “She the People,” is not a step in the right direction. In fact, I think it’s pretty terrible.*

I’m all for WaPo featuring more women covering politics, but why oh why can’t they just - I don’t know - feature more women covering politics on the main site or pages? As Steph Herold tweeted earlier today, “why do women need a separate blog to write about politics?”

The logo doesn’t exactly help things either. I mean, “she” is underlined with lipstick?

The lipstick is the only redeeming part of the blog, in my opinion. Chicks are so hot in the right color lipstick. Just sayin'....




So, let's follow the progression of femtard bitching, shall we?

1) "There are not enough women writers in the mainstream media." (YAWN)

2) "The mainstream media should devote more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues.'"

3) "Now that the mainstream media has devoted more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues,' we don't like the way in which that has been done, because our psychotic, barely-able-to-construct-an-English-sentence, vocabulary-composed-only-of-variations-of-the-words-victim-and-empowerment writers are being kept in a femtard ghetto rather than splashed all over the front page, in spite of the fact that Newsweek is quickly tanking with their experiment with femtardism we still think all media should be given to us so we can talk about ourselves and our shoes and how abortion is so hottt!, so dammit, give us the front page and all you real employees of the mainstream media go home and await further orders from the jackbooted stormtroopers of feministing."

What is the lesson here? Feminism is not about defending victims of anything, nor about obtaining equality in anything. It is about getting just a little bit more. There is nothing that you will ever say or do, and no society that could be designed in either reality or imagination that will placate the professional bitchery of the femtards.

(I won't get into the psychological or metaphysical here, but one would be tempted to speculate that the constant inability of the femtard hoards to be satisfied with anything is more reflective of an internal state typified by emptiness, rather than any outward reality of genuine denial, but I digress....)

Feminism's only tool is professional bitching. And no matter how much you give a feminist, the bitching will never stop.

Feminists truly do believe that they are entitled to whatever they feel they want, regardless of their level of ability or accomplishment or the contribution (sic) that they make to society. Notice that Valenti never attempts to establish that women are doing a job sufficient to get a "real job" with the Washington Post. Because skill doesn't matter to a femtard. They are entitled, dammit!

But does anybody actually believe that if there were ANY feminist writer with the talent to write for the mainstream media, she would be denied a job?

If you doubt the lack of talent among feminist writers, simply read Jessica Valenti. After a couple of minutes of reading Valenti, you will be craving something sensible like, "See Spot run...."

Promise Me You Will Never Let Go: Role Reversal?

Above are two scenes from art.

Art, of course, is where we are free to envision the impossible. Art encapsulates science fiction and alternative historical endings. It argues for the future. It sees the impossible as present.

Yet, it is amazing how utterly... conventional... is the message encapsulated in the above pieces of art.

Feminism tells us that men and women are equal. Women can do anything men can do - only better - and while having babies and being morally superior. Because, while women will never lie about being raped, men will certainly lie about raping.

Yet, in the first scene, Enrique Iglesias gives his life for the woman that he is fleeing with. Eventually, running into a group of gangsters, he makes a willing decision to take his licks and sacrifice himself for the woman that he loves. He singlehandedly stands down a group of armed gangsters in defense of... a woman. The words roll easily from his lips, and the concept is something that we all comprehend and find not to be foreign in the least: "Let me be your hero."

In the second scene, after the breakup and sinking of the Titanic, Jack tells Rose to take a deep breath and trust him while leaping away from the sinking ship and swimming, hopefully, to safety. While all hell is breaking loose, Jack is thinking. While everyone is panicking, Jack is in a lower zone of existence, thinking five steps ahead to what the woman that he loves will need - to escape the undertow of the sinking boat, to reserve a big supply of oxygen, to find an ice floe upon which to await rescue, and to possess the resolve, in the form of a promise, to survive. Promise me, he demands of her, that you will never let go. Because you will survive. You will go on and have a bunch of babies and die an old woman in your warm bed. You won't die like this.

You won't die like I will... tonight.

Now, think with me.

Is it even intellectually possible to perform a role reversal in these two scenes?

Is it even theoretically possible that the woman could be singing to Enrique Iglesias, "Let me be your hero while I sacrifice my life in the midst of these crazed gangsters. Let me fight and die to protect you."

OK, stop chuckling.

Could any sane person conceive of Rose protecting Jack as the Titanic breaks up and sinks? Could any sane person conceive of Rose thinking of the undertow, the oxygen, the ice floe, and the need for resolve? Could any sane person conceive of Rose floating in the water with Jack on the floe, and while sacrificing herself for him, telling him that he would not die this way, on this night?

These pieces of art do not "perpetrate a sexist stereotype." They present the only view of reality that rational people could ever possess.




Because as we know, in history as in art, it was the men who stayed behind when the Titanic ran out of lifeboats, allowing the women and children to escape. It was only a man who could utter the phrase, "That's the end boys. We've done our duty," and be satisfied - because only to men does duty matter more than life. And then, only men could finish their lives, waiting for drowning, by singing "Nearer My God to Thee." To postulate that women would stay behind and respond with such dignity and to imagine that women might show such preference for men is even beyond the bounds of legitimate art, which is built upon imagining the impossible.

The limitation, I suppose, is that the impossible has to be presented credibly to represent good art. And while the human mind can credibly conceive of a giant lizard persecuting Tokyo or a city without roads populated by hovercraft or even such odd ducks as a "Wookie," the human mind could never credibly imagine the above two scenes working out in any way other than the way in which they were presented.

The very idea, whether in either the case of armed thugs or a sinking ship, or in the case of history or of art, is more than the human mind can conceive. To even begin to postulate such a scene stretches the limits of sanity and believability. To try to reverse the roles in the above scenes would immediately turn a heroic music video into a gigglefest. It would turn a somber moment into a moment of comic relief. It is not that the role reversals won't happen - they couldn't happen.

Men and women are far too different. And in any moment of need in which a woman did not have a political axe to grind, like mere moments before perceived trouble or death, we all know that she would be turning to the nearest man for her salvation. To postulate any other denouement would far surpass even what we could conceive in science fiction.

Even in the realm of the imagination, we betray more unintentionally than we can ever muster by mouthing tired old feminist phrasings on purpose. The truth is, we all know that men and women are not the same, not equal, not whatever. And to try to pull off a scene that is heroic, dramatic, sad, or virtuous - even in the realm of art - it is necessary to cast the man as the hero, coming to the rescue of the fair maiden. That is, if one is to avoid having one's art degenerate into the boorish, the campy, the sophomoric, the psychotic, or simply the cartoonish. To try to imagine these two scenes ending consistently with the purported feminist world view would immediately elicit the challenge of, "You're kidding, right?" or a quick call to the nearest mental institution.

Even in the realm of art, where our task is the design of new possibilities and alternate realities, we recognize that every single affirmation of feminism is not just wrong, but inconceivably silly.

Female Radio Personality Describes the Historical Rationale for Feminism, and the Legal Basis for Sexual Harassment, in a Single Concise Rant

Who says chicks can't do philosophy? I was extremely encouraged to hear the following rant by a local radio personality in which she alternately describes the historical basis for the feminist movement, the legal basis for sexual harassment claims, the origin of the Latin language, and the meaning of life (rumored to be, "42"). Next week, catch Carmen's lecture on the relationship between bipolar disorder and the space-time continuum...!

"The feminist movement was started by a bunch of ugly women who wanted special treatment. Feminists do not want equality. They want special treatment. These are a bunch of women who want to be promoted and make their way up the ladder without being qualified.... [Feminism has succeeded] because men are a bunch of wussies, and you [guys] let this happen.... If your [fathers] had not been doormats we wouldn't be in this situation today. Women have no interest in equality, because if they did, we wouldn't see the number of sexual harassment lawsuits that we see."

Carmen Connors, WRDU 106.1's Morning Rush (Raleigh/Knightdale, NC)

I Am the One Percent

Feminism: Evidence that Women are Weak and Dependent

The feminist movement is the ultimate admission by women that they are wholly dependent upon men. It is the externalization of a neurotic desire to design a world in which women can be cared for by men, and always have men accept responsibility for their weaknesses, while simultaneously asserting their moral and intellectual independence from men.

While maintaining that women are "strong and independent," women insist that government provide for them through the welfare state, that men provide for them through child support and alimony, that the justice system protect them from even imaginary threats (and the most minor of insults) mobilized by the lavish leveling of false allegations, and that both government and business be fully committed to the proposition of the self-worth of the individual woman through compelling that their hiring, promotion, and professionalization be increased via affirmative action, preferential promotion policies, and through divergent sets of rules for men and women.

Thus, the total dependence of women upon men is revealed by feminism's demand that men, and structures erected by men (such as government and business), continue to be responsible for the provision, protection, and even emotional health of women, who appear wholly incapable of standing on their own the more feminist they become.

BOOK REVIEW: "In Praise of Prejudice" by Theodore Dalrymple

I once heard a man speak about how the essence of wisdom is the ability to make distinctions. He said, "Eskimos have 14 (or some ungodly number - I don't remember the exact number, but you get the idea) different words for snow. In America, we have one: 'snow.' Now, who is wiser about snow?"

Whether he meant to or not, he was making the point that the ability to detect and express distinctions is at the core of wisdom. The book of Proverbs, the Judeo-Christian canon's most well-known book of wisdom, is essentially a list of arguments which encourages discrimination: wisdom is A, foolishness is B; a woman worth marrying is A, a woman worth leaving alone is B; a godly man is A, a heathen is B. So when you look around today and see nothing but fools, you can rest assured that one of the primary reasons that people are so foolish is that they have surrendered, either willingly or consequent to having been browbeaten into it, the ability to make distinctions.

The ability to make distinctions is known as "discrimination." We speak of a man who is a coniessuer of wine or cigars or fine cars as being possessing "discriminating taste." The notions that we carry around in our heads because we know a lot about wine or cigars or fine cars are, of course, called "stereotypes" (Maseratis possess superior cornering ability, Plymouths are unreliable, Cubans consistently make the best cigars, an older wine is - all else being equal - better). The attitude that certain things are to be preferred or rejected based on the knowledge that we already have of it is called "bias" or "prejudice."

Prejudice, in the modern world, gets a bad rap. Socialists in this country have convinced everyone that 1) prejudice is bad because racial prejudice is bad, and 2) that truly intelligent people walk around without preconceived notions of any kind, constantly trying to figure out the truth anew. In politics, we call this type of person a "Moderate." If you work on a construction crew, you call this type of person an "idiot."

Because all of us operate with stereotypes and prejudices, and life would be impossible without them. Your entire childhood, your parents tried to instill certain ideas in you so that you would understand how the world worked and would be able to function in it safely, only to send you off to a public university where some learned professor attempted to strip you of your "prejudices" and revert you to infancy once again.

For instance, every time that I walk into a room and see a switch on the wall, I assume that if I flick that switch, it will turn on a light - somewhere. This stereotype of switches serves me quite well. Rather than wasting a lot of time dialoguing with a switch when I come into a room to try and get to know it in its own right, I boldly, and with astounding regularity, correctly, walk over to the switch, flick it, and a light comes on somewhere!

Have I been wrong? Of course. I once lived in an apartment and within the first week of living there I flicked a switch expecting a light to turn on and instead heard a great roar as the garbage disposal was engaged. On a rare occasion, I have gone over and flicked a switch and nothing happens. Or at least seems to happen. Whenever I experience nothing after flicking the switch, I always envision that scene from a TV program I once saw in which an unidentified switch is clicked over and over to no apparent effect till we learn that the neighbor's garage door is groaning up and down.

But the number of times that I have been wrong has been infinitessimal. And I am clever enough, when I find a switch that does not seem to turn on a light, I quickly learn, "Oh, that switch is for the garbage disposal." Or the electric chair. Or an exploding booby trap in my neighbor's, last name of Grant, driveway (if only!). And the real point is, is it better to carry around the predisposition that those types of switches turn on lights and merely learn the exceptions, or to enter every room with an empty head and wait for the switches to prove themselves to us?

Political correctness would have us to waste our lives investigating light switches when we already know, with 99.99999% accuracy, what life is all about. It is impermissible to note that women are emotional, and not intellectual - though the number of intellectual women that I have met in my life is a small number, hovering around three. And then, there is Ann Coulter, of course, but I have never met her. If you know her, will you put in a good word for me?

It is impermissible to notice that ethnic minorities commit a disproportionate amount of all crimes, though Liberals themselves are more than happy to mention that imprisonment is a huge problem in various ethnic communities, but not because of crime! - Lord no! - but rather because of a lack of economic opportunity, or education, or transistor radios, or Wii's, or something. It is impermissible to notice that Democrats are the most anti-intellectual individuals on earth, though every study not done by Democrats actually finds that Democrats score very low on tests of factual matters related to politics. And so on....

Theodore Dalrymple goes much farther than argue that prejudice should be accepted and left well enough alone (which I am, myself, ready to do), but he actually encourages and praises prejudice. While my theory is that we should not reject knowledge that comes to us, Dalrymple encourages us to actually seek out occasions to exercise prejudice! OK, well, maybe not, but his book *In Praise of Prejudice* is nevertheless worth more than one read (I stopped at two readings).

Dalrymple encourages us to instill our prejudices about such topics as life, philosophy, religion, and politics into our children, on the grounds that, should we fail to do so, "children will always choose the same thing, the thing that most immediately attracts and gratifies them." They will choose to spend, not save. They will choose to lie to keep themselves out of trouble rather than developing moral character by telling the truth and accepting responsibility and consequences for their actions. They will choose to gorge themselves on sugar, and thus become the objects of Michelle Obama's disdain for being "obese." Perhaps Dalrymple is correct on this point.

Dalrymple further argues that some prejudices are true - as my illustration of the light swtiches above - and we risk, by refusing to pass along these prejudices that false prejudices (like the myth of Global Warming and the myth that Men and Women are the Same and the myth of the Entire Democrat Party Platform) coming along and replacing truth, and that ultimately, the failure to instill in others correct stereotypes and prejudices is an act of great cruelty, as it pushes children out into a world unfit to participate in reality. AND it makes them susceptible to snake oil salesmen and liars, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He further argues that prejudice is, after all, inevitable, as the former prejudice against blacks has, in American, been replaced by a prejudice against whites.

He argues, rightly, that neither authority nor custom, frequent instillers of prejudices, are wrong or abusive in and of themselves. In fact, matters that have been around long enough to be custom are more likely to be correct or true than matters which were adopted for the first time in 1968, and matters that can be spoken of authoritatively are far more likely to be true and right than matters that have to be hemmed and hawwed about and spoken of in vague allusions. "Hope and Change," anyone?

Dalrymple asserts that "discrimination" ultimately means "to make a proper judgment." And that Liberals, who never make proper judgments, have taken occasion from the association of the word with racism to dull the thinking faculties of three generations. He notes that, when he was younger, "A person who did not discriminate, or was undiscriminating, was a person without taste, morality, or intellect [and socially] was likely undiscriminating in his behavior." This explains the popularity of rap music.... And sadly, the intellectual life of Americans has become as polluted as its FM radio stations precisely because a lack of discrimination leaves men unfit to discern between truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness, or even good and evil. This explains the Springer show.... In American intellectual life, as in American pop culture, kitsch has become the constant substitute for truth.

No less towering intellects than Aristotle, Plato (and Socrates through him), and Adam Smith believed in the irrefutable value of prejudice. Those who reject ten thousand years of intellectual history, philosophy, and religion, in preference for the vacant emotional mewling of the 1968 generation would do well to realize that it is not those of us who recognize that stereotypes sting precisely because those that we held to prior to 1968 were true, but that operating with the ability to discern between good an bad is a moral necessity. Such a realization is not an attempt to force our beliefs on anyone, but the radical notion that every man has the right to determine what is right and wrong, true and false, for himself, is an incomprehensibly self-absorbed and prideful idea. Though men capable of rendering a correct judgment will often be considered "arrogant" or "full of themselves" by the moral pygmies whose intellectual and moral diets are dictated by pop culture, there is no more radical arrogance than the wholesale rejection of 10,000 years of truth and wisdom for the right to design a world all of one's own making.

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.

The Root Cause of "Domestic Violence" is... Women are Wh*res???

So a cop in Florida has developed an iPhone app called "CATE" - Call And Text Eraser. Installed on one's phone, it allows one to carry on adulterous relationships without fear of getting caught by erasing all calls and texts on the phone from certain numbers.

"I had a good friend of mine who went through a divorce because his wife was finding things on his phone. It intercepts call and text messages from people on your lists and stores it within the app."

But then, Immler, the cop who is the inventor of the app, reveals something that says too much by half....

"Immler begs to differ (with those who say his app is an indirect condonation of adultery). He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone."

Now, think about that....

The typical femtard mythology on "domestic violence" (I use quotation marks because, as I have revealed in other posts, the whole concept of domestic violence is fake.) is that men, who are controlled by some evil chemical called "testosterone" and who have been reared to respect violence and non-cooperation as lifestyle choices (after all, men watch football and are competitive... shudder!) and whom society has taught to hate women (because, of course, women are merely nonsentient beings to be controlled and objectified for sexual purposes by the patriarchy!), rise up in all the evolutionary power of their superior strength and beat women senseless for no reason whatsoever.

Now, of course, this mythology doesn't take into account that lawyers who are defending those accused of "domestic violence" across the United States, at least, immediately ask their clients to come up with a list of instances in which the wife (and it is always the wife making the allegation of "domestic violence," isn't it?) was "controlling" or in which the husband/defendant failed to be "controlling," because, as they say in the jurisdictions in which I have knowledge, "All domestic violence proceedings are about 'control,' never about 'violence.'"

But the main point of the mythology, of course, is that women are sainted victims of evil. Evil has been brought about on them by men, the patriarchy, even biology itself (thank God/goddess/Gaia for abortion!). But women are as pure and unsullied as the wind driven snow, and didn't do anything to bring about "domestic violence" (whether that is defined as assault - which it isn't - or merely refusing to give a woman her way - which it is).

But here is an amazing thing. The cop who designed the app says he designed it to deter "domestic violence" (however you define that) because it is prone to happen... when adultery is at issue?

Let's read it again....

"Immler begs to differ (with those who say his app is an indirect condonation of adultery). He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone."

Now waitaminnit... lemme get this straight. Women file 98% of all "domestic violence" (however you define that) claims in the United States. Yet Barney Fife/App Developer here says that "domestic violence" (however you define that) is sparked by the discovery that a spouse is cheating?

So DV (however you define that) is something uniquely complained of by women. DV (however you define that) occurs, according to Mr. Adam 12, when complainants are discovered in adultery. So it must be that women are somehow uniquely related to adultery...?

Ergo, the reason "domestic violence" (however you define that) takes place is: Women are Whores.

Oddly, the story itself dds further fuel to this suspicion when it notes that this app, which is designed to help one cover one's tracks while committing adultery... is primarily downloaded by women!

I think we have stumbled upon a very important solution to the "domestic violence" (however you define that) problem in this country! If women would quit being such irredeemable and committed whores, "domestic violence" (however you define that) would go away!

Let's see if feminists are really interested in wiping out "domestic violence" (however you define that), or if they just want to keep the funding that flows from all the false allegations of "domestic violence" (however you define that).

I think I know how this story ends.

____________

Original story from WPTV.com....

by Rochelle Ritchie

It comes in the form of an app on your cell phone that can hide who you've been texting and calling.

The app, called "CATE," hit the Android market last week and is already getting rave reviews. But one divorce attorney says the app may keep your secrets secret, but not for long.

CATE stands for "call and text eraser" which is exactly what it does. The app erases any opportunity for your significant other to find out who you've been in contact with.

Phillip Immler is a cop who is also in law school. He created the app after a friend's phone was hacked by his spouse.

"I had a good friend of mine who went through a divorce because his wife was finding things on his phone. It intercepts call and text messages from people on your lists and stores it within the app," says Immler.

Only the app owner has the passcode to unlock the contacts he or she decides should be hidden from view. There's already buzz over the app online.

Divorce attorney Robin Roshkind says while the app may promise to hide your infidelity, it won't stop a determined woman or man wanting to know the truth.

"If there is going to be an app to stop all this, trust me, we still have our ways, a good old fashioned private investigator. It's a little ironic it was an officer of the law that came up with this app," says Roshkind.

But Immler begs to differ. He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone.

So far "CATE" has been downloaded more than 20 times in its first week at $2.99 a pop.

Despite the purpose of his app, Immler insists, "I don't condone cheating, no."

Immler says more women have purchased the app than men.

Feminism's Witch Hunt - 2011 Style

Defund Feminism (#DEFUNDFEMINISM)

GO TO YOUCUT HERE!

The House Republican Caucus is requesting the guidance of Americans to help the Republican leadership settle on cuts to make as the House wends its way through the process of proposing a reasonable federal budget. In a program called YouCut, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is asking voters to register their approval of certain already-proposed changes, but also is giving voters the opportunity to "Submit Your Idea." By clicking this button, you can make suggestions of cuts that ought to be made, but may not have been suggested yet.

Several things are necessarily true....

1) Feminism in America could not exist without federal funding. NOBODY cares enough about the serial drivel and prepubescent nonsense engaged in by feminists to actually reach into their wallet and fund it. This is why federal grants - under the rubric of "law enforcement" or "education," for instance - are absolutely vital for keeping feminism alive and viable in the United States.

2) Feminism contributes absolutely nothing positive to the American culture or economy.

3) In fact, feminism actively undermines both the American culture and the economy. Its pro-abortion dogma has eliminated the greatest part of two generations of taxpayers, leaving programs such as Social Security and Medicare in the lurch. Its false allegations industry serves only to tie up courts and law enforcement with meaningless political charges, while actively undermining the one thing that has been proven to protect women and children - the family. Its academic endeavors [sic] are widely recognized as being a pablum only slightly more complex than the normal fare of the retarded. Its legal theories, besides encouraging false allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, serve only to destroy business, culture, the military, the professions, and the public good by making irrelevancies out to be real issues ("diversity," "sexual harassment," "women's perspective") and by placing, en masse, unqualified people into positions of responsibility based merely upon their gender.

And yet, billions of dollars per year flow from both the federal and state governments to sustain feminist political programs that serve no recognizable public good other than funding lawyers and further feminist programs.

These are the undeniable facts. Feminism helps nothing, hurts everything, and would simply cease to exist if taxpayers were not strongarmed into keeping feminism alive through the distribution of taxes to feminist organizations by governments.

This being the case, it is time for those who stand with unborn children, the family, business, the culture, legitimate education, justice, and legitimate law enforcement to strike while the iron is hot. For the next few years, Congress will (theoretically) be seeking to make all kinds of cuts just to keep the American ship afloat.

It is thus time for the most malignant tumor in the history of the American experiment to be excised.

It is time to totally, completely, and finally DEFUND FEMINISM.

Please surf over to YouCut, and after voting for the various items for which your vote is solicited, find the "SUBMIT YOUR IDEAS" button at the bottom of the page. Then, fill in the dialog box with your request that ALL feminism in the United States be defunded at the federal level.

I wrote the following in my request:

"I would like to request that ALL feminist political organizations and activities, from Planned Parenthood to women's shelters to feminist studies and women's studies programs in universities, be completely defunded by the federal government.

These are wholly destructive organizations which exist only to consume the hard-earned resources of working Americans while undermining the values and culture that is respected by the American majority.

Further, these are political organizations, and cannot and should not be funded by the taxes of those who disagree with their political policies."

Feel free to swipe my note, modify it, or write your own. Or, if you have a flair for the pithy and dramatic, perhaps you will simply write...

"DEFUND FEMINISM."

It is time to draw a line in the sand, and excise the most destructive political movement in the history of the United States. Join me in asking Congress to DEFUND FEMINISM, and please send your friends to this page to join the fight.