How One of the Most Powerful Women in History Predicted the Moral Carnage of Feminism

"I am most anxious to enlist every-one who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and pro-priety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' them-selves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection." Queen Victoria of England, 1870

What About Moderate Feminists?

What exactly is a moderate feminist? Another person has, by way of analogy, alluded to "moderate Nazis," and while the average person who believes that The Daily Show and Oprah actually broadcast news might find that a tad illiberal, there is a kernel of truth to what he is saying.

The truth is, I can envision a member of the Nazi party who simply said, "You know, I love Germany. I am a nationalist and I think we need to get control of immigration. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of this country and this Adolf guy seems to be all over that stuff. I don't agree with everything he says, but he seems the only one who can drag us out of the economic morass we are in, so I voted for him, and joined the party - and the pay is good as a party member; lotsa opportunity! So I do it for my wife and kids."

He has no hatred of Jews; no desire to rule the world; doesn't approve of the use of corruption and violence as political tools - his agreements with the movement are entirely pragmatic.

But doesn't the presence of such a man in the Nazi party lend credence to its less noble goals? While HE sees National Socialism as a decision regarding infrastructure and national greatness, OTHERS see his participation in the movement as an implicit approval of the wider goals of the party. And let's not forget, that whether he agrees with Nazi goals or not, there is strength in numbers, and the party of the concentration camp is made stronger by his mere association with it.

But the real problem, it seems to me, is not that our mythical moderate is lending credence to something he doesn't agree with, but rather that to associate with a lie not believed is simply the calculating act of an evil person, and to believe less of a lie than someone else does not confer any amount of truth upon the original lie. All who believe a lie, even if they do so to varying degrees - nevertheless believe a lie! And all are morally culpable for choosing the lie - though they choose less of it than another - when the truth was apparent.



But if we could draw a line between "radical feminazis" and "moderate feminists," does anyone have any idea where that line would be drawn? Are there certain basic beliefs that a moderate feminist would have? Likely, in my opinion, she wants an expansion of or maintenance of abortion rights. Likely, she is on board with the Domestic Violence bandwagon - and even if she admits that men are often victims rather than perpetrators (an exceedingly moderate stance), she still likely agrees with the feminist definition of DV - including "failing to take another's feelings into account" or "trying to withhold money" or "being controlling" - and of course the idea that a person simply trying to look out for his own interests, balance his budget, or keep his wife from harming herself or leaving him are criminal deeds to be equated with assault and battery is part of the neurotic radicalism that is radical feminism, no?

As an aside, as a former resident of South Carolina, I have followed the Mark Sanford scandal with some interest, having been personally acquainted with him years ago. I notice that his wife kicking him out of the house and refusing to let him see his kids for a period of time while he took time to think through his adultery has not once even been suggested to have been Domestic Violence! Yet I have been in court and seen men have Domestic Violence Protective Orders continued against them for threatening to take the kids away, for threatening to leave, and even for trying to keep a woman from leaving him! Odd, no?

Or perhaps it isn't abortion or domestic violence: maybe it is wage equity that is the issue of "moderate feminists." First, since all reasonable people know that wage equity (at least in America) has already been achieved, focusing on this non-issue is much like focusing on Domestic Violence or Global Warming: throwing governmental money and power at a made-up issue in an attempt to expand governmental power. But that governmental power IS and WILL BE expanded: at the cost of discriminatory policies against men. Do "moderate feminists" find it OK that more highly-qualified men are routinely discriminated against so that less-qualified females can have jobs? Is that best for society? The client? The economy? The men and women involved?

Or maybe it is the family that is the issue? Perhaps the moderate feminist simply despises the male-headed home. She despises evangelical Christianity, the Patriarchy, traditional values - however she characterizes it - and feels that women are equally qualified to hold authority and lead the home. Now, of course, she feels this in direct opposition to the facts, since we all know that the plague of divorce is a female concoction (with 2/3 of all divorces - the vast majority utterly groundless - are initiated by women) and that children are harmed by growing up in a home headed by a woman alone. But of course, it is not the children or society or all the millions wasted on family lawyers or even the fact that eight years down the road she will call somebody like me and say, "You know, I thought I would be happier/married again/whatever if I left my husband, but looking back I see I destroyed the greatest situation I ever had." - no, it is not any of these things: for the stability of society and the good of children and even the truth itself are expendable so that a woman can get what she wants.

To say nothing of the fact that, if a woman truly feels she is competent to head a home (and consequently destroy it), there is a great harvest of manginas out there who would be more than glad to agree to such an arrangement. There is no need for a political movement legislating such - but you see, it is not her own freedom that the feminist desires (for she will gladly exchange "slavery" to her husband for "slavery" to the government!) - it is merely the unadulterated hatred of men and their authority that she despises. It is not her submission to a man (which would never occur) that she hates, it is the willing submission of other women - reminding her of her own neurotic fears of men, and illustrating that they are, in fact, neurotic fears, since women in male-headed homes seem to do quite well.

And every once in a while, the emotions begin to rear their ugly collective head, and these "moderate" feminists forget that the TV camera is on, and even such moderates as congregate in the Church of Oprah forget themselves and let the truth slip, showing the vicious hatred, the neurotic fear, the irrational departure from reality that is the feminist mindset - even among the more "moderate" of their ilk:

"You're trying to get your hunger needs met," Dr. Smith tells Melissa. "What are you hungry for? To be loved? To be cared for? To feel special? These are not things to be ashamed of. You're asking a great question: 'How can I stop this?'"

Dr. Smith says that a lot of young girls are treating their bodies like trash cans. "Trash cans for what? For boys' sperm. For boys' insecurities. The boys come and drop their trash in our bodies. … It keeps going until we decide that we aren't receptacles for garbage. That my body is a temple; it's sacred. … I'm not the place that boys come and drop their sperm, their insecurity so they can pump their muscles up as I shrink down into nothing."

Well, since Oprah Winfrey is the very definition of "feminist lite" or "moderate feminism," given this quote, can you tell me exactly what is the difference between a "moderate feminist" and "radical feminazi?"

Feminism in all of its strains is a neurosis - a mental illness - because it is at its root a departure from reality and a flight into neurotic fears ("all men are abusers/rapists")and neurotic fantasies ("I can do whatever a man can do so lower all the requirements to accommodate me!").

We are happy whenever we find a bipolar patient whose illness is under control. She is always better off than the person committed long-term who cannot even come outdoors and live life. But at the end of the day both are sick. Very sick. Painfully, woefully, and pitifully sick.

And these "moderate feminists," though they may be married, though they may spout platitudes about men being victims of domestic violence, and though they may sing in the choir at church, (and though, like our moderate Nazi above, they may preface every discussion of feminist ideology with the phrase: "Well, now I don't agree with THAT....") are just as surely living a neurosis - a reality constructed only in their mind - as are the more rabid radicals whose rite of passage is the abortion and whose worship service is The Vagina Monologues.

And who, exactly, is prepared to characterize the violent destruction of the human child, engaging in systematized perjury as a means of getting money (or one's way), the use of government force to deny opportunity to others, and the destruction of the family - the very foundation of society and the only truly safe place for women and children to dwell - as a position of moderation?

What's Really Behind the Domestic Violence Industry?

Modern feminism is powered by perjury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poster Mom

Below are two stories that recently appeared on page 9 of the June 2 edition of the Kinston Free Press, from AP wire stories. Given the increasing frequency of stories like these, it is long past time to start rethinking the presumption of the family court that women by default make the best caretakers of kids.

Mom Charged with Burning Disabled Child: Injuries Allegedly Inflicted with an Iron

FAYETTEVILLE, NC - A North Carolina mother, with a degree in social work, repeatedly burned her handicapped child with an iron after the young girl with physical and mental disabilities struggled to iron her dress on Easter Sunday, authorities said Monday.

Nia Michelle Brooks, 33, of Fayetteville, has been charged with aggravated assault on a handicapped person, felony child abuse and assault inflicting serious injury....




The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office said Brooks burned her daughter with an iron on both her arms, her left thigh, and her right leg, leaving scars that investigators said clearly came from an iron.

The 11-year old child told investigators that she was burned because she wasn't ironing her Easter dress the way her mother wanted....

Authorities... said [the child is nearly blind and] is mildly mentally retarded.

Runaway Sitter Now in N.C. Jail

RAEFORD, N.C. - A 17-year old babysitter accused of kidnapping a 9-month old child and heading to Alabama is due in a North Carolina court....

[Renesha Shante] Griner is charged with first-degree kidnapping and has a hearing scheduled Monday.

The sheriff says that the rising high school senior convinced a former boyfriend in Opp, Alabama, that the baby was his. Investigators say that the baby's real mother had left the child with the sitter last weekend.

Two observations on these stories:

1) One wonders how many times Nia Michelle Brooks, as a social worker, has presided over the confiscation of the children of others for offenses far less serious than that she inflicted upon her own child.

2) Ranesha Shante Griner demonstrates a couple of truths about the whole "women don't lie about sex" stupidity that is the foundation of the Feminist False Allegation Industry. First, women do lie about pretty much everything, even before they are aware that perjury is encouraged by feminist legal theory. Secondly, it appears that women are perfectly adept at lying, stealing, cheating, and even kidnapping for one central reason - it helps them get what they want. Today, they want a boyfriend, so they lie about being pregnant. Tomorrow, they are tired of the boyfriend, so they lie about "domestic violence."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is The Impact of a Missing Father?

The impact of the loss of a father on both boys and girls is wholly negative, in spite of the feminist myth that only mothers are necessary to effectively rear children.

The impact upon boys is well-known. When boys do not have a positive male role model in their lives, the middle part of the behavior bell-curve tends to be erased. Young boys tend to adopt extremes in behavior - becoming prissy (even adopting homosexuality, see sources below) or becoming so frustrated with an emotional mother attempting to act as a stable authority figure that he rebels and becomes aggressive, overly macho, or even criminal.

The impact upon girls is just becoming known (see sources below). Studies show that the single greatest factor in predicting "success" for a teenage girl (no matter how it is defined: avoidance of addiction, avoidance of jail, progression in education, stability of a future marriage, etc.) is the presence of a stable male authority figure in her life. Girls without fathers show exponentially higher likelihood of pregnancy prior to marriage, of contraction of STDs, of psychological instability, and of criminal tendencies.

Following Columbine, there was significant interest in the "profile" of unstable, delinquent, and violent teenagers. Numerous studies were done to try and determine the significant factors that might indicate a child would grow up into a troubled teen or adult. One Columbia University study found that, in single-parent homes where the mother is the head of the home, a child is 30% more likely than the average child to become involved in drugs, alcohol, and violence.

The FBI conducted a similar study and found that, in the history of school shootings there was a peculiar profile which was called "The Classroom Avenger" profile. All 17 school shooters up to the time of Columbine had in common that they were from homes in which the father was absent, distant, or not involved in parenting.

For 30 years, Johns Hopkins University attempted to find contributing factors to various social and medical ills, including suicide, mental illness, and heart disease. After following 1377 people for three decades, there was only one factor common enough to bear a causal relationship to all of these various maladies: that factor was closeness to parents, and particularly the father.

In my opinion, what these studies show is not necessariy the value of the father per se - I expect that the same sorts of problems would be produced by a culture that endorsed motherless homes in the same way that our culture has endorsed and encouraged fatherless homes. But rather, it is not that a child needs a father in order to have the best chance at success in life, but a child (male or female) needs BOTH a father and a mother.

An incredible harvest will be reaped by our world in the very near future. We may simply consider the alternating aggressiveness, flatness, overmedication, lack of ambition, and frankly, lack of intelligence and morals to be a social problem adhering to this generation of fatherless children. But someday this generation of fatherless children is going to grow up.... What then?


Sources:
Caroline Thomas and Karen Duszynski, "Closeness to Parents and the Family Constellation in a Prospective Study of Five Disease States," Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, May 1974.

James P. McGee and Caren R. DeBernardo, "The Classroom Avenger" in The Forensic Examiner, May-June 1999.

"Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality" by Joseph Nicolosi

National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (www.narth.com)

"Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" by Meg Meeker, M.D.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 907

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

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



Why do women make false rape allegations?

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

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 732

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chick Makes Up Rape For A Day Off From Work!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link below:

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


Article: More than Half of Rape Allegations are False

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.

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.