Applying logic, facts and accountability to the mindless droning of the feminist hate movement.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Feminists Keep Quiet About Feminism Turning Women Into Cat Ladies

Women blinded to risks of infertility

Colleges are failing to educate young women about reproductive risks that endanger their chances of ever bearing children, Dr. Miriam Grossman says.

Most young women have "no idea how much fertility declines with age," said Dr. Grossman, a psychiatrist and counselor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Campus health centers and women's studies programs have encouraged an "ignorance of basic female biology," she said in a presentation this week at the National Press Club sponsored by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (CBLPI).

"There is so much focus on preventing pregnancy ... a vital truth is being lost," Dr. Grossman said, citing medical studies about age-related infertility, especially the sharp decline in women's fertility after age 30. Young women are being "lulled into a false sense of security" about these risks, she said, even as "the offices of fertility clinics are full" of women in their 30s desperately hoping to conceive.

News accounts about celebrities who give birth in their 40s and coverage of treatments such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF) have created "unrealistic expectations" about delayed motherhood, Dr. Grossman said. In fact, the success rate for IVF at age 39 is only 8 percent, she said.

While feminists and pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood emphasize the importance of "complete and accurate information" in sex education, Dr. Grossman blames "politically correct thinking" for the failure to inform young women about "the risks of delaying parenthood indefinitely."

"We don't want to acknowledge that our biology is different from men's," said Dr. Grossman, who recently became a senior fellow at CBLPI, a conservative women's organization. She is author of "Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student."

The book was published anonymously last year, Dr. Grossman said, because the very environment the book described meant it might hurt her career at UCLA. The book has been reissued in paperback with her name on the cover.

The institute will co-sponsor speaking appearances by Dr. Grossman at colleges nationwide, said Jessica Cantelon, a spokeswoman for the organization.

Not that I particularly endorse women with feminist ideals breeding anyway, we can do without irresponsible women screwing men for child support, demanding state funded childcare facilities because they care more about their career than their kids, or raising more undisciplined twerps that end up constituting 70% of the prison population and I'm certainly not going to risk contributing to that blight on society while being among the ranks of those suckered for child support myself, but I do like pointing out the lemming behaviour of feminists and how feminism fails women.

Seems that women's studies courses keep telling women that the best thing for them is to get a career and that hey they can wait until they are in their 30s before they think about settling down. Nevermind the fact that men won't want their used up old arses by that stage, or the fact that their fertility window might have closed by the time they find a sucker willing to play his part. We've already had feminists like Germaine Greer come out and caterwaul about how they wish they had children but never did. Apparently they're too busy thinking up weird and wonderful ways to play the victim and spread hate about men to avoid negligence when it comes to actually telling women the whole story:

Women Never Married Age 35 - 45 (Education)

Not a high school graduate - Percent childless: 37.4%
High school, 4 years - Percent childless: 44.6%
Some college, no degree - Percent childless: 54.9%
Associate degree - Percent childless: 64.9%
Bachelors degree - Percent childless: 82.2%
Graduate or professional degree - Percent childless: 90.6%

Women Never Married Age 35 - 45 (Career)

Technical, sales, and admin. support - Percent childless: 58.1%
Service occupations - Percent childless: 41.1%
Farming, forestry, and fishing - Percent childless: 46.9%
Precision products, craft, and repair - Percent childless: 63.5%
Operators, fabricators, and laborers - Percent childless: 46.7%
Management and professional - Percent childless: 80.1%

Funnily enough, the more women do what is recommended by feminists the less chance of children they have. Oh well. It's celebrating your cats' birthdays and tying baby bonnets on the heads of your long-suffering chihuahuas for you, career girls.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Women Who Get Paid For Murdering Their Husbands Are The Real Victims, Apparently

The All Men Are Bastards Knife Block. Now aka, the
Husband Who Walked Into Five Knives, I Swear knife block.

Generally men who kill their spouses, especially under highly dubious circumstances, aren't often the subject of sympathetic media reports. They don't tend to be showered with praise at how they handled their prison sentence, their alienation from their children and how hard it was for them to reintegrate into society following their release from prison. In fact I don't think it's ever happened, and coming to think of it I think media coverage of men who kill their spouses has been pretty typically condemning. Nevertheless this week we see HIGHLY biased media coverage of a woman who not only killed her husband, but got away with it by claiming "he walked into the knife", then receiving $400,000 in life insurance being treated as if she was a brave hero. A clear victim who is desperately deserving of our sympathy.

When bringing up clear evidence of this sort of discrimination with the fembots, for example the fact that in the rare cases women are actually convicted of spousal murder women receive on average half the sentence men do for the same crime, they like to claim that despite their being the clear beneficiaries, it is a result of men, and of course the invisible patriarchy, viewing women as weak, defenceless and in need of protection. Funny then how the organisations which lobby for women to get away with spousal murder using women only defences like "battered women's syndrome", are run by feminists, or the fact that prior to feminism the legal system's sentencing of both sexes was pretty much equal, or the fact that this example of biased, sympathetic media treatment, portraying the woman as weak, defenceless and in need of protection, was written by a woman.

The article is vomit inducing in it's sentimentality towards the killer, so I'll quote only a couple of the sunken in bullshit statements from the more greatly sunken in bullshit article:

Teressa says she has told her children "that I loved their daddy very much, that it was an accident, and that I'm very, extremely sorry." She says they slept through everything that drunken midnight when she whirled around during an argument with a kitchen knife in her hand.

The six-inch blade sliced through Erin's lung, pericardium and pulmonary artery. Teressa at first told police she didn't know what had happened, that Erin was drunk and she came upstairs and found him clutching his chest.

Yes. Of course, because who hasn't whirled around with a knife in their hand and found it lodged in something or someone. Finding it lodged in someone's lung, pericardium and pulmonary artery is only slightly less common, but accidents like this do happen. Well actually nothing like this ever fucking happens. Actually strike that. Nothing like this ever happens accidentally, but it has been known to happen because someone purposely made it happen, but let's just accept that this sort of claim is credible because it's a woman who made it shall we?

"I have come to find out that you are apparently a very decent person," Circuit Court Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. said at her sentencing that blustery November day last year. He accepted the plea bargain that suspended a 10-year prison sentence and placed Teressa on probation for five years. "I am giving you the benefit of the doubt," he admonished.
Thanks Daddy! So instead of getting a jury to decide whether the fanciful claim that her husband "walked into a knife" is credible or not, this faggot judge just allowed the prosecution to offer her a plea bargain based on his feelings about her as a person and accepted her ridiculous claim on that basis. That sounds objective. Note that despite his paternal chivalry in this case, feminists would have been the first to rebuke him for treating her harshly - the way he would have a man.

The court heard how Teressa had made good use of her 11 months in Prince William County jail.
Once again, a husband killer gets less time in jail than was recommended Michael Vick for killing dogs. Not like we really need to discourage people from killing their spouses or anything. Whoops. I used a gender neutral term there. Of course, we do need to discourage men, who are severely dealt with under these circumstances, from killing their spouses. We apparently don't need to discourage women from killing their husbands.

Erin had $400,000 in life insurance, and the legal finding of involuntary manslaughter means Teressa is eligible to collect; the first installment is due any day.
So not only does she get off with less punishment than you would get for killing a dog, she is rewarded with $400,000 for going to the trouble.

A later press conference reveals the prevailing opinions on matters like this and how it appears killing your husband and getting $400,000 in life insurance for it is a good reason for sympathy, praise and kudos on what a wonderful person you must be:

Centreville, Va.: Seeing as this tragedy had such a serious result for your husband, how were you able to avoid jail time? It seems like you could have gotten a much harsher sentence. Who was your lawyer? The article does not say.

Teressa Turner-Schaefer: Not only did this have a serious result on my husband but many more people, including myself. My attorney was Mr. Whitestone and I believe that the courts did what they thought was right.

Of course. Nobody could be hit harder than the poor murderer who was persecuted by the mean court system, regardless of how easy she was let off and the fact that she received more life insurance than most people would make in eight years of working. I wonder how her victim feels about all this? Oh yeah her victim is dead, so can't tell us.

Arlington, Va.: Teressa,

I found your story intriguing, sad and full of hope all at once. Have you made any progress on becoming a counselor/liaison for women coming out of jail into similar situations as you did? Good luck getting everything back in order and take care of your kids!

Teressa Turner-Schaefer: Actually, I will be working with women in the jail by mid-Nov. if all goes well. I thank you for your comments and hope that this story helps just ONE person.

Apparently there is a need for the advice of murderers when it comes to rehabilitation of other female offenders. I'd certainly agree that the best way to ensure that someone doesn't reoffend is to shower them with sympathy, praise and encourage them to get together with other murderers so they can pat each other on the back.

Fairfax, Va.: It sounds like you and your husband had a relationship where violence was not uncommon. Had the police ever responded to a domestic dispute at your home? Had you or your husband ever sought help for the violence in your relationship?

Teressa Turner-Schaefer: Yes, the police were called so many times to my home not only in this state but in others. We did go to a couple of counseling sessions with the military but I was never really allowed to speak of the truth.

What I'd presume this means is that in the counseling sessions she had to accept some sort of responsibility for the relationship being violent. Not unusual considering the latest domestic violence research finds that 49.7% of violent relationships involve reciprocal violence and in the other 50.3%, the sole perpetrator of the violence is the woman, 70.7% of the time. This would also account for the fact that she never left the relationship seeing as she would be just as violent as her husband. Of course, in order for her to justify stabbing her husband to death she would have to be entirely the victim of all of this, so "the truth" would have to be that he was the only violent party, thus leaving her without any responsibility.

Washington, D.C.: I find it unbelievable that The Post is providing a soapbox to someone who killed her husband and received $400,000 in life insurance as a result.

I also find the 11-month sentence for killing her husband absurdly short for taking a human life. People receive more time in jail for killing household pets or serving beer to minors.

To me, this is a sign of gender bias in the media and the courts. Another sign of that bias is a statistic from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It says that women who kill their husbands without provocation receive sentences less than half as long as husbands who kill their wives.

What's next for Ms. Turner-Schaefer? Is she going to write a book about her saga to further profit from her husband's death?

Teressa Turner-Schaefer: It was an accident and I NEVER meant to hurt my husband in any way!

At last the voice of reason. Despite the fact that the majority of the media coverage has been typically chivalrous and sentimental feminism oriented, casting a murderer as a victim just because she is female, it is good to see that at least one person in the media has woken up to this bullshit and has the guts to speak their mind.

Richmond, Va.: Why did you stay with him if the police were called "so many times" for domestic violence?

Teressa Turner-Schaefer: Until you are in a situation like that it is hard to explain. Although the abuse was horrible, I knew another side of him. We both were so young when we met, and for the both of us it was all we knew.

Well, she obviously didn't give a shit about whatever "abuse" was going on considering she could have, at any stage, particularly when the police were called, used the full services, which the government pays millions every year to finance, to remove herself from that situation if she really wanted to be removed. Also she had the option to kill him and get away with it at any time she wished.

Maryland: Hi Teressa,

I found your story very moving, especially since I'm also from Syracuse (Fowler H.S.!) and can related to some of your background. Congratulations to you for staying strong and turning this horrible experience into something positive and life-affirming. I wish you only the best.

How exactly does being rewarded with $400,000 and showered with sympathy change murdering someone into anything "life-affirming"? Death-affirming more like.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think you will get married again some day?

Teressa Turner-Schaefer: I think there is someone for everyone. I am only 25-years-old and if God puts the right man in my life I believe I would get married again. ... Someday.

The last person that she thought was her special someone, she killed. That's not a very good track record. This is what the article said about this issue:

Sometimes she is electrified by the will to move on, by the possibilities that still might exist for a 25-year-old woman. She ventures into online dating sites, and goes out a couple of times with men who can't help but ask why she's a widow so young. At first, Teressa would merely say she didn't want to talk about it so early on. But a new fierceness has taken hold lately, and she throws the truth down like a dare.
Don't you just love this demand with modern feminism-infected women that you accept even the most offensive qualities they possess, otherwise you aren't up to the challenge or something similarly demeaning, in this case, you don't accept the dare. This looks like the latest in a trend of making out demanding acceptance of qualities like having a domineering attitude, or being a skank single mother is being fierce and empowered rather than delusional and arrogant. Yeah, if someone doesn't want to date a woman who murdered the last guy she was with and considers herself strong for demanding that they accept that, then they must be weak. If this bullshit can be taken to this sort of extreme one definitely has to question the logic behind it.

Washington, D.C.: What would you say to those who think you killed your husband to collect his $400,000 life insurance?

Teressa Turner-Schaefer: I would tell them that I had no idea he even had that much life insurance. It was just as much a shock to me as the next person. And I would also tell them that when his mother came to visit me, I told her I did not want it to take it because I just wanted Erin back.

It has to be bullshit that she didn't know he had life insurance, being his wife. However, it is unlikely that she killed her husband to get the life insurance, because if she was convicted of murder she wouldn't have gotten it. What I do find disturbing though, is that she didn't claim "battered women's syndrome". The police were called to her house prior to this and it would have overwhelmingly likely been completely blamed on her husband. It would have been virtually impossible to convict a woman of actual murder under these circumstances, she would have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter and probably gotten the same sentence.

Oh wait, if you get convicted of voluntary manslaughter you don't have a claim to the life insurance of the person you killed. If you are convicted of involuntary manslaughter ... you do.

Not only did this skank probably have a backup women only defense of "battered women's syndrome", but she was permitted to get away with using the ridiculous defense of "he walked into the knife", so that she could collect his life insurance.

For men considering marriage in the current anti-male climate, it is not just being subjected divorce because it can financially advantage women that we have to worry about, it is murder and the fact that can financially advantage women.

What better motivation to stay single is there?

Washington, D.C.: There are many cruel and judgmental people out there who cannot put themselves into your shoes and will immediately crucify you, as we've seen with many of the comments already.
Yes, because criticising a woman, even for murder, is unforgivable. Obviously no man can put themselves in her shoes because no man would have gotten away with and even benefited from murdering their spouse like this bitch did.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

This Makes The Hair On The Back Of My Neck Stand Up

This was supposedly an "inspirational cheer" performed by so-called "Radical Cheerleaders" at the annual meeting opening ceremony of the Feministiskt initiativ, a feminist political party in Sweden, formed to lobby for the feminist agenda. They are chanting a shortened version of a chant named Snubbe Gubbe, in English, "Dude, Old Man". Translated they are saying this:

I hate you, fucking man, you think you know, you think you can, everything about women, everything about our lives, but you know nothing, dude, old man, fucking man, you'd all better start to run, 'cause here are women, that hate you all so much, we're gonna rip you apart!!!

Be sure to note the old man in the audience towards the bottom left, who pauses and thinks for a moment before joining in the raucous applause at the idea of "old men" being ripped apart. Manginas are such cowardly, delusional arseholes.

I couldn't help recalling the same hairs on the back of my neck feeling I got when reading this article about the "Patriarchy Slam" at the University of New Hampshire. Which is another insight into what goes on at feminist meetings, in their natural environment.

It is all the more disturbing that the country this took place in was Sweden, which according to the United Nations Gender-Related Development Index has the fifth highest rating of gender parity in the world. Sweden also has the highest female share in a European parliament at (44%). Nevertheless we are encountering this sort of radical feminism in their leading feminist organisation (because they think they can get away with it).

Naturally, in true fembot fashion there have been some feminists who have insisted that they could be saying anything, despite the fact that in the youtube discussion about it there are people speaking in Swedish, so obviously know what it translates to, nevertheless here is what they are chanting in Swedish and what I can make of it's translation by line:

... När lusten faller på
jag hatar dej du jävla man,
- I hate you fucking man
du tror du vet, du tror du kan - You think you know, you think you can
allt om kvinnor, allt om våra liv
men du vet inget så ta ett jävla kliv,
snubbe, gubbe jävla man,
- dude, old man, fucking man
det är bäst du börjar springa - you'd all better start to run
för här ser du en kvinna, - cause here are women
som hatar dej så mycket, - that hate you all so much
vi ska slita dej i stycken. - we're gonna rip you apart

From here, any fembot claims of skepticism are truly mindless refusal to take responsibility for the actions of their hate movement, they can easily be told to put the Swedish text through an online translator and get the gist, but it's not hard to see that hatar = hate, man = man and it's not hard to look up the Swedish profanity jävla which means fucking.

The full, unshortened chant can be found at a couple of Swedish feminist sites on the Internet, here it is:



Feminism is pretty damned disturbing when they don't think they will be held accountable.

It's Official. It's Worse To Kill Dogs Than A Husband.

Plaform shoes. Justifiable provocation for murder.

In the Myth of Male Power, Dr. Warren Farrel outlines the twelve female only defences for murder. Number four is the battered women's defence. Regardless of the fact that violence against women is inexcusable, violence against men apparently is. The case of Mary Winkler, who killed her husband, is a stark warning to men that the women's murder defence of, "he abused me", even if based on the flimsiest of evidence, is alive and well.

Wife Who Killed Preacher Set Free

(CNN) -- After spending a total of seven months in custody, the Tennessee woman who fatally shot her preacher husband in the back was released on Tuesday, her lawyer told CNN.

Mary Winkler, a 33-year-old mother of three girls, was freed from a Tennessee mental health facility where she was treated for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, lawyer Steve Farese said.

"She is out," Farese said.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. That was the only real evidence of 'abuse' in this case. The fact that psychiatrists testified that she had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder was apparently enough to prove that she was abused by her husband and that therefore she was not guilty of murder.

Never mind that this is pretty much the fallacy of affirming the consequent being admitted into law courts. Just because a person shows symptoms characteristic of PTSD, doesn't mean there was a traumatic incident which caused it. This is supported by the DSM IV which states as diagnostic criteria:

A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:

(1) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others
(2) the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior

Furthermore, because someone has PTSD it may not have been caused by a specific incident that is convenient. For example in this followup article to the case we find out:

Forensic psychologists testified at the trial that Winkler had developed PTSD as a teen after her younger sister died.

Winkler's case presents an added wrinkle: she may have been traumatized not only by years of abuse but by the killing she committed and the guilt she may have felt over it. "Most people with PTSD are not violent," says J. David Kinzie, a psychiatrist and director of the Torture Treatment Center at Oregon Health and Science University. "So I assume there is something extra added to this, probably some guilt that would have to be dealt with."
So, even if we can accept that something like PTSD is an acceptable defense for spousal murder - even though this defence is never going to be extended to a male - and the fact that she had PTSD symptoms really was proof that she had suffered a traumatic incident; we would still have to accept that the PTSD symptoms were being used to prove that not only did a traumatic incident occur, but it was a specifically chosen traumatic incident and not a traumatic event which we know occured, which is very shaky.

Winkler served about five months in county jail as she awaited trial, then spent two months undergoing therapy at the mental health facility following her conviction for voluntary manslaughter.
If the flimsiness of the defence isn't bad enough, even if the PTSD defence was legitimate, according to the earlier follow-up article; considering she only spent 60 days in the mental institution, she probably did not even receive enough treatment to be cured of the PTSD:

Winkler's treatment was certainly shorter than the norm. "I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible that her PTSD was resolved, but usually the treatment lasts a bit longer," says Baron. Typically, patients may endure dozens of therapy sessions—one study found that the sickest needed up to 120 separate hourlong meetings with counselors—before they're ready to make peace with their past.

"She may look normal now, but if she has an aggressive confrontation with a male in the future, all the symptoms could come back," says Kinzie. "These patients remain extremely vulnerable to re-activation." Anzia agrees. "You can be removed to a safe place and recover, but if you're presented with an event that's similar to the original trauma, that can trigger [the PTSD] again."

Great. So even if:

1) She had the symptoms of PTSD, which can't be diagnosed without proof of a traumatic incident.
2) The traumatic incident was abuse and not her sister dying or her killing her husband that caused the PTSD.

She is still not guaranteed to relapse and kill again anyway.

But this doesn't finish there.

Winkler never denied shooting her husband, Matthew, the popular new preacher at the Fourth Street Church of Christ in Selmer, a town of 4,500 people about 80 miles east of Memphis.

On March 22, 2006, church elders found his body -- with a shotgun wound to the back -- in the bedroom of the parsonage after he failed to show up for an evening service. His wife was arrested the next day with the couple's three young daughters in Orange Beach, Alabama, on the Gulf coast.

Her husband was a preacher. I mean, we all know how violent preachers are. Obviously this is all the more reason to believe that he was abusive.

Prosecutors and Matthew Winkler's family members said he was a good husband and father.
It obviously didn't count that while there were no witnesses to the 'abuse', there were witnesses that he was a good husband and father. Did I mention he was a preacher?

But on the stand, Mary Winkler described a hellish 10-year marriage during which, she said, her husband struck her, screamed at her, criticized her and blamed her when things went wrong. She said he made her watch pornography and wear "slutty" costumes for sex, and that he forced her to submit to sex acts that made her uncomfortable.
Oh my god! He criticized her and blamed her when things went wrong?? The horror! He put porn on in her presence?? He wanted her to wear platform shoes when they were having sex?? Well, he should be publicly lynched on the basis of that I say (if it's even true).

She testified she pointed the shotgun at her husband during an argument to force him to talk through their problems, and "something went off."
Yeah. Turns out that Mary had a bit of a problem just prior to this argument to force him to talk through their problems:

Mary Winkler, who is charged with murder, had gotten tangled up along with her husband in a swindle known as an advance-fee fraud, or the "Nigerian scam," in which victims are told that a sweepstakes prize or some other riches are waiting for them if they send in money to cover the processing expenses, her lawyers say.

"I had gotten a call from the bank and we were having trouble, mostly my fault, bad bookkeeping. He was upset with me about that," Mary Winkler told police, according to a statement read at her bail hearing.

So, she had just gotten a call from the bank, the next day he was going to talk to the bank thus finding out the extent and nature of these financial troubles and the day before happens to be when she has a PTSD dissociative incident and shoots him in the back with a shotgun. One wonders if her claim that he "criticized and blamed her when things went wrong" had anything to do with losing all that money on a Nigerian fraud scam.

Evidently, she also tends to argue with people holding a shotgun and with them facing her with their back because that's the only way this can reconcile with "something just going off" during an argument.

Mary Winkler initially received a three-year sentence in June. But Circuit Court Judge J. Weber McCraw required that she serve only 210 days, and allowed her to serve the rest of the time on probation.

She also received credit for five months she spent behind bars awaiting trial, which left only about 60 days to her sentence. McCraw ruled she could serve the time in a mental health facility.

In other news, Michael Vick is going to jail for running illegal dog fights with this article discussing what his punishment should be:

Myself, I'd classify such a bestial and bloody endeavor as medieval. And judging from the early reactions to news of Michael Vick's guilty plea, I'm not alone. The callers and the message posters seem to believe that Vick deserves a punishment straight out of the Middle Ages.

Federal prosecutors in Richmond are expected to recommend a sentence of one year to 18 months at Vick's plea hearing next Monday. The judge isn't bound by the recommendation, though I hope he honors it.

One year to eighteen months for someone who killed dogs. Around two-thirds of a year for someone who kills their husband.

That's right. Thanks to the constant anti-male lobbying of feminists; taking the life of dogs is officially now worse than taking the life of a husband.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Feminists And Their Problems With Equality

A responsibility which goes with the supposed equality of feminism that is watched very closely is whether the woman claiming to be a feminist pays half on dates or not. Maybe it's simply because men are sick of having to pay to get dates, maybe it's because paying for a date sets the theme for a relationship based on the man throwing money at the woman for sex, maybe something else. Regardless a common challenge made to feminists is that women claiming to be feminists are not paying for dates despite their supposed belief in equality. Usually this is just denied, but occasionally we get a taste of the outright hypocrisy used in an attempt to excuse such a blatant disregard for their own supposed principles when it suits them, like this article from CNN Money:

Want a second date? Pay for the first

Men, pay attention. Women place a high value on how a potential partner treats them right at the start. Generosity will go a long way.

It was our first date. He was handsome, tall, educated, thoughtful and funny. He had a British accent and a great body. We sipped martinis and nibbled on perfectly seasoned tenderloin in a gourmet restaurant in downtown Boston. To say he was a catch would be an understatement. Yet the deal was not fully sealed until the dinner check came. He reached to pay it without hesitating.

Reader, I married him.

So basically doing him a disservice, particularly considering that she doesn't appreciate him no matter how good he is unless he throws money at her (the way prostitution works). Considering the rest of the article things are even worse for this guy. Of course, in her twisted world because he's paying her money just to be with her, she thinks she's doing him a favour by marrying him and subjecting him to further parasitism.

There was, of course, more to it than that. But one of the things that most attracted me to my husband was his boundless generosity when it came to me.
Generosity is a typical euphemism for a good provider. Someone who throws money at her. God forbid she should come to depend on this boundless generosity considering that would mean he was oppressing her.

Me -- the feminist, the aggressive professional, the battler of gender inequality wherever it lurks.

Me -- the woman who thinks the man should pay for the first date.

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

I must be a genius. A hypocritical genius.

Who would have thought we'd find a feminist glorifying the act of not applying logic, required for objectivity and fairness, to ethics. She can't escape the conclusion that she is a hypocrite so she attempts to dress it up. She's a hypocrite so her value must be greater. Umm yeah right.

Never mind that a lot of people were sold feminism on the basis of equality and were convinced that women paying for dates would be a good thing for men, so supported feminism, only to find out now that it's been a big bait and switch all along. See this crappy questionnaire, I recently wrote about for example.

One of my many sisters in this hypocrisy is Donna Spangler, a former model and author of "How to Get a Rich Man." She says she simply wouldn't go on a second date with a man who didn't pay for the first. "There's something about the strength of a man who pays," says Spangler. "If a guy doesn't pay for you, you're not being treated like you're special. . . . A woman shouldn't gravitate toward that kind of man."

The feminist in me cringes at those words, but, God help me, I agree with her. I have many devoutly feminist friends who agree as well. Some might say that our position on this matter is inconsistent with feminism, but I'm not ready to hand in my NOW card just yet.

Well, of course she isn't with the advantages she can claim by pursuing equality when it suits her. To paraphrase what she just said; feminists believe in equality but that they are special and should be treated like it.

Still, I have seen the enemy and she is me -- and Donna, and my friends, and every other woman who is appalled when asked to go Dutch on the first date.
This is not the only reason that feminists are their own worst enemies when it comes to being taken seriously when demanding equality.

"How could you throw women in jail for the same amount of time a man would get?"
"How could you not give women complete control over reproduction and not force responsibility on men?"
"How could you let women be subjected to violence and punish women who subject men to it?"
"How could you not give woman sole maternal custody in 85% of cases?"
"How could you not make sure a husband pays a woman money after a divorce?"
"How could you say women should be subjected to behaviour men can handle in the workplace?"
"How can you let the market forces which dictate whether a man gets hired dictate whether a woman gets hired or not?"

Perhaps we can rationalize that our desire for a man to pay is the modern version of an age-old evolutionary urge. The female of any species gravitates toward a mate who can provide for her and any potential offspring, says Boyce Watkins, a finance professor at Syracuse University and author of "Financial Lovemaking 101."

Prehistorically, man provided food and shelter to show a woman he was interested. Millenniums later, that dynamic is re-enacted at Italian restaurants every Saturday night.

"Paying for the first date is one way to show that there is an allocation of valuable resources to your significant other," says Watkins. "And let's face it, I don't care if you're a human or a bear in the woods, no female wants to mate with a wimp who can't provide."

If he can't provide for her, he is a wimp, but she must have economic equality with him. Sounds reasonable. This new "intelligent" form of hypocritical ethics seems to have advantages for everyone. I wonder how this cunt would feel if men decided that hey we're just going to be hypocritical about everything when it comes to gender relations and claim it's because we're "intelligent". How about women go back to the kitchen but still pay an equal amount for dates? Sound good? It's "intelligent".

Notice how won't has become can't here as well. Typical shaming tactic. If he won't pay, it really means that he can't so is a wimp. The fact that he might be a wimp for acquiesing to her ridiculous demands is sidestepped here.

No wonder men are perplexed by the modern woman. We're actually prehistoric hypocritical geniuses.

"A lot of men are confused by gender equality," says Watkins. "They hear a woman is equal to a man, but the minute you try to apply this to dating, you find she doesn't want to go out with you anymore."

It's not only men who are confused. Women can't seem to come to a consensus, either. Struggling to maintain a semblance of integrity, they come up with a compromise: Whoever invites pays.

It's not a compromise, it's an excuse. A rationalisation. This is pretty much what feminism is about these days, creating new and inventive excuses for why women can have equality in some areas because they are just as strong and capable as men, while in others they are entitled to special treatment, usually based on women being in some way weaker. Turns out the weakness card is exactly what she plays:

"It's a host or hostess thing," says Jacqueline Mitchell, a writer for an alumni magazine at Tufts University in Boston. "If you ask someone to your house for dinner, you know you're footing the bill."

But there's just one tiny hitch.

"I'm never going to ask a man out for the first date." Mitchell admits. "It's not that I think it's wrong; I'm just too shy."

So again, the responsibility for asking the other person out is on men without any credit given for that. He risks rejection asking the female out. He pays. The woman justifies this by claiming that she is too emotionally weak to handle asking someone out. Sorry I thought women were just as emotionally strong as men, if not stronger, according to feminists.

Fortunately, it seems, many men want to pay for the first date.

"Men don't want things to be too easy," says April Masini, a dating advice columnist and author of "Date Out of Your League" and other relationship books. "Men are hunters. When it comes to a relationship, the man needs to pursue the relationship. When it comes to romance, it's not the same as the boardroom."

Paying for dinner is a man's way of signaling that the date is romantic, as opposed to platonic, she says. If a woman offers to pay, men feel pursued, and the thrill of the hunt evaporates, making a second date unlikely.

Evolution is only partially to blame. We can point to the usual suspects -- TV, Mom and Dad, and "society," says Dr. Molly Barrow, a relationship expert, psychologist and author of "Matchlines." Thanks to brainwashing from this Terrible Trio, "most men feel that their job and their earning power equates with their self-worth," says Barrow. "Women do not equate their self-worth with their income. They do equate their self-worth with how their partner treats them."

Put the two together, and guess who's paying for dinner?

Actually it looks like who is being blamed is the real usual suspect, men. Typically unfairly as well. We have here a perfect example of women equating a man's worth with his income by insisting he pays on dates, so in terms of market forces, pragmatically, his value does equate to his income. She already admitted it's what she wants and that men are wimps if they can't do it. That's what this other silly bitch is glossing over when she says "society" caused it.

I'm sure men just love giving the money they worked for away for no apparent reason. We burn it in the fireplace on weekends just to validate our self worth.

Also notice how she's invoking an argument based on evolution when it suits her. Well, evolution made women to be bear and raise children. Guess you're going to have to accept that role. Nothing we can do about it I'm afraid. Back to the kitchen.

"Giving stronger female role models to children will help us break out of this pattern," says Barrow. "Men will eventually disengage from the money equals power equals self-worth thing and as they do that, females will learn to define their own self-worth differently."
Strong women like the feminist, aggressive professional that wrote this article (who demands that men pay and ditches them if they don't)?

Funny how when faced with examples of chivalry which women have long demanded, feminists blame it on "the patriarchy" and insist that the only way to put an end to this is to give women more power even though thus far all they've done with the power they have is attempt to make men more chivalrous and deferential towards women.
Fat chance, says writer Spangler.

"I don't care what the feminists say; a man is a man," she says. "He's got a sex drive and he doesn't value the girl that pays. There are some things that are true, whether you want them to be or not."

Well if the only way a woman feels valued is if a man treats her special, then obviously, according to her standards, he's not going to "value her" unless he treats her special. If he has a sex drive, will he have sex with her? If she's fun will he hang out with her? Why isn't that good enough for her? This woman obviously feels entitled to something more than that. Not surprising considering she's the author of a book "how to get a rich man". So she doesn't consider the relationship a success unless she "gets" him, and seeing as he has to be rich there must be something she gets out of it that she wouldn't otherwise. OH YEAH MONEY.

She's set up her own expectations, which happen to be milking a rich man for all he's worth, and decided that any man who doesn't live up to them is not worth her time. Translated this is her admitting that she demands a sucker.

Story of my hypocritical life.
Is that it? No "I guess seeing as I don't believe in equality I'm not a feminist"? No "I guess seeing as I believe in equality I should really start insisting I pay"? No. That's the end of the article. It's conclusion is "I guess I'm a hypocrite teeheehee".

Men aren't getting off any easier as a result of feminism. It's not like women pick up half the slack and we get to take half the week off work to sit around the house maybe watching advertising during the day enough to have even one male focussed show put on daytime TV, or play with the kids. Nope. Equality for men means women wouldn't be treated special so it can't be done. We are still expected to provide. When the woman is earning enough to pay her share, men are still expected to have even more money and provide for her or she's damn well entitled to kick him to the curb. Meaning that at the end of the day men have to work much harder than before feminism and it's hypocrisy. Great.

The worst thing about all of this is that they KNOW they are being hypocritical and they believe that they are getting away with it because they are "special" even though the vast majority of other woman have the same ideas (or it wouldn't work). One has to ask, if this is the case, how much value are these women putting on the men that accept this very raw deal?

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Are You REALLY A Feminist? Take The Test.

I'm getting a little sick of this questionnaire which poses a number of questions, then based on your answers, tells you whether you are supposedly a feminist or not at the end. As is typical, the questions are mostly based around whether you believe in equality of the sexes and if you do you will get results back informing you, that you are indeed a feminist. I got 70% in this questionnaire and was informed that I was certainly a feminist - whether I know it or not - and that I believe in gender equality, at least most of the time. Funny, because in reality feminism is about anything but equality and I'm pretty damned sure I'm not a feminist. The image on the left is a visual representation of claiming that feminism is about equality.

So I made my own test based more on the laws feminists saw passed, their campaigns and their actions. Here is how you can really tell if you are a feminist or not.

Do you support these ideals. Pick yes or no for each question and add up the amount of times you answered yes and no for your final score:

1. Women should be economically and socially independent, except if she gets divorced, in which case her husband should be ordered to pay her money.

[ Yes / No ]

2. Men and women should be paid, on average, exactly the same amount overall, even if men work more hours than women do.

[ Yes / No ]

3. Men and women should not be held to the same sexual standards. If a woman does not wish to be forced into motherhood in the case of irresponsible sex, she should have the choice to get an abortion (or abandon the child at the nearest fire station, or put it up for adoption). If a man does not wish to be forced into fatherhood in the case of irresponsible sex, he should not have the choice to avoid paying child support for the next 18 years.

[ Yes / No ]

4. Men and women should not be held to the same sexual standards. Just because nobody said "no" and there was no physical coercion does not mean it was still rape if the woman regretted it later. If a woman and a man are drunk and have sex the man raped the woman but the woman did not rape the man. Any man claiming to have been raped under these same conditions should be laughed at, accused of being a misogynist or both. You can't rape the willing.

[ Yes / No ]

5. Men do not deserve equal protection from domestic violence and emotional abuse by comparison to women. In fact, "patriarchal coercion" is the root cause of all domestic abuse so even if a woman was abusive, it was most likely in self-defense and the man should be arrested for abuse.

[ Yes / No ]

6. Men should accept unhealthy, obese women as beautiful because it will be good for their self esteem, however stopping the wacky and contradictory holding of men to higher standards of wealth in order to find them attractive, despite demanding economic equality with them is not my concern.

[ Yes / No ]

7. Children do not all deserve the equal advantage of having a father in their family.

[ Yes / No ]

8. If women do not make up 50% of jobs at all levels (not including the low levels), affirmative action is required to meet that quota. The principles of market economy are not my concern.

[ Yes / No ]

9. If women do not make up 50% of college students, affirmative action is required to meet that quota. However, the fact that women now make up 58% of college students due to previous affirmative action is not my concern. Girls still underperform in mathematics and science. That is more important to me and my definition of equality.

[ Yes / No ]

10. Children should be raised in institutional daycare.

[ Yes / No ]

11. If a man has a problem with a woman being hostile and demanding, she doesn't have the problem, he can't handle a strong woman. However, if he is hostile and demanding, that is abuse.

[ Yes / No ]

If you answered Yes to 6 or more of these 11 questions; You are a total feminist. Yes, this means you're a man hater, although you may be a self-loathing, sniveling mangina. You should probably also be shot.

You believe that inequalities disadvantaging women should be rectified, but women should also be a privileged sexual nobility due to inequalities disadvantaging men.

People often don't understand why you claim to be about equality. In fact, they seem to keep not understanding regardless of how many times you repeat it.

If you answered No to 6 or more of these 11 questions; You are an anti-feminist. Welcome to the club.

I got 11 No's. What's your score?

Additional information:
1. Alimony, skewed sole maternal custody + child support, division of assets etc.
2. Wage gap myth based on overall average incomes when men work longer hours.
Also see Men Deserve Equal Pay.
3. Well known double standard, but Choice for Men has more information, particularly on child abandonment law.
4. Eg. Men face jail for rape if women are 'too drunk' to consent in bed to boost convictions.
5. Eg. Ending bias in domestic assault law.
6. "Women should accept their bodies as they are. Women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals." - 60% of American women are overweight, 35% are obese.
7. "A woman should be able to marry and have kids with anyone she wants - including another woman."
8. Eg. Norway in women bosses ultimatum
9. Eg. Men Deserve Equal Pay.
10. If both parents are working full-time, what happens to the kids?
11. Well known double standard.

Monday, August 6, 2007

Men Deserve Equal Pay

For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor

Young women in New York and several of the nation’s other largest cities who work full time have forged ahead of men in wages, according to an analysis of recent census data.

The shift has occurred in New York since 2000 and even earlier in Los Angeles, Dallas and a few other cities.

Economists consider it striking because the wage gap between men and women nationally has narrowed more slowly and has even widened in recent years among one part of that group: college-educated women in their 20s. But in New York, young college-educated women’s wages as a percentage of men’s rose slightly between 2000 and 2005.

The analysis was prepared by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, who first reported his findings in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation. It shows that women of all educational levels from 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men’s wages, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent.

Well. There we have it. Women in certain areas are making more money than men. The Wage Gap, in certain circumstances actually favours women. This report will have to be ignored by the feminists.

Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men.
Of course this had to be mentioned or feminists would be camping outside the New York Times offices for months, but think about that group.. "college educated women in their 20s".. I'm so used to feminists deliberately omitting certain important factors from these figures in order to "prove" a wage gap that I immediately look at exactly what is being taken into account when I see a claim like this. So, in regards to "college educated women in their 20s", when we adjust for hours worked, practical value of college degree obtained (eg. engineering degrees are worth more than womyn's studies degrees), whether they moved to obtain the job and so forth, what will we come up with?

Not 89 percent is what.

Still, someone should inform the National Organisation for Women of the 89 percent gap, considering they still wallow in their imaginary economic oppression on April 24th, indicating they claim women earn 77 percent what a man does (this is usually rounded down to an even 70 by Internet feminists). Looks like it's 89 percent nationwide in the group subject to the widest gap, so even if they weren't deliberately misleading everyone about the equality of the work, they are still blatantly bullshitting about the extent of the gap.

Just why young women at all educational levels in New York and other big cities have fared better than their peers elsewhere is a matter of some debate. But a major reason, experts say, is that women have been graduating from college in larger numbers than men, and that many of those women seem to be gravitating toward major urban areas.

In 2005, 53 percent of women in their 20s working in New York were college graduates, compared with only 38 percent of men of that age. And many of those women are not marrying right after college, leaving them freer to focus on building careers, experts said.

Not surprising considering 58 percent of college students are women these days. Naturally feminists like the American Association of University Women aren't going to be doing anything to redress this education gap. They did after all create it by doing things like releasing the report "How Schools Shortchange Girls" in 1992, despite the fact that they were later forced to admit girls had already begun overtaking boys at the time the report was released. Of course this was too late to stop everyone rallying to the cause of girls and really, at that stage, they were more interested in focusing on girls underperforming in specific areas, such as math and science in order to further skew the system against boys anyway.

“Citified college-women are more likely to be nonmarried and childless, compared with their suburban sisters, so they can and do devote themselves to their careers,” said Andrew Hacker, a Queens College sociologist and the author of “Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Men and Women.”
In other words, they are single - so are working full-time and they have moved (to an urban center) to get a better paying job. Essentially doing key things they would need to in order to close the "wage gap" and .. they are getting paid more than men. So at the end of the day, despite whining from feminists, if a woman applies herself in the sort of manner a man does, taking full advantage of the education system being skewed in her favour and equal employment opportunity initiatives like affirmative action; she gets paid more than men.

Kelly Kraft, 25, is one of those women. A native of Indiana, she came to New York after graduating from the University of Dayton, got a job in publishing and now works for an advertising agency. “I just felt New York had a lot more exciting opportunities in different industries than Indianapolis,” she said.

“In women’s-studies courses you always heard that men were making more money, and it was a disadvantage being a woman,” Ms. Kraft said. “It’s great that it’s starting to turn around.”

Shouldn't it be discrimination, like it is when women earn less? Honestly, if women underperforming in math and science is being considered horrendous even when they outperform boys overall, then doesn't that contradict with ignoring a specific area where women earn more than men, particularly when the notion that men's overall earnings are higher may not even be the case when all factors are taken into account? Nope. Apparently when men are discriminated against, it's "great".

Though Dr. Beveridge’s analysis showed women making strides, it also showed that men were in some ways moving backward. Among all men — including those with college degrees — real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970. And among full-time workers with advanced degrees, wages for men increased only marginally even as they soared for women. Nationally, men’s wages in general declined while women’s remained the same.
So pretty much, in order to pay for all this affirmative action which allows women to be paid equally to, or in this case more than men, the money is at least partially taken out of men's pay packets. Fan-fucking-tastic.

Several experts also said that rising income for women might affect marriage rates if women expect their mates to have at least equivalent salaries and education.

“When New York college women say there are few eligible men around, they’re right if they mean they’ll only settle for someone with an education akin to their own,” Professor Hacker said.

Precisely. Their greed in the matter doesn't pay in the end. For all this statistical debunking of actual physical man shortages, women don't understand why for some reason they seem unable to get a man. It's because they tend towards hypergamy and if they are getting paid as much as most men, the eligible dating pool shrinks considerably. If women were getting exactly equal pay on average and retained their tendency to marry up and be provided for by an even richer man a minimum of 50% of women would not be finding a suitable partner.

So at the end of the day girls, all that money can be spent on feeding ever increasing herds of cats because the men you want have enough options to marry an educated girl that will dedicate her life to her family rather than her career.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Women abuse their kids twice as much when men are not around

A study funded by the US military released today gives us a glimpse into the reasons that children raised in fatherless families suffer catastrophic developmental problems, such as those described in the Civitas study on the subject, including the finding:

Although 20% of all dependent children live in lone-parent families, 70% of young offenders identified by Youth Offending Teams come from lone-parent families.

Child abuse rises when dad is away at war
Mothers are twice as likely to physically hurt kids, government study finds

Children in some Army families are vulnerable to abuse and neglect by their mothers when their fathers are away at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a large Pentagon-funded study finds.

Mothers were three times more likely to have a substantiated report of child mistreatment when their soldier husbands were deployed than when the fathers were home, according to the research. Mothers at home were nearly four times as likely to neglect their children and nearly twice as likely to physically abuse them during deployment periods.

“She leaves the young child alone in the apartment, doesn’t get the child off to school in the morning, doesn’t keep the house in a livable condition,” said lead author Deborah Gibbs of the nonprofit RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., describing typical scenarios.

The researchers found reports of abuse and neglect for nearly 3,000 individual children. The mistreatment included neglect, abandonment, physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse.

So, despite the fact that according to feminists, men do no work around the house, are uninvolved in childcare etc. etc., when the men are taken away these women can not only not handle it on their own, but they become four times as likely to neglect their children and twice as likely to physically abuse them. Of course, this does also mean that while feminists love to portray men as evil abusers, it appears that men's presence prevents kids from being abused by their mothers.

Army officials said the study confirms what they’ve seen at large military bases for nearly two years, overwhelmed and depressed mothers neglecting their children.

“This is another recognition of the stress that families are experiencing with multiple deployments, and that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone,” said Rene Robichaux, social work programs manager for the U.S. Army Medical Command.

The Army recently announced it will hire more than 1,000 additional “family readiness support assistants” to help families of deployed active-duty, Army Reserve and National Guard units. The Army also recently added $8 million to its respite child care program and increased home visits to parents of young children at 13 bases with the highest rates of neglect, said Delores Johnson, the Army’s director of family programs.

Riiight. They're beating the shit out of their kids and it is because they don't have enough "support" and not because they are child abusers. How could I have forgotten that Women Are The Real Victims Here and not the kids that they are abusing. How about we do what we'd do if it was men abusing these kids and throw them the fuck in jail for being child abusers. Or at the very least have the husband file for divorce, get sole paternal custody and force the mother to pay child support until the kids are 18 or go to jail anyway. That way we wouldn't have to pay out all this taxpayer money on coddling social programs which sanction irresponsibility.

Women accounted for about nine out of 10 incidents by civilian parents during deployments. For fathers at home while their soldier wives were at war, the effect of deployment on the likelihood of abuse or neglect was insignificant, suggesting men may be more likely to get help from extended family or other resources, Gibbs said.
Naturally the suggestion they decided to speculate on as correct was that men may get more help, and not the more obvious suggestion that men are simply better parents, because that would have the feminist world up in arms that their oft-touted misandry that men are abusive and bad parents is in fact contrary to the truth. Of course, some of us already knew that 62.3% of child abuse perpetrators are female and feminists just like to pretend that men are more abusive in order to feed their persecution complexes and justify demanding "reparations" from men. Seems to constantly get missed in the media though. I don't suppose popular myth that women can do no wrong has anything to do with their being irresponsible parents (when men aren't around anyway).

See the link on the right: The Last Time I Hit A Woman