Fembot Hunter

Feminism Is The Opposite of Fun - Again

2007-10-20T20:05:00.000+01:00

There is a great article up at 99 Lives taking the piss out of "Girl Gamers" who like to accuse every computer game available of misogyny:

Misogyny has a new game: Bioshock

Funny as hell but not that far from an accurate portrayal.

"Girl gamers" seem to have jumped on the hysterical attention-seeking bandwagon of feminist media criticism and are complaining about every little thing they can find in computer games oblivious to the fact that market forces dictate that their whinging politically correct viewpoints are more or less the opposite of fun.

I don't know what's funnier, this article or the fact that it turns out a search of the net will indeed find examples of "girl gamers" actually complaining about Bioshock, specifically about the killing of "Little Sisters" in the game (ie. even though video game bad guys are usually male, any instance of their being female means it is misogynistic), making it difficult to distinguish them from blatant satirical mockery of them.

Another recent example of this sort of thing was a feminist review of The Bourne Supremacy at The Guardian which deemed the movie misogynistic because the supporting female cast were upstaged by the male lead. My favorite quote from the review is this:

The rule seems to be that the more "realistic" an action film, the more hapless the women.

This has been a trend in fembotism for ages. I remember reading the chapter Fatal and foetal visions in Susan Needsacludi's enormous whinge about everything - Backlash, a chapter which I didn't finish because it went through just about every single movie produced in the entire 80s complaining about sexism:

Pretty woman was anti-feminist because she gave up her career [as a prostitute].

Predator was sexist because there were no female leads. (She missed that the predator's face looked like a vagina).

The director of The Accused with Jodie Foster may have gone out of her way to make the film finally satisfy feminists:

"If anyone thinks this movie is anti-feminist I give up"
- Sherry Lansing

But Ms Needsacludi was not impressed. Feminism says that having to include a brutal gang rape scene in a film in order to be classified as feminist just goes to show how extreme you have to get just to satisfy feminists. Thereby making the film anti-feminist.

Meanwhile recent film efforts which took the neurotic whining of feminists seriously and made statements about female empowerment have been such flops that according to this Hollywood news website:

Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov has made a new decree that "We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead". This Neanderthal thinking comes after both Jodie Foster's The Brave One and Nicole Kidman's The Invasion under-performed at the box office recently.

Feminists need to learn that trying so hard to be taken seriously can end up making them parodies of themselves and/or cost businesses who listen to them bags of money.

At any rate I think we can safely say that feminism is the opposite of fun once again.

Shorting Norwegian Stock For Fun And Profit

2007-10-19T19:47:00.001+01:00

When Carly Fiorina was appointed CEO of Hewlett Packard a select number of persons with not very PC viewpoints shorted stock in the corporation and made a buttload of cash when the share price predictably went south.

Shorting stock in Lucent and Spherion when Andrea Russo and Cinda Hallman respectively took over didn't net quite as much but there was nevertheless a fair amount of money to be made.

It's happening again. This time more or less the whole Oslo Stock Exchange is prime for selling stock short:

Firms face quota deadline

Norway's center-left government has issued a warning to 140 companies that still don't have enough women on their boards of directors: Appoint more, or be dissolved.

Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women.

The quota was ushered in during the previous center-right government coalition, and has been enthusiastically embraced by the current Labour Party-led government.

Equality minister Karita Bekkemellem told newspaper Aftenposten on Friday that those companies failing to meet the quota will face involuntary dissolution from January 1.

Many are within traditionally male-oriented branches like the offshore oil industry, shipping and finance.

Among the firms targeted on Bekkemellem's list are some fairly large companies including Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA, securities firm Carnegie ASA, Awilco Offshore and Frontier Drilling. Some of the stocklisted companies have no women at all on their boards of directors, including DNO, Ocean Rig, PetroJack and Teco Maritime.

"My advice to them is that they take responsibility and find the women they need," she said. She called the law "historic and radical," and said it will be enforced.

No shit it's historic and radical. Blatant quotas like this are illegal in countries like the United States. Can't say the law would look too favorably on governments threatening to dissolve their own companies should they not accept quotas in a further plethora of countries either.

Funny that it's the offshore oil industry that isn't complying with this quota considering that a great way to get out of having to comply is by moving the company offshore so it doesn't have to deal with the retarded, feminized Norwegian government.

At any rate it just goes to show how massive fans feminists are of democracy considering how they like to impose quotas on otherwise democratic processes such as exactly who shareholders of corporations are allowed to elect to the board.

The other fact it makes obvious is that women can't get onto boards of companies on the basis of market forces such as merit and need affirmative action to get into these positions. Nevermind that men who could do the job better can (and will) be pushed aside to make way for women who are not as capable because the quota needs to be met. Nevermind that even if the woman does a substandard job in the position, the quota still needs to be filled so companies would be even more apprehensive about removing her from the board than they already are about removing board members; the government dissolves the company if they don't meet the quota.

Sounds economically efficient to me.

The Norwegian government has been threatening to dissolve companies who don't meet this quota for a while. Take this article from September last year:

Since the Norwegian government first issued its mandate, things have improved. The number of companies in compliance has risen from 17.5% to 29.6%. Still, the country’s companies need to get cracking. Nearly 33% of public companies don’t have a single woman board member. And as of July 1, only 151 of 510 firms on the OSE meet the 40% representation rule.

In July 1 last year 359 companies were non-complaint with this quota system. Fifteen and a half months later, with two and a half months until the deadline, 140 companies are still non-compliant. That's about 23 companies meeting the quota per month.

First of all, that is quite a large number of unwanted female hires in a short space of time. Exactly how many of the women appointed in that sort of hurry are going to be as capable as original board members?

Second of all at this rate around 72 companies aren't going to make the deadline and will face dissolution.

I don't suppose that matters to feminists though considering they think money grows on trees.

Those numbers don’t sit well in a country renowned for its progressive policies and its pursuit of egalitarianism.

Apparently the word for discrimination in Norwegian translates to egalitarianism in English. An egalitarian policy means equal rights under the law and equal opportunity. An imposed quota system is neither; that would be described as equal OUTCOME.

But could compliance with the new law spawn tokenism? It shouldn't. Oie points out that more women than men pursue advanced degrees in Norway so there’s no shortage of smart, well trained women. In fact, says Slungard, women now outnumber men at the prestigious Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.

Uh huh. People are elected to boards of directors of companies straight out of university. No need for things like years of experience in the business, or a proven track record of obtaining results in the company. You know, things which might make shareholders consider someone a decent candidate for the board of directors and elect them voluntarily.

I don't suppose the fact that there are more women than men getting advanced degrees or attending certain universities in Norway has anything to do with discrimination against men in their education system (like in the rest of the western world) does it? Are we going to see quotas on male enrollments in university by any chance seeing as this sort of situation is considered discriminatory if taking place on company boards? Nope. Never mind that the reason this is the situation with their education system is probably due to feminist affirmative action initiatives rather than merit or academic potential. It's used as 'proof' that women should be taking up more positions after they graduate as well.

Shitheads. Suffice it to say, I will be selling OSE listed stock short preferably to female buyers. They can quite literally put their money where their mouth is for a change. As for Norway - they're fucked.

Violence against men is to be approved of, apparently

2007-10-16T15:03:00.000+01:00

Ignore the note at the bottom for a moment. What would you say a feminist's reaction to the above image found on a poster would be?

That this image promotes and glorifies violence against women? No wonder there is such a problem of violence against women if misogynist images like this are being bandied about? Do you suppose they might want to tear it down in disgust? In fact if I say I like it, would they say I was promoting violence against women? Does she already have a placard in her hands?

Well our hypothetical feminist can just go fuck herself because this image has never been posted on any walls. A poster with the sexes reversed, on the other hand, has been plastered all over Germany and to the approval of feminists. Turns out the above sort of sentiments may be acceptable to feminists after all. Well, as long as the sexes are reversed, of course. Direct your browser to this entry from a popular feminist blog and you'll find:

Fun with Feminist Flickr (vintage German smack-down edition)

I've posted this before, but it got such a controversial response last time I figured it was worth posting again. Plus, I just like it.

Translation:

Careful! Women answer back

If you stupidly stare at a woman, talk rubbish or touch her, you have to be aware that she might insult you loudly, a glass of beer is emptied over you or you might be hit in the face. We strongly advise you to refrain from this kind of harrassments.

Women, migrants, homeless people, transgender people, gays and lesbians are often victims of assaults. Don't look away, interfere!

And here:

This may be my favorite feminist Flickr to date.

Yeah! Smack down men! If they talk rubbish hit them in the face! It's all totally justified and we are empowered womyn!

In other unrelated news:

Survey finds male abuse approval

More than half of women questioned at a Glasgow university said they approved of wives hitting their husbands.

The Glasgow Caledonian students were among 6,500 women surveyed from 36 universities for an international study into attitudes on domestic violence.

Of the 200 women, 60% said it was acceptable for women to hit their husbands while 35% admitted assaulting their partner.

Nope. No idea where that came from. What possible advocacy of violence against men could possibly be going on that could cause that?

Feminism is a hate movement.

When Will Women Stop Raping?

2007-10-06T16:14:00.000+01:00

In their never-ending efforts to foist women onto a pedestal, to portray women as victims (who need special treatment) and men as abusers (who need to provide that special treatment) feminists enjoy broadening the definition of acts established as crimes if they can claim only men commit them. Take domestic violence for example, the idea that it was an issue which only women face was founded on men being physically stronger than women.

Once men were blamed, they just ran with it. Made it is vile a crime as possible. "Domestic violence is about power and control, not conflict". "The primary cause of domestic violence is sexism and patriarchal coercion".

Women committing as much domestic violence against men as the reverse was ignored for years on this basis, while feminists broadened the definition of domestic violence to include as many behaviors as possible.

I'll never forget the first time they started complaining about women being "emotionally abused". Men are the ones who emotionally abuse are they? Emotional abuse has nothing to do with physical strength and can be easily committed by a woman for crying out loud, in fact women prefer it.

Likewise with rape, "rape is about power not sex", despite the fact that 80% of rape victims are below the age of 30, when women's looks start going down hill. We're even apparently living in a sexist "rape culture".

"rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men and women keep all women or men in a state of fear"
- Susan Brownmiller

Physically forcing a woman into sex has been replaced by not taking no for an answer, and more recently rape has been more ill defined, unless a woman completely felt like having sex, even if she didn't say no and at some stage said yes.. it could still be rape.

It ends up following then, that seeing as physical force is no longer required to legally rape someone because they don't have to physically resist, simply be in some way coerced, men are raped almost as often as women, because men are often coerced into sex:

Men often coerced into sex: study

The stereotype of the male stud who is always up for sex is being challenged by new research from the University of Guelph showing that men are almost as likely to be coerced in the bedroom as women.

A study of 518 university students found that 38.8% of men and 47.9% of women reported being pressured into a range of sexual activity, from kissing and cuddling to intercourse and oral sex.

But the most surprising finding was the link between popularized notions of the male libido and the susceptibility of both genders to pressure, said Cailey Hartwick, the lead author of the study published in the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality.

The existence of traditional stereotypes may cause men to engage in sexual activity rather than feel guilty about refusing it. Meanwhile, adherence to such stereotypes by women may fuel the belief "that resistance may be somewhat futile against a man's indomitable desire for sex," the study stated.

It may also in part explain coercive behavior by women toward men.

"I hadn't anticipated that. I thought it would possibly predict men being coerced because of the whole idea that they should want to have sex and feel guilty if they don't," Ms. Hartwick in an interview. "What I thought was interesting was that it put both men and women at risk of sexual coercion."

Of the 251 males and 267 female respondents who completed the anonymous questionnaire, 23.3% of men and 34% of women related being pressed into kissing and fondling, while 18.3% of men and 21.1% of women said they were strong-armed into intercourse and 5.8% of men and 4.2% of women complained of being cajoled into oral sex.

The study defined coercion as everything from mild cajoling to full-blown sexual assault. However, only a tiny fraction of respondents told of being physically forced into sex. The majority reported being seduced by "guilt-tripping" or intoxication.

So basically, women are raping men all the god damn time according to feminist standards. Either they're making a big deal out of something which happens to men and men don't make a big deal out of, or women should start going to jail for date rape.

Frankly I'm not excluding the latter, because while I think defining rape as anything beyond requiring a use of physical restraint is pretty retarded, I think the feminists are not going to be too quick to restore reasonable boundaries to this affair if they have no reason, and there may be cause for concern anyway because according to a similar study from Washington University in 1999, which said more or less the same thing as the recent study:

College men nearly as likely as women to report they are victims of unwanted sexual coercion

The stereotypical picture of men as the perpetrators and women as the victims of acquaintance rape and other forms of unwanted sexual contact appears to be slightly out of focus.

Men are almost as likely as women to report unwanted sexual contact and coercion, according to a new study of college students conducted by researchers from the University of Washington's Addictive Behaviors Research Center. The study, involving nearly 300 students, appears in the current issue of the journal Sex Roles.

Overall, 34 men (21 percent of the male participants) and 36 women (28 percent) reported being recipients of one or more of five types of unwanted sexual contact listed on a gender-neutral questionnaire used by the researchers. The study also showed that men who experienced unwanted sexual contact reported more symptoms of depression than the other males in the study, although none met the criteria for clinical depression. There was no difference in the level of depression symptoms for women who said they were sexually coerced and those who weren't. Women, however, were more likely to be the victims of having physical force used against them.

Men, get depressed from being coerced into sex while women do not. Maybe men are in fact disproportionately mentally affected by rape by comparison to women.

At any rate, we can safely fuck off these retarded feminist theories about rape being about power instead of sex, unless they want to cop to that themselves and we can certainly fuck off blatantly insane ramblings like Ms Brownmiller's incoherence about rape being a method by which men keep women in fear, unless women are keeping men in fear by the same means.

Unless feminists start cleaning up their act about ridiculously exaggerated definitions of rape, maybe it is time they started supporting their supposed belief in equality and send women to jail for date rape as well.

Equality Means Only Help Girls - Says Feminist Report To EOC

2007-10-01T00:49:00.000+01:00

More feminists saying equality is the last thing they want and trying to justify making an exception in a case that might require help to be given to males. This time in a report to the United Kingdom's equality watchdog, the Equal Opportunities Commission in relation to boys and their education.

Stop helping boys, says equality watchdog

School strategies to boost boys’ attainment and close the gender divide with girls are “divisive and counterproductive”, according to a report to be published this week by the Government’s equalities watchdog.

Right, so when girls are underachieving it is the end of the world and proof of patriarchal oppression, proof the girls are being kept down from a young age etc etc. but when boys start to fall behind as a result of over-correcting it is "counterproductive" to address that issue.

The underachievement of boys relative to girls at school has become a recurring theme of educational debate and significant resources are invested in raising boys’ achievement.

Although there has been a slight narrowing of the gender gap in this year’s exam results, girls still outperform boys across the board. In primary tests, girls beat boys by ten percentage points in English last year. At A level, 25.1 per cent of girls achieved an A grade compared with 22.8 per cent of boys.

But in a highly provocative assertion, the Equal Opportunities Commission, suggests that “playing up the difference will exacerbate such difference”. While it acknowledges that there is a gender gap in literacy, with boys underperforming in relation to girls, the 80-page document adds: “In other areas, the gap is not significant and certainly the focus on boys’ underachievement detracts from the consideration needed to be given to the larger gaps between groups defined by social class and race.”

The report in question was written by one Becky Francis and one Christine Skelton. Would it surprise you to find interests such as "feminist research methodologies" on their profiles?

If we look at the press release from Roehampton University about this report, it says things like:

Professor of Education, Becky Francis, has warned that embedded attitudes about gender roles has lead to assumptions that boys and girls can be treated as separate, homogenous groups in teaching and learning. Whereas in fact, factors such as social class have a greater impact on achievement and mean that girls from lower socio-economic groups and certain minority ethnic groups are still out-performed by middle-class white boys.

Girls from lower socioeconomic classes are being outperformed by middle class boys?! OMGZ something must be done!@#$#!

Naturally the fact that girls from lower socioeconomic classes are doing better than boys from those classes and that girls from middle classes lord over not only the lower socioeconomic classed boys, but the middle classed boys as well, is completely ignored. The focus must be on girls! This is an excellent example of female supremacist femcunts using whatever shitty logic they can to gain as many advantages that they can.

It concludes: “The strategies recommended have been divisive and often counter-productive in terms of their emphasis on gender differences and give the impression that all that was needed was to treat the two sexes as separate, homogenous groups.”

The report, by academics at Roehampton University, blames gender stereotyping by parents and teachers for exaggerating the gender gap. Entrenched attitudes based on ill-founded assumptions about gender roles mean that perceived differences between supposedly masculine subjects (such as physics) and so-called feminine ones (such as literacy) will increase over time, it cautions. It adds that there is no hard evidence that single-sex teaching improves boys’ results. Instead, the report suggests that schools should challenge stereotypes and encourage boys and girls to diversify their skills and interests.

Initiatives to increase girls' results have focused on making classrooms more girl friendly. You don't go oh we need to find a standard way of treating both sexes then go and base it around a female norm because then boys start doing badly.

If you want things to be standard, base it on a standard in which girls and boys do equally well. The reason people have been treating the sexes differently is because they obviously respond to different schooling approaches. Presumably what is going on here is that when someone suggests making the standard way of approaching things more boy friendly, bitches like the feminist authors of this report start wailing about how this may prevent girls from reaching their full potential.

One way or the other. Either set the standard at the halfway mark, or treat them differently. You don't get equality otherwise, you get female domination (more knowledgeable readers will know this is what feminists mean by equality, anyway).

The report notes that social class and race have a far more significant effect on school results than gender; girls from disadvantaged backgrounds trail far behind middle-class boys from the same ethnic group. There is also a wide variation in performance across black and ethnic minority groups, with a gap of 16 percentage points between the highest and lowest achieving ethnic groups in their English results.

Jenny Watson, who chairs EOC, said that the solution to raising school standards across the board was to adopt a holistic approach that took account of gender, class and race differences together, not in isolation.

So as soon as it becomes apparent that as far as gender is concerned, boys are doing worse, all of a sudden we have to focus on other divisions. Never mind that while the gender gap was considered to be to the disadvantage of girls it was the end of the world.

But John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was right for schools to invest resources in raising the attainment of boys, just as they had done 20 years ago to raise girls’ achievement: “While it’s right to focus on all other underachieving areas, such as class and race, the focus on boys should not be eased, especially at a time when the gender gap is starting to narrow at GCSE and A level.”

Nick Gibb, the Tory schools spokesman, blamed 40 years of “progressive” teaching methods for the underachievement of boys, disadvantaged children and certain ethnic groups.

Damn straight. Equality means equality. You don't go claiming to be about equality, then go right beyond the pale of equality only to promptly change your mind about whether we should have equality or not. I've said it before, the main focus of feminism these days is - now that they have equality (and more) in areas they previously convinced people they were disadvantaged in - more about making up retarded justifications for retention of traditional female privilege and the privilege that they have gotten by pushing female advocacy beyond any semblance of equality.

Equal Application Of The Law

2007-09-18T17:53:00.001+01:00

Feminists love to make up laws to govern the lives of men when they feel secure that they will never be subject to those laws themselves. In most cases they are not. That's why you get false rape allegations being so easy to make that 40 - 60% of them are false. The newspapers would be overflowing with articles on false rape accusations if there was one every time this happened to a man, but here is how women feel when feminist laws which are supposed to only be applied to men are applied to them:

How could I, a 5ft woman, have possibly raped a strapping, 6ft businessman?

A woman falsely accused of date-raping a wealthy businessman has told for the first time how the ordeal ruined her life.

Tanya Hutchison, a 42-year-old mother of five, was cleared of sexual assault but said the nightmarish police investigation had left her permanently scarred.

"My life is in ruins, all because of a claim that was totally ridiculous and should never have been taken seriously," she said.

When six police officers arrived at her home to arrest her in front of her seven-year-old son, she told them that the man's allegation that she had spiked his drinks with a date-rape drug before forcing him into sex was ludicrous.

That's how a 5ft tall woman can rape a 6ft businessman, with drugs. It was very clear that drugs were involved and that's how it was alleged she did it, so one of the first things you notice when reading this article is how quick she is to crap on about how could she do it, when it has been explained.

But despite her insistence that they had shared an afternoon of consensual sex, she was held in a police cell for four hours.

Then she had to describe every explicit detail of the encounter in a two-hour interview with five officers - four of them men - who she claims treated her as if she were guilty.

"I was stunned and terrified," she said. "I felt as if it was me who had been raped.

"I had to tell the officers every aspect of what I'd done with the man, which was deeply humiliating.

"They ransacked my home and took away my bedsheets, phone and, worst of all, my underwear to carry out forensic tests.

"I was questioned in a manner I felt was unnecessarily aggressive.

"I couldn't understand why I was being made to feel like a criminal over a claim that was so unbelievable.

"I've been taking anti-depressants since it happened and I've lost more than two and a half stone because of the stress.

"I feel petrified when I hear police sirens and my confidence in the legal process is badly shaken."

At the police station, Ms Hutchison says she was searched and kept in a cell without a toilet for four hours.

"I was shaking with nerves and felt sick but there was nowhere to be sick. Then the questioning began and it seemed to last for ever, although I think it was two hours.

"Five officers made me tell them intimate details such as what positions we'd used while having intercourse.

"I was mortified and felt dirty and ashamed. I couldn't understand why they were treating the man's claim seriously.

"I felt as if I was trapped in a bad dream.

Basically her house was searched, personal items of hers were taken for examination, she was held for four hours and questioned by the police and she is acting as if her whole world has coming crashing down around her. What's the bet that if women were the ones falsely accused of rape all the time, filing a false accusation of rape would be seen as the blackest crime imaginable and a profound violation of a woman's dignity which men could never hope to understand and therefore should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

As it stands, considering it is the other way around, we instead have Catherine Comins spouting "sometimes men who are falsely accused of rape can benefit from the experience."

There are probably people reading this who sympathise a great deal with what she went through, considering a woman is being subject to this, and it very well may have been wrong, but I wonder how they and Ms Hutchison would feel if she were actually treated the way men are when falsely accused of rape.

It's not like her name was dragged through the mud, she was even imprisoned for any serious length of time or was threatened with or subjected to violence as revenge by some gullible, benevolently sexist fucktard.

How would being arrested, denied bail, imprisoned for several months - then stabbed in prison like Craig Charles was go down with her?

Do you think she'd appear like more of a victim if she had been doused in kerosene and set alight?

How about if she had received a fractured jaw and eye socket, suffering a collapsed lung, broken ribs, a blood clot on the brain and lost some of her teeth?

What about being imprisoned for, not four hours, but eighteen months and dying of blood cancer before being posthumously cleared?

Or hey how about if she just ended getting straight murdered in a revenge attack? Reckon the feminists would brush that aside as a possible experience she could benefit from?

And anyway, where are the feminists with their insisting that she nevetheless may have still been guilty of rape and the man was just discouraged from pressing charges?

Fair enough, what happened to her was wrong. It is bullshit that people have to go through this sort of thing, but I just don't see how her playing the victim card this much can be acceptable when feminists accept that men who face the same allegations she did are routinely treated the same way or worse and in those cases there is nothing wrong with it.

The man suggested meeting at Ms Hutchison's home in Worthing, West Sussex, and turned up at 11am on a Thursday in June with two bottles of wine.

"I was taken aback because the wine made it very clear he was there for sex," she said.

So if a woman brings wine to a man's house, that means she effectively has consented to sex does it? See, despite the fact that Ms Hutchison has been through a false allegation of rape, she still has a rather flippant attitude towards consent by comparison to the attitude a man is legally obliged to have. Fact is, according to the new British laws if the other party was drunk then decides they may have been raped.. the basis for the "new type of rape; Gray Rape", also known as "the rape you might not know happened", the burden of proof is on the alleged perpetrator to prove that they obtained positive consent in a court of law.

I can't help but think that if she was male and her accuser was female, this is exactly what would have happened, with her being found guilty of rape on the facts we have so far, and thrown in jail.

But no, if you're a woman, then presence of alcohol means an automatic presumption of consent, rather than the automatic presumption of rape if you are a man.

Apparently being all concerned about rape allegations doesn't change this either.

A few days later, police called at her home to tell her that the man had admitted she was telling the truth.

She has struggled to recover from her ordeal and says she has lost faith in a system that has allowed her accuser to go unpunished for his lies.

She said: "It makes me very angry that he has got off scot-free for making up something so evil about me.

"He was not even cautioned for wasting police time and nobody has apologised to me.

"All I wanted was to trust a man again but I can't imagine myself trusting anyone for a long time."

A Sussex police spokesman said: 'We investigated an allegation of sexual assault against Tanya Hutchison but we can confirm there will be no further action taken."

I can already hear the wailing of a thousand feminists and manginas over this demanding that he be publicly humiliated or jailed for a term of rape himself. I mean we can't have people going around making false allegations of rape and getting away with it can we? Justice requires punishment. On the other hand, he got the same punishment a woman would have got for committing this crime - a slap on the wrist - and equal treatment under the law is also justice.

Mancasts!

2007-09-03T19:31:00.000+01:00

The Men Going Their Own Way blogging network brings you Mancasts, a series of men's rights podcasts. I've added a link to the Mancast site to the right of the blog for future reference. The first is entitled A Woman Against Feminism, by KellyMac. Because she's such a trooper I've added her blog to the blog roll as well. Here it is.

Feminists Aren't Too Popular On The Internet

2007-09-03T15:44:00.000+01:00

This actually started going on a few weeks ago and I've been reluctant to post about it considering people keep falsely linking it to anti-feminists, but really the statistics that are used in this article badly need some attention, so does what passes for logic that the feminists involved are using in order to make themselves appear like victims, but it does look like feminists are not getting the warmest of welcomes on the Internet

~~Misogyny~~ Lulz bares its teeth on internet:

A woman's place isn't in the kitchen these days but some malcontents are trying to make sure that it's not on the web either. The internet is proving to be a hostile place for women.

Death threats, rape threats, verbal abuse, condescending and unwelcome comments about looks and intelligence are all par for the course for many female web users.

Last year a University of Maryland study found that web users with female pseudonyms are 25 times more likely to be harassed online than users with male or ambiguous pseudonyms. And, according to haltabuse.org, women make up 70 per cent of the victims of cyber harassment and stalking.

This statistic was also used by Jessica Valenti of feministing.com in a similarly whiny article here. In that particular article Ms Valenti furnishes this exact same study, then details her most horrifying experience of sexism on the Internet, which just happened to be at the hands of another feminist.

Well I downloaded the University of Maryland study, myself and a cohort looked it over and it doesn't exactly say what they say it does.

First of all, death threats, rape threats, verbal abuse, condescending and unwelcome comments about looks and intelligence weren't actually found to have been occurring in the study at all. Ms Greer just happens to be mentioning them before she mentions the study.

Second of all, what both of them say the study concludes it just doesn't. They are utterly full of shit.

Let's start with Ms Greer's claim:

"web users with female pseudonyms are 25 times more likely to be harassed online than users with male or ambiguous pseudonyms"

To pause the article and examine the study she is referencing for a moment, she's said "web" there, which may be technical cluelessness on her part, but the study is called "Assessing the Attack Threat due to IRC Channels" and dealt solely with Internet Relay Chat rather than the actual web.

She's said "users" there and the statistic which showed 25 times more than anything was representative of bots with female names, not real female users.

The male or ambiguous pseudonyms is a distortion as well. The 25 times statistic was 25 times more than male bots, not 25 times more than bots with ambiguous names. It was 4 times more than bots with ambiguous names, making it 14.5 times:

female bots received more than 25 times more private messages than the male bots and 4 more times than the bots with an ambiguous name

Really we'd want to know the statistics for real users instead of fakes, considering they would have more bearing on the matter at hand. The statistic referring to actual users was:

For human users, female users received about 6 times more private messages than the male users and about 3 times more than the users with an ambiguous name.

So right there she should really be saying IRC users with female pseudonyms are 4.5 times more likely to be 'harassed' than users with male or ambiguous pseudonyms. That's a far cry from her 25 times more likely statistic.

But that is nowhere near the end of the misuse of these statistics. What really damns these statistics being used in the way they've been used by feminists is the amount of private messages each user was receiving as opposed to malicious messages:

Among the private messages, on average, we found 30% of malicious ones for the female bots, 24% for the male bots, 23% for the ambiguous bots, 28% for the female human users, 26% for the male human users, and 25% for the ambiguous human users.

So, if the male users received 27.5 malicious private messages, they received 105 polite messages. If the ambiguous users received 65 malicious messages, they received 260 polite messages. And finally, if the female users received 163 malicious private messages, they received 582 polite messages.

Let me reiterate that:

male - 105 polite (not harassing) messages.
ambiguous - 260 polite (not harassing) messages.
female - 582 polite (not harassing) messages.

In other words, if female users received 4.5 times the 'harassment' male or ambiguous users did, female users also received 4.5 times the amount of polite, innocuous private messages.

Here is what the study concludes:

The extra attention the female usernames received and the nature of the messages (i.e., sexually explicit or threatening language) they were bombarded with suggests that male users outnumber females, as it would be difficult for an automated script to filter usernames based on gender when sending messages.

Female users were getting more attention, both regular and malicious. This was because male users outnumbered female users. So, really any conclusion based on the total number of malicious messages is irrelevant. Really the only relevant statistics are the percentage of malicious messages to polite messages they were getting, which when we look at them is only 2% different from that of males. In other words, once we've factored in the amount of attention given, the difference in the way each sex is treated is fuck all.

This study does not conclude women are victims of harassment online more often than men, it concludes that in Internet chatrooms where men outnumber women; women get more attention than men.

That is it. The only relevant thing this study proves is that Anna Greer and Jessica Valenti are whiny, lying bitches who run their mouths. This is what newspapers get when they allow dingbat fembot bloggers to write articles for them. Mountains of fallacious and bigoted crap.

This is another feminist inspired bullshit myth, akin to the wage gap. Get your bullshit political manipulation off my Internet, you dumb bitches.

As for Ms Greer's haltabuse statistic, that is just as laughable. The 70% statistic comes from the 2006 statistics here. The sample used to derive these statistics was 372 people. Those 372 people were the people that, in the whole of 2006, fully filled out their online questionnaire here.

So at the end of the day, 70% of 372 people that bothered to fill out a crappy web based questionnaire in order to complain about online harassment were female. These cases were not substantiated in the slightest. It could simply mean that females complain about it more than males for all we can really tell.

So, BULLSHIT the web is proving a hostile place for women. IRC chat rooms where males outnumber females are proving to be a place where females get 4.5 times more private messages than other types of users, yes.

The Brisbane Times, who also published the article have a nice online contact form which you can use to inquire as to why they are publishing faulty statistics here.

Contact the Sydney Morning Herald here.

And let's not forget about Jessica Valenti's statistical foibles. Contact the Guardian here.

Back to the article:

The internet is looking more and more like the Wild West than the decentralised utopia for which people might have hoped.

It is a decentralised utopia. The fact that there is freedom on the Internet is what makes it that way. This is a pretty typical trend in feminism. Men create something that they love because it is untamed and allows them freedom, feminists barge in insisting on full involvement but also security because they are offended by its untamed nature, thus taking away the freedom that made men love it in the first place and ruining it.

To that I have to say freedom is built into the fundamental framework of the Internet. That's what makes the Internet great. The Internet will always be a free place. If you strong independent womyn can't handle that: fuck off.

An internet war is being fought against the online feminist community by a hive of crackers and tech geeks who call themselves "Anonymous".

It is ironic to me that the hackers causing this problem for feminists are called Anonymous, because as long as there is Internet anonymity the Internet will continue to be free and untamed and there is nothing arsehole, controlling feminists can do about it.

Feminist forums have been hacked, passwords have been stolen, emails have been commandeered and used for whatever nefarious purpose the cyber miscreants wish. Websites such as Women's Space and Gentle Spirit have been forced to shut down. One outspoken woman who blogged anonymously even had her photo put up on the net and a hunt was undertaken by members of "Anonymous" for her place of residence.

Hahahaha :) Now what she is neglecting to mention here is that the entire reason the "outspoken woman" in question has become a target is because, although she is a violently anti-porn radical feminist, she discovered her thirteen year old son was looking at Internet pornography, then became "outspoken" about how she wishes she aborted him because he is probably going to grow up to be a rapist.

Her hysterical reactions to his pornography use such as shouting at him, reading him Andrea Dworkin and informing him of how evil porn have been discussed as probable child abuse here among many other places.

I can't really do the whole story leading up to the attacks from Anonymous as much justice as the Encyclopedia Dramatica entries on the subject can, but basically the reason for the attacks is that she is a male hating cunt who abuses her teenaged son and that feminist sites have been using the steadily mounting criticism of this sort of thing as proof "the enemies of feminism are evil" instead of actually addressing the male hating cunthood and child abuse within their ranks.

What many who engage in online "flamewars" - raids and attacks such as these - fail to see is that they're messing with real people's lives. The internet allows an incredible disconnect between reality and virtuality.

Everything seems to operate on the level of the abstract - it's a game. The language used is militaristic, targets are dubbed "challengers" and the attacks are strategically planned. It's literally revenge of the nihilist nerds.

First of all, I bet calling a feminist a 'nerd' would be counted by her as in a similar vein to "unwanted comments about looks and intelligence". Apparently this sort of thing is okay when she does it. Second of all like feminists aren't pseudo-intellectual dykes with no social skills. Third of all, if you are a part of a movement which has decided that existing social institutions need to be destroyed in order for there to be improvement and that all ethical systems of the past should be repudiated without actually coming up with a decent objective ethical system which would hold you responsible for anything, in other words a nihilistic movement, you don't get to complain when other people behave in a nihilistic manner. The only thing not nihilistic about feminism is that they think other people should remain subject to the ethics that they don't want to be subject to. That's what the problem is here, other people aren't being subject to those ethics. So they can go cry someone else a river, can't they.

Further alienating these people is not going to stop them. Sure these guys may be bored and that is why they look for entertainment like this, but does this stupid bitch realise that alienation of males via the media, removing any positive role models for them to emulate and any positive, socially constructive, role for them to aspire to (thank you feminists) may have had a hand in making them bored in the first place?

This isn't the first co-ordinated attack the group has launched and there doesn't seem to be an ideological pattern to their actions. But it is no coincidence that it was so easy to mobilise Anonymous against women bloggers.

And it's not surprising that those who joined the raids used methods such as vicious hate speech, threats of rape and murder and seeding comment threads with child porn in an attempt to silence women on the web.

For crying out loud. It's not women bloggers, it's radical feminist bloggers. It was no coincidence they were mobilised against people like Hal Turner either. He was nuts and so are radical feminists. I suppose because Hal Turner was male, and he was attacked, men are being silenced on the Internet too? It makes just as much sense.

I don't know why she keeps insisting she is able to read minds and claiming that there can be no other possible reason for the attack other than that they want to silence women. I don't suppose the question of why the women involved in the attacks aren't attacking themselves has factored into her thinking.

Misogyny is quick to surface when there are no rules of social decorum to temper it. People have free rein to be bigoted and badly behaved without fear of real-world social ostracising.

I guess it's not so different to the real world where humanism occasionally gets pushed aside in favour of mob justice and vigilantism.

Or the radical feminists are being bigoted and badly behaved and are being ostracised online. What does she think the feminists on these blogs are saying about men anyway? If they're talking about wishing they aborted their son and telling him he'll grow up to be a rapist if he doesn't take on her lunatic fringe belief system then do you really think they have nothing but good things to say about men on their blogs and websites?

Furthermore could it be that what she refers to as real-world social ostracising is really vicious hate speech, threats of violence and imprisonment in an attempt to silence men and further the feminist agenda?

To show how vile these messages can get, this is an example of a comment left on the blog Women's Space: "I'd like to tie you down, take a knife, and slit your throat. I'd penetrate you over and over in all orifices, and create some of my own to stick myself in." Shocking? Yes. Rare? Not on the internet.

Feminists are targeted with this sort of message specifically because they would find it offensive. Duh.

The culprits can't be traced because they often mask their IP addresses with an anonymiser, which hides their location and their computer information. Internet laws are notoriously fraught and even if you are able to find out who is responsible it's difficult to prosecute.

Often there is little recourse - even though the attacks are clearly illegal - other than to weather the storm.

The forums at my site were once attacked and flooded with offensive images and threads.

I don't know where the culprits came from but it took me hours to restore the forums and get rid of the offensive material. I no longer have forums on the site. Thankfully it was mostly just an annoyance more than a serious threat.

Whether the attacks are for kicks, to get a rise out of feminists or for a more sinister purpose doesn't matter. The outcome is the same: women's voices are silenced and their mobility, visibility and participation on the net is reduced.

The online feminist community will recover, however, and these attacks have given food for thought to women with a presence on the net. A strong supportive community is needed to deal with this issue that just won't go away.

If women and their websites come under attack for their views there needs to be as much support given by other web users to ensure they don't feel so intimidated they stop participating. That the internet also serves to build community means that this will be easy enough to do.

Anna Greer is the editor of the online feminist magazine Wo-Magazine.com.

Again, bitch. Feminists are not all women. Is this fallacious bollocks the best she can come up with in their defence? Her 'evidence' that all women are being treated any differently to men is a load of bunk and these hackers aren't targeting all women, they're targeting feminists. Sure, there is some evidence that feminists are treated atrociously online, I don't exactly treat them with much respect myself, but when we talk about feminists we're not talking about women who use the Internet like regular human beings, we're talking about a certain type of woman who regrets not aborting her son, who she thinks is going to grow up to be a rapist, and women who use the fact they are being attacked for defending that as "proof" they are big victims. They don't represent all women and they don't make up the number of all women. It's simple set theory. The subset of women, feminists, is not equal to the superset, all women. It's a very simple logical fallacy.

The bitch at the center of this, the child abuser, does not need a strong supportive community. In fact, the reason that people decided to "support" her, despite her reprehensible actions, seems to have been what it was that threw oil on the flames here. What she and her supporters need is a good smack upside the head with justice. Which despite how feminists are generally not held responsible for their reprehensible actions in the real world, is what is being served.

Pass the popcorn.

More On Sweden's Feminist Nutjobs

2007-09-01T03:28:00.000+01:00

Popular Swedish feminist logo which doesn't see much
use in their campaigns against domestic violence.

I received this today from a Swedish reader. It's a translation of the full text of this feminist chant which I wrote about after I saw a youtube video of a shortened version being sung at the opening ceremony of Sweden's feminist political party, Feministiskt initiativ. You can see the video at that post. Turns out to be even more psycho than I thought it would be:

SNUBBE GUBBE
Dude, geezer (sort of, both are slangs in Swedish as well)

FÖRSTÖR VÅR VÄRLD HELT UTAN SKAM
Ruin our world without shame

VÅLDTAR, KRIGAR, SLÅSS OCH FÖRSTÖR
Rape, make war, fight and destroy

FATTA ATT DU INTE KAN ELLER BÖR
Get that you can't nor should

TA MIG PÅ FITTAN NÄR DU BLIR KÅT
Grab my pussy when you're horny

ELLER PÅ BRÖSTEN NÄR LUSTEN FALLER PÅ
Or my breasts when you get hot (or "when you feel like it", either way)

JAG HATAR DIG DU JÄVLA MAN
I hate you so 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
All about women, all about our lives

MEN DU VET INGET SÅ TA ETT JÄVLA KLIV
But you don't know anything so take a fucking step

TILL SIDAN, TILL KANTEN, STÄLL DIG VID RANDEN
To the side, to the edge, stand at the brink

RAMLA I, DET SKITER JAG I
Fall in, I don't give a shit

NU ÄR DET VÅR TUR
Now it's our turn

DET HÄR ÄR VÅR REVANSCH
This is our revenge

VI SKA VISA DIG,
We'll show you

NU TAR VI VÅR CHANS
This is our chance

DU GAV DIG ROLLEN SJÄLV SOM GUD SÅ JÄVLA PATETISKT
You took the role as God, how fucking pathetic

JAHA SÅ DU HAR KUK ÄR DET SKÄL NOG ATT TVINGA PÅ MIG IDEAL
So you have a dick, is that reason enough to force your ideals onto me

FÖR DIN EGNA SKULL OCH EGNA JÄVLA VÄLBEHAG
For your own sake and your own fucking pleasures

JAG SKA VISA ATT JAG KAN, BÄTTRE ÄN DIG
I'll show you that I can, better than you

ÄVEN FAST JAG ÄR EN 'KORKAD, LITEN TJEJ'
Even though I am a 'stupid little girl' (funnily this sentence was grammatically incoherent -- although, to be fair, the entire text is riddled with similar faults)

SNUBBE, GUBBE JÄVLA MAN
Dude, geezer, fucking man

BÄST DU BÖRJAR SPRINGA
You better start running

FÖR HÄR SER DU EN KVINNA
'Cause here you see a woman

SOM HATAR DIG SÅ MYCKET
That hates you so much

VI SKA SLITA DIG I STYCKEN
We'll tear you to pieces

Charming isn't it? This sort of misandry strikes a familiar chord as the sort of central beliefs that underlie what I've read of feminist literature the world over. He goes on to write:

There you have it! The feminist mindset as a chant. They are fixated on vulgarities, sex, and men. But I'm not surprised: they are very open about what they're about here; just last year there was a TV documentary about women's shelters, and a prominent feminist said outright and on camera that men are animals. There were protests (weak and feeble but still), and she was genuinely surprised. They even had to get rid of her for embarrassing the feminist cause.

There are stickers all over town where I live, it's of the female symbol (the Venus circle cross) with a clenched fist in its center; a suitably Naziesque thing with the charming slogan "We don't want a piece of the pie, we want the entire fucking bakery". I guess this is what slithers out from under the rocks once they get enough power.

But the fun thing is, regardless of how much power they wield, they've only gotten this far due to their own men's (unfortunately) seemingly endless patience and good will. Now I doubt that'll ever change -- we've been permanently castrated -- but should we ever be invaded in one way or another by people of harsher cultures than our own, our very own feisty warrior women would fall on their backs with their legs in the air faster than a hooker that smells money. Magically they'd forget all about the glorious revolution of the sisterhood. They're all bark. Unfortunately so is politics, and that's where they shine.

At least there's one small spark in the darkness: feminists don't breed, because bearing children is just another aspect of the eternal patriarchal oppression of their womanhood (!). That's an actual argument I've heard.

Sorry about the long post, it's late and I just thought I'd translate that crap for you. Keep up the great blog!

Feminism sounds very popular among the men in Sweden. And why wouldn't it be? They give them more than any other men in the world and are hated the most for it. It sounds like the men practically want the country to be invaded just to escape the feminists. Throughout history matriarchal civilisations have typically been conquered by patriarchal ones, so I guess their hope is not all that misplaced. I felt a bit of a twinge there when he said they've been permanently castrated, but the situation in Sweden really is one of the worst in the world. At least he is man enough to have kept his balls intact and not be taken in by the self-loathing that is all that is acceptable for men these days. I have also seen a few other Swedish guys around who are standing up, the guy who posted the youtube video for example, but they really do have an uphill battle to fight over there by the sounds of things. Sweden is often held up as one of the front runners in what feminists call equality, they like to go on about how we have a lot of work to do to catch up. But if this is what happens when feminists get more of what they want, my resolve is very much hardened to keep on exposing their hate movement and fighting for the cause of men.

Feminists Keep Quiet About Feminism Turning Women Into Cat Ladies

2007-08-31T12:38:00.000+01:00

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.

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

2007-08-28T08:20:00.000+01:00

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.

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

2007-08-22T20:13:00.000+01:00

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:

SNUBBE GUBBE

SNUBBE GUBBE JÄVLA MAN
FÖRSTÖR VÅR VÄRLD HELT UTAN SKAM
VÅLDTAR, KRIGAR, SLÅSS OCH FÖRSTÖR
FATTA ATT DU INTE KAN ELLER BÖR
TA MIG PÅ FITTAN NÄR DU BLIR KÅT
ELLER PÅ BRÖSTEN NÄR LUSTEN FALLER PÅ
JAG HATAR DIG DU JÄVLA MAN
DU TROR DU VET DU TROR DU KAN
ALLT OM KVINNOR ALLT OM VÅRA LIV
MEN DU VET INGET SÅ TA ETT JÄVLA KLIV
TILL SIDAN, TILL KANTEN, STÄLL DIG VID RANDEN
RAMLA I, DET SKITER JAG I
VÅR NU ÄR DET VÅR TUR,
DET HÄR ÄR VÅR REVANSCH
VI SKA VISA DIG,
NU TAR VI VÅR CHANS
DU GAV DIG ROLLEN SJÄLV SOM GUD SÅ JÄVLA PATETISKT,
JAHA SÅ DU HAR KUK ÄR DET SKÄL NOG ATT TVINGA PÅ MIG IDEAL
FÖR DIN EGNA SKULL OCH EGNA JÄVLA VÄLBEHAG
JAG SKA VISA ATT JAG KAN, BÄTTRE ÄN DIG
ÄVEN FAST JAG ÄR EN 'KORKAD, LITEN TJEJ'
SNUBBE, GUBBE JÄVLA MAN
BÄST DU BÖRJAR SPRINGA
FÖR HÄR SER DU EN KVINNA
SOM HATAR DIG SÅ MYCKET
VI SKA SLITA DIG I STYCKEN

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.

2007-08-22T17:05:00.000+01:00

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.

and:

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.

Feminists And Their Problems With Equality

2007-08-17T21:07:00.000+01:00

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?

Are You REALLY A Feminist? Take The Test.

2007-08-12T14:47:00.000+01:00

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.

Men Deserve Equal Pay

2007-08-06T15:08:00.000+01:00

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.

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

2007-08-01T16:28:00.000+01:00

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

Encouraging aggression without responsibility leads to violence. You don't say?

2007-07-26T05:57:00.000+01:00

No I'M the Strongest, Specialest Womyn

In the wake of a vicious stabbing murder of a teenage girl in the UK, this is an article bemoaning the rising levels of violence of the female sex in western culture. Nothing men couldn't have told you, but considering the victims are increasingly female, it has suddenly become a public concern. If you go the article, you can safely ignore most of the comments. They seem to have decided to act like dicks and blame the whole thing on black culture and rap music seeing as there is a picture of the (black) victim at the top of the page. Towards the end someone mentions that in actual fact the perpetrator was a white female, but the discussion had already sort of wound down.

Violent Femmes

The girl gang violence that killed 18-year-old student Sian Simpson is a tragic effect of the way 'fierce' has been ruthlessly sold to young women.

Big Brother's Charley wonders how it is possible that she is not adored by millions. After all, she personifies today's It Girl. Designer clothes - tick. Loud and uncouth - tick. Scantily clad, with hair extensions - tick. So what's the problem?

The problem is, she's an attention whore. Sure she's scantily clad which attracts attention from members of the opposite sex, but her obtuse need for attention brings her level of legitimate interest and potential fidelity into question resulting in their resentment in the end. Women, on the other hand, although it was them who demanded the sexual freedom to act like complete sluts, seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that the girls next to them had the same ideas about soaking up all the attention they did resulting in their resentment in the end as well.

Nevertheless, she has been told this is the ideal way to be, she wants this to be the ideal way to be, but apparently it is not the ideal way to be. Well, not if she wants to actually get along with other people anyway. The ironic thing is, a primary characteristic of this sort of person (ie. histrionic fucktard) is that they can't fathom why someone wouldn't like them anyway. What's the bet her favourite defence mechanism for denying that men don't like her because of her is some such bullshit as "they are intimidated by strong women"?

Feral girls have always been cool, but have only become a mainstream aspiration since the Spice Girls. The ubiquitous five ushered in a new era in which girls could be as wild as the boys and still represent the UN.

Whereas girls used to worry about getting a bad reputation, being one of the "Mean Girls" a la Lindsay Lohan has become a marketable asset - as illustrated by Bratz dolls and the "ride or die" self-described bitches of commercial hip hop, Lil Kim, Eve and even Beyonce, who flash their bodies and set out their financial and sexual ambitions in hard-edged terms.

In America's Next Top Model, Tyra Banks exhorts her wannabes to be "fierce" rather than pretty, and St Trinian's will soon be coming to our screens with cameo roles by Girls Aloud in shrunken uniforms and visible suspenders.

Actually feral girls were pretty much looked down upon until feminism started turning society into a matriarchy. In the days of more civilised rule, the manners of the upper classes would slowly seep into the lower classes. Under matriarchal systems, the more primitive immediate emotion and instant gratification based manners of the lower class, which run contrary to the constraints of civility, appear to slowly seep upwards.

The whole girlpower, "I am woman hear me roar", thing is typical of the farces feminism perpetrates. It's not about being as wild as the boys and still running the UN. Wild boys are not running the UN - an ineffective, feminized pussy organisation responsible for spreading feminism to third world countries like wildfire - for a start. It's about being sexy, retaining female privileges such as chivalry and not having moral constraints on behaviour as a result of being morally inferior to men, while simultaneously demanding equal opportunity, nay equal outcome, in the affairs of men by claiming "equality".

It's about demanding to be able to take on male behaviour such as acting macho, loud and aggressive, but invoking chivalry and sympathy for their lack of moral equality to not be held responsible for that behaviour.

If they were treated as harshly as men are treated for behaving aggressively, then the first time they acted in such a manner around a man, they would be on their way either to jail or to hospital.

Geri Halliwell did not get a job with the UN because she "acted like a man". She acted like a punk who couldn't hold down a job at McDonalds. She got that job because it was a public relations exercise by the UN to show how progressive they were and get a famous face on board. She's an imbecile who got the job due to fame and female privilege.

"Girlpower" is an excellent example of why people say feminists demand equality but also demand they retain their special privilege.

But the sad reality of these aspirations can be seen on UK streets, in a rise in alcoholism and violent crime among teenage girls. The murder of 18-year-old Sian Simpson (another teenage girl has been charged with the crime) follows many other incidents of girls attacking other girls in "respect killings" over a boyfriend or less.

It is as if a violent reputation has become as glamorous as a Chanel handbag - and the queue of weaponised young femme fatales prepare to seize the "girl power" baton is understandably long. They all want to feel the rush of empowerment they think they see in music videos and on television.

That is, they want to be fierce, sexy women, engaging the world on their own hard-edged terms.

I should know - I wrote about fierce girls in my novel Rude Girls, which was taken up by the media as part of the new ladette trend. It was written at 16, utterly without irony, but back then, Lil Kim had not yet won a grammy for rapping in her underwear, Britney was unknown and even the Spice Girls wore knickers.

Times have changed and young girls today are much more easily persuaded that the more outrageous their behaviour, the greater the returns will be. The marketing gurus sell "fierce" to young women, many of whom are insufficiently equipped with the education and awareness to know the difference between this destructive version of "girl power" and real self-empowerment.

Well, what does she expect if the ideal of the "empowered womyn" is applauded while being immune to criticism? They're not held responsible for their behavior so why not go overboard with it? Problem is the girl next to them has the same idea. Considering aggression and Buffy The Vampire Slayer style violence is generally approved of and considered acceptable for obtaining attention do they expect her to not use it to sort out who gets the monopoly on attention seeking behavior and thus the attention? Fancy an ideal that is synonymous with "power" being corrupted when left unchecked. Particularly when we are dealing with a class of people who have been told they are beyond corruption, always being innocent victims and all.

Naturally the concern about female violence here is only a result of females being the victims of it. We of course, should forget that this whole "empowering" females thing, which has led to females becoming violent, was initiated by feminists in the context of "empowering women - relative to men" and of course, they would never behave like this towards anyone with a penis.

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

Nagging Husband? No Problem - Kill Him

2007-07-25T00:25:00.000+01:00

If I posed the question to a feminist, "If a wife nags her husband, can he beat her?" what do you suppose she would have to say about that? Reckon we'd even get to the part about "noone asks to be a victim of violence", "taking provocation into account is blaming the victim" somewhere in the midst of her caterwauling that I was a misogynist?

So what if I altered that question a little and it were a husband nagging a wife, oh and hey change "beat" to "murder" while we're at it. Well of course. That's different:

Wife who snapped after 20 years of nagging escapes murder charge

A WOMAN stabbed her nagging partner to death after more than 20 years of "mental torture", a court heard yesterday.

Linda McGhee, 53, was originally charged with murdering her partner, but yesterday a jury accepted she was at her wits' end when she killed him.

The High Court in Glasgow heard that McGhee's partner, Ian Tannock, 48, constantly moaned and nagged at her.

Okay then. Leave him. It's not like no fault divorces for touchy feely reasons rather than anything substantial aren't the norm today anyway. If the majority of women filing for divorce barely have a reason, I'm sure "nagging", or I suppose in this case (seeing as it's a man doing it to a woman), "emotional abuse", would suffice as a reason, particularly considering she doesn't even need one.

He even complained after she scrimped and saved to send them both on a once-in-a lifetime cruise to Egypt.

Throughout the holiday, Mr Tannock moaned because he could not get his favourite drink, Tennent's lager, on the luxury liner and had to consume foreign beer instead.

Woah! He EVEN DID THAT?! More proof all men are bastards. My god he really did have to die then. We now find out that the skank had money of her own anyway, which means she wasn't financially dependent AND COULD HAVE EASILY LEFT HIM. No, apparently that was not possible, obviously hiring a QC to defend her for murder was the more sensible option.

McGhee finally snapped on the night of 7 March, 2006, when she plunged a knife into Mr Tannock's neck during a row at their home in Gourock.

She was convicted of killing Mr Tannock by striking him on the neck with a knife. She was also found guilty of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by washing bloodstained clothing and trying to concoct a false alibi.

Dr Julie McAdam, a pathologist, told the court that Mr Tannock would have died within minutes.

She said that the knife almost went clean through his neck, cutting the carotid artery, back of the throat and windpipe. But she added that the blow would only have required mild force.

Wait! It would only have required mild force? That's alright then. For some reason the fact that although she managed to slice almost clean through his neck the idea that "she only used mild force" is some sort of mitigating factor because they can't accept a woman could possibly be a perpetrator of wrongdoing. I don't suppose the fact that there is a dead body involved is any cause for concern. He was Only A Man, afterall.

They found her guilty of the lesser crime of culpable homicide and rejected the Crown's claim that she had murdered him as he lay sleeping.

So after all this time and complaints from feminists about blaming the victim and nobody asking to be subjected to violence, when a wife nags her husband, he can simply stab her in the neck and get off with Culpable Homicide, also known as manslaughter outside Scotland? Oh wait, he would have a penis. Therefore he would not be eligible for this defence.

Wage Gap Influenced By Discrimination (Based On Competence)

2007-07-23T10:51:00.000+01:00

38 times more incompetent that she should be

The last thing feminists want to take into account when figuring out why one person got promoted over another is competence. As matters stand they rarely understand why they can't take Women's Studies instead of something useful like Engineering, and get paid an Engineering salary, or why if they work part time and sit in front of Oprah half the week, they don't get paid the same as a man working full time. If they're trying to blame their own choices on discrimination against them, then it's no surprise that they consider the mere suggestion a female could possibly be incompetent as an indication of discrimination against women and we end up with cases of extreme female incompetence being ignored such as this story of a female school principal failing a competency test 38 times:

After failing test 38 times, principal finally loses job

A San Antonio school principal tried again to pass the test required for her job. She recently took that test for the 38th time.

The results were not good and now she is out of that job.

The boy's club at work, obviously. She has the education to be a principal, she has the experience to be a principal, she works full-time. Why is she being discriminated against? Oh yeah, because she's not competent.

It was her second attempt since we revealed in February that she'd already failed it 36 times before, more than any other educator in the state.

Rojas failed again for the 38th time.

You fail the test once, you go back and study, come back the next time and pass the test. She failed this test 38 times. At least three more times than anyone else in the state. That's how many faiures it takes for PC education departments to actually justify demoting a woman. Any less and this lipstick smeared rhinocerous would be hiring a lawyer to launch a class action suit - which they would probably settle.

The district has now removed her from that job and given her the position of administrative assistant at Smith.

She now makes just slightly less than her nearly $78,000 a year principal's salary.

On second thoughts, why does she even need to file a class action suit? Despite the fact she can't do her fucking job, she is still making almost double the median wage of $39, 584 for someone in San Antonio employed in a school or school district. Nevertheless, her slightly reduced salary is no doubt contributing to the wage gap even when we do account for education and hours worked.

I can hear the feminists whining already.

Prominent Feminist Tells Women To Get Back In The Kitchen

2007-07-22T01:42:00.000+01:00

It's not just this guy who says so.

Rosie Boycott was the first editor of Spare Rib, a feminist magazine running from the 1970s to the 1990s. Seems that it took her around 40 years to put two and two together and realise that if women went into the workforce and noone had any time to cook proper meals, pretty much everyone might just go and get fat from eating junk food. She explains more in her recent article, Why A Woman's Place Is In The Kitchen

Today Britain has the dubious distinction of being the largest consumer of ready meals in Europe - everything from Pot Noodles to sophisticated concoctions such as duck à l'orange and chicken à la king. Not only has home cooking declined, but in many households these pre-assembled dishes are consumed individually, all over the house, when and where family members want. Food - once something that brought adults and children together around the kitchen table - is now yet another way to avoid family life.

Today, cook books dominate the bestseller lists: most of them are destined to lie, unused, on kitchen shelves. Schools no longer teach cooking per se, just variants on subjects such as home technology, in which teachers explain to children how microwaves heat up food. Meanwhile, sales of ready meals continue to climb hand in hand with teenage obesity. It may be fanciful to lay the blame for this at the feet of the early feminists, but, without a doubt, our struggle to free women from the sheer drudgery of housework was a small link in the chain.

Given the timeframe of women neglecting their household duties:

38 Percent of women are in the workforce in 1960
64 Percent of women are in the workforce in 2000

And the timeframe of the increase in obesity, also known as The Obesity Epidemic, as explained in this article, Obesity Rate Continues Relentless Climb:

From the 1960s to 2004, the prevalence of obesity and overweight in the U.S. has increased at an average rate of 0.3 to 0.9 percentage points across different sociodemographic groups, according to the meta-analysis.

In 1976, about 15.1% of Americans were obese, which rose to 30.9% by 2000, Youfa Wang, Ph.D., M.D, and May A. Beydoun, M.A., of Johns Hopkins reported in Epidemiologic Reviews on the basis of a meta-analysis.

We can see a very strong positive correlation between women going into the workforce and the rise in obesity.

So there you have it. Feminism is making everyone fat. Prominent feminist Rosie Boycott says so.

The Female Lunatic er Eunuch: Book Review - Part One

2007-07-21T23:57:00.000+01:00

A frequent accusation levelled at me by feminists is that I am misinformed about their hate movement. Usually this is in the form of rebutting my pointing out an action by feminists which promotes misandry or female privilege, their duly citing some definition of feminism as being about "equality" and thinking that has just trashed my entire point, but occasionally I get told to pick up a feminist book and educate myself on the movement, even though I seemed to have knowledge of what the movement was doing and this to appeared to be a standalone rebuttal to my point also.

At any rate I picked up a copy of The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer so they couldn't complain (ie. stole it from the public library). Initially I was reluctant to post a review or comments about it because Ms Greer doesn't have a terribly large amount of friends outside the feminist movement these days due to her kiddie porn book The Beautiful Boy and her attacks on Steve Irwin following his death, not to mention her sort of recanting the whole thing by moaning about having had no children thus making my addressing her book perhaps unnecessarily taking a crazy woman more seriously than I should.

But then again, I had no idea of the insanity I would discover in its pages. The book is anti-marriage, anti-male and utterly cuckoo. So I think I'll review the book anyway in order to apply a bit of critical analysis to her claims, particularly questioning what the male point of view is in the situations she covers and how the feminist movement is going with fixing up the many complaints she outlines. This review should offer you some juicy quotes to use against any fembots you might come across, as well as alleviating you from actually having to read the pile of misandric garbage yourself.

Incidentally, doesn't look like the feminists have stopped accusing me of being misinformed or uneducated about feminism after I've read more feminist books than they have. Go figure.

Reviews on the Back Cover

A fine continuous flow of angry power...terrific polemical force...a brilliant attack on marriage. - TRIBUNE

Funny that one of the most acclaimed books on feminism should be described as an attack on marriage. Particularly when I'm frequently told feminism is not anti-marriage, nor did it have anything to do with the current fucked up state of marriage. Needless to say, you will find fembots refusing to accept this, so I will go into it's attacks on marriage later on.

A detailed exposition, of chilling clarity, that guarantees a cosmic persecution complex to any woman reading it - GUARDIAN

Of course to any reasonable person, one who believes in personal accountability, the book is qualified for the fireplace right here. A "cosmic persecution complex" is a good thing, is it? Well, I suppose so, if you want to blame all your problems on other people and refuse to accept any actual responsibility for your situation yourself; arguably the sole reason for the popularity of feminism in the first place. Again, feminists wonder where the accusation they wallow in victimhood, or that they are irresponsible comes from. Personal accountability will be applied to the contents of this book.

The first few chapters, encompassing the subject "Body", is a description of physical characteristics of women, especially as compared to men. Considering this section contained more physical descriptions than feminist theory I thought I wouldn't have much to rant about. I was wrong.

Gender

The gist of this chapter appears to be that while there are some physical differences between the two sexes you can't say one is superior or inferior on this basis. Problem is, right after she's done explaining that she jumps into a tirade about how men are inferior physically.

She mentions spends the middle of the chapter speaking of the Y chromosome as inferior, when in actual fact the Y chromosome is largely responsible for driving evolution. She alludes to the fact that men tend towards the extremes, ie. genius and idiocy but doesn't get around to completely explaining that this is because the Y chromosome contains the most mutations in the human genome. For example, the recent Time Magazine article, What Makes Us Different, reports:

Although the news was largely overshadowed by the impact of Hurricane Katrina... the publication of a rough draft of the chimp genome in the journal Nature immediately told scientists several important things. First they learned that overall, the sequences of base pairs that make up both species' [i.e., humans and chimps] genomes differ by 1.23% -- a ringing confirmation of the 1970 estimates -- and that the most striking divergence between them occurs, intriguingly, in the Y chromosome present only in males.

Illustrating the frequency of evolution in the Y chromosome and incidentally that women are closer genetically speaking to chimps than men are. (Oops).

Another claim made by Greer in this chapter is that of the XYY karyotype:

Recently criminologists have come up with another disconcerting observation about the Y chromosome. They found that there was a high proportion of males with the XYY chromosome, that is an extra Y, among those men in prison for crimes of violence and it seemed to be linked to certain deficiencies in mental ability.

The XYY karyotype appears in approximately 1 in 1000 men in the population. It is linked to learning disabilities, however the claim that it is linked to crimes of violence is a MYTH. The wikipedia entry on the Y chromosome states:

When chromosome surveys were done in the mid-1960s in British secure hospitals for the developmentally disabled, a higher than expected number of patients were found to have an extra Y chromosome. The patients were mischaracterized as aggressive and criminal, so that for a while an extra Y chromosome was believed to predispose a boy to antisocial behavior (and was dubbed the "criminal karyotype"). Subsequently, in 1968 in Scotland the only ever comprehensive nationwide chromosome survey of prisons found no overrepresentation of 47,XYY men, and later studies found 47,XYY boys and men had the same rate of criminal convictions as 46,XY boys and men of equal intelligence. Thus, the "criminal karyotype" concept is inaccurate and obsolete.

However, it does appear the finding of the single study was snapped up by feminists as a way of impugning the Y chromosome and by extension men as "inherently violent". A quite common form of misandry. Unfortunately this was given such coverage that the myth persists today, featured in Aliens 3, set in a penal colony for XYY's, and more recently CSI. As a matter of fact, considering The Female Eunuch was first published in 1971 and the myth of the criminal karyotype was proven in 1968, she should have known she was spreading lies to promote misandry.

She also claims men are afflicted by strange deformities like hypertrichosis which she claims are only found in the Y chromosome. This claim was rather a stretch as There are only 19 people in the entire WORLD with hypertrychosis and some of them happen to be female. Examples existed before Greer wrote this book, such as Annie Jones, the bearded woman in PT Barnum's circus. The way she makes it sound, men are running around all over the place with these deformities, when in fact this claim is a pretty far stretch to begin with, even if it didn't end up being blatantly false.

Bones

Gist of the chapter is that there are differences in the bone structure of men and women, often due to manual labour that men perform.

Curves

Basically a whinge about how having all the right curves in all the right places doesn't necessarily mean better child bearing capability. This is such a common gripe of feminists, and they should all be directed to Marilyn Monroe. Turns out this example of an archetypal attractive woman is almost the EXACT best specifications for child bearing. Feminist complaints focus around abnormal wafer thin models, which men don't particularly prefer anyway, or something equally contrived. Greer in fact complains about certain preferences for chubby women:

The female body is commonly believed to be enveloped in insulating fat, just so she is more cuddly, Nature and Hugh Hefner being alike bawds in this traffic.

Historically we may see that all repressed, indolent people have been fat, that eunuchs tend to fatten like bullocks, and so we need not be surprised to find that the male preference for cuddlesome women persists.

Uh yeah. So what are we to make of the lack of preference for chubby women today while still hearing complaints of "oppressive male preference" for women who are NOT chubby and how women with fat on them are more normal than the current preference? In the early 70s, feminists were complaining, "why do men prefer fat? why don't they want slim and fit?". Men now don't like chubby women BECAUSE they are fat and slovenly. Just doing what feminists told us. Now they're complaining about the opposite.

Hair

Point of the chapter is to suggest that because women are encouraged to shave hair from their bodies, they are encouraged to be less animal and primitive than men. Not sure what to say about this other than I don't particularly mind unshaven armpits if a chick is actually French, but if she's refusing to shave to make some sort of point about how she's liberated then she can go fuck herself. Her choice.

All this raving about men's preferences oppressing women really comes down to the fact that she is resentful that "one woman is better than another" if men have the freedom to choice their preference in partner. It doesn't matter if feminism makes men into second class citizens where the approval of women is held up as a stellar achievement or that any man is worthless for not reaching this. If men still have the small amount of power to choose one woman over another - and they will as long as women have the power to choose, because some men will be more desireable than others - there is nothing that can be done. I mean does she really think she can remove men's power to choose completely? Does she think a female will just be able to choose whatever man she wants and get him? What will other females say about her selecting the best man for herself?

Feminists fail to understand why men might have a problem with feminism considering this is a fairly noticeable part of it.

Sex

This chapter is about a couple of things, the first that distilling sex down to procedure ruins it for women which I'd have to say is correct but won't elaborate on because this is not a sex therapy blog. It then talks about women's genitalia not really being accepted as anything but dirty in today's society, I mean men's blimmen genitalia are considered equally dirty, so there's no case for oppression there. I also don't want to hear any complaints about hard core pornography if feminists are going to be advocating acceptance of female genitalia either because I remember the first time I read this sort of thing in a Nancy Friday book (before I decided feminism was a pile of steaming bullshit), I did a bit of soul searching, realised I thought hardcore pornography including closeups of said women's genitalia turned my stomach a bit so deliberately went out to desensitize myself to it because I concluded it would make me more accepting of women's sexuality.

She also concludes that women are too passive and unskilled when it comes to sex:

Love-making has become another male skill, of which women are the judges. The skills that the Wife of Bath used to make her husbands swink, the athletic sphincters of the Tahitian girls who can keep their men inside them all night, are alike unknown to us.

I'm sure there aren't a hell of a lot of men who would have a problem with something being done about this, but I can already hear the complaints of modern feminists of women being reduced to sexual slaves if they were asked to perform in this manner.

The Wicked Womb

This chapter opens with complaints that not enough attention is paid towards the vagina in the medical profession. In the course of this she admits:

I went to the V.D. clinic in despair because my own doctor would not examine my vagina or use pathology to discover the nature of an irritation, which turned out to be exactly what I thought it was.

What? V.D.? Seriously, she's been going on about how oppressive it is that promscuity is discouraged and here we have a perfect example of why promiscuity may have been discouraged in her case. Venereal Disease is a good reason to not engage in irresponsible sex. Also note that this bloody empowered woman didn't have the good sense to use a condom. Honestly, being promiscuous is not that bad as long as it is done responsibly, but if a woman can't be responsible about these matters and wear a condom, then the best advice to her IS to abstain from premarital sex completely or by the time she's thirty her vagina really is a disgusting petrie dish of chlamydia, gonnorhoea and siphillis or whatever it was that Greer contracted.

She then rants about how having a period is considered dirty and not worshipped. Does she really think that if sperm mixed with blood got splattered all over the sheets someone would say thank you? Anyway she also rants that women PMSing is looked upon as a cause of negative behaviour when instead it should be honoured. It's pretty hard to honour something which causes anger and irritability and provides a justification for said anger and irritability meaning men just have to put up with it. It's not like we're going to be giving women any slack since the spread of terms such as 'testosterone poisoning', first coined in 1975 in Ms Magazine and further promoted in the 1980s in the feminist dictionary, not to mention myths like the Criminal XYY Karyotype for that matter.

Anyway in the course of encouraging women to honour their vaginas, wombs, periods etc. she delivers this corker:

If you think you are emancipated, you might consider the idea of tasting your menstrual blood - If it makes you sick, you've a long way to go baby.

Ahem. And with that we end the Section 'Body' and will continue with our examination at a later date.

Career Women Say Equality Was Not What They Wanted. Ever.

2007-07-19T16:02:00.000+01:00

Ever heard a feminist whinge that only men can have it all, a career and a family, whereas women are discriminated against because they don't have that choice. They seem to have ommitted that the reason they can't have that choice is because they discriminate against the men they would have to provide for

Househusband backlash as high-flying wives ditch men they wanted to stay at home

It's the bitterest of ironies: thousands of men who've given up work to care for their children are being ditched by their high-flying wives - who wanted them to stay at home in the first place

At the time it seemed like a good idea. After all, Richard Dean told himself, he was earning less than his wife Louise, a high-flying marketing executive. And did it really matter who was at home to look after their children?

With that in mind, it was not such a difficult decision for him to give up his career as a manager in the manufacturing industry to look after their ten-month-old son, Jack.

He hoped it would bring them closer together as a family. In reality, it sounded the death knell for their marriage.

For five years Richard, from Watford, Herts, had worked hard to become a perfect "mother" to their sons, Jack, who is now nine, and Edward, seven. But from the moment he gave up his job, Richard says Louise, 47, failed to see him as a "man".

Well of course she didn't. She had an expectation that a family - a man - is there to provide for her. In her messed up little entitlement fantasy she expected to have a career and be provided for by an even richer man. That's why feminists omit the fact that the reason men can have it all is because the men that do are providing for their wives, because anything a man does, in this case being a provider, could only ever be a negative thing or they can't take it for granted or use it as justification for special privileges. If he's a provider, it's oppression. If he's a househusband, he's a wimp and not a real man.

Divorce lawyer Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says that in her experience, the decision to allow the wife to be the main wage earner will have a detrimental effect on as many as half of these relationships, and that divorce statistics in these cases have risen by at least five per cent in the past two years.

"My warning would be to think long and hard about letting the man stay at home,' she says. 'I know it is very trendy for the wife to be the breadwinner, but in my professional experience this decision will strain the marriage. It may be fun at first to say 'I have a househusband', but the wife will quickly begin to resent the fact the man is not pulling his weight financially.

In other words, this whole househusband thing is one of the biggest shit tests known to man. In a familiar story the woman demands her immediate emotional needs of power over her husband and being able to brag to her friends about what an empowered woman she is be met, only to turn this around on the man who met her needs because he's made himself into a loser for her benefit.

David is still very bitter about the outcome of their divorce.

"Even though I had been looking after my daughter for two years, when it came to our divorce the judge assumed my wife should be the one to have custody of our child - just because she's a mother," he says.

"This was despite the fact she was working full-time, and I had been the primary carer. Now that she has full custody of Alexandra, she works part-time from home. It is a situation that makes me weep - I miss my daughter so much."

He now lives alone, in the little cottage he owned before he married, and sees Alexandra only every other week.

"She lives 110 miles away from me, away from the friends she made when she lived in our village, and my family, in the area that was her home. I'm allowed to see her for two weekends a month. That means a round trip for me of more than 200 miles. It is annihilating me, both emotionally and physically."

So, despite the common feminist argument that maternal custody is more common because women are the principal childcarers, in the case where the man is the principal childcarer - the kids are taken away from him. And he is getting a fat alimony and child support cheque the way a woman would if she were in this position? Looks like despite the enormous gap in his resume resulting from the time taken to be a househusband (if this was a woman we could say support her partner's career, but as mere males we are expected to ignore this sort of hypocrisy) he has to get off his lazy arse and get a job to support his kids through child support.

Househusbandry. Increase your risk of divorce and paying child support while decreasing your ability to pay it. An excellent deal.

Fundamental Statistics: Marriage and Divorce

2007-07-19T00:50:00.000+01:00

This collection of statistics on marriage and divorce lays the groundwork for a discussion on the negative impact of feminism.

Hopefully, you have come here from an internal link from the blog. If that is not the case and you were directed here from an external source, then take a glance to the left - because a sharp smack upside the head with that is what you may very well require.

The more informed reader will immediately see the relevance these statistics have to feminism considering the same statistics before feminism weren't nearly so dismal. Expect to see further detail on feminism's involvement in these matters in posts to come.

The Divorce Rate Is 48% The Marriage Rate

The National Center For Disease Control: National Centre For Health Statistics Says So

Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population

Seeing the above, your average fembot will retort with something along the lines of "Men are abandoning women in 50% of marriages? See how evil you men are!" Not so, because..

Divorce Is Initiated By The Woman 2/3 Of The Time

The National Center For Disease Control: National Centre For Health Statistics Says So

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that from 1975 to 1988, in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately 2/3 of the cases each year. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women

Australian Institute of Family Studies Also Says So

Nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of women compared with one-fifth (21 per cent) of men indicated that it was mostly themselves who had made the decision to separate.

After seeing the above your average fembot will retort with something along the lines of "Well why shouldn't a woman leave an abusive situation?!", something I've often wondered myself considering the amount of abusive bad boys they seem to fall in love with. Not surprising that it is not pertinent to women's high divorce initiation rate, because..

The Most Common Reasons For Divorce Are Spurious. Not 'Abuse'.

Divorcemag.com Says So

Percentage of divorces due to irreconcilable differences in 1997: 80%

Australian Institute of Family Studies Also Says So

Communication problems: 22.6%
Incompatibility / 'drifted apart': 19.8%
Infidelity: 20%
Alcohol/drug abuse: 11.3%
Physical violence to her or children: 9.6%
Other: 16.7%

From this collection we can easily see that for some reason women are initiating divorces in a substantial number of cases, for reasons along the lines of "I got bored". An excellent investment if you ask me, particularly considering how costly divorces are these days (ie. how much money she gets out of it, which of course has nothing to do with the whole thing).