Sexism and Hypocrisy

I've sent the following in as an article submission to Cafemom's The Stir.

I would like to pitch the following;

Husband Cuts Out Vagina and Chucks it in the River

A revision on a piece of misandric garbage by Kim

A 29-year-old Vietnamese man, only identified by his surname, Pan, was sick and tired of his wife's philandering ways and her physical abuse. So he did what any scorned, crazed man would do: He waited until she was passed out from drugs and sleeping pills and cut our her vagina -- with a kitchen knife. Then he threw the removed genitalia in a Taiwanese river like it ain't no thang.

Afterward, he turned himself into police and allegedly told them that he felt no regret for what he did to his unemployed, drugged-out bitch of a wife. Bad. Ass.

Although I consider myself to be somewhat of a pacifist, I must admit, I've always admired a man who has the cojones to cut out a woman's vajayjay. Lord knows I wouldn't be able to go through with it. No matter how much the bitch deserved it. Cutting out a woman's private parts -- with a kitchen knife (a kitchen knife!) no less -- would probably be more punishment for me than the woman itself. Shudder! Blech! Ick!

Then again, I've never been pushed to such a point in my life. I imagine men who are actually ready to go through with ... the deed have reached a place where they literally have nowhere else to go. They've been abused -- physically, sexually, and emotionally -- for far too long, and cutting out the thing that essentially gives women their power must seem like the best only possible option to them.

Pan, who worked at a local karaoke shop to support his family, has been taken into custody on charges of assault. And you know what? I bet he couldn't care less. He probably feels pretty damn good right now."

I'll assume it's obvious at this juncture that this is not a genuine pitch but an attempt to convey how thoroughly heinous the article recently posted by Nicole Fabian-Weber is. Read through it and then tell me you would post it, because if you wouldn't....and we both know that you wouldn't...I'm going to have to call sexism.

I could accept that 'the powers that be' were unaware of just how offensive Ms. Fabian-Weber's article was but, as it is still posted on your site in all it's vile glory, and, as I know you've received correspondence asking for it's removal, ignorance is
no longer an excuse.

However, if you are going to stand on the usual disclaimer, i.e. 'the views and opinions stated on this website do not necessarily reflect'...then I will respect that stance, but I will also be finding a true life story of some man who decided to take matters into his own hands when dealing with his bad wife and responded in a manner comparable to Ms. Weber's heroine. I will expect that article to also be posted because anything else would be blatant sexism and hypocrisy.

Sincerely,

Kim

I would encourage everyone to contact the administration over at 'The Stir' demanding that Ms. Fabian-Weber's article be removed.

Misandrist Bigots

Paul Elam on 'A Voice for Men' has identified Nicole Fabian-Weber, blogger from 'The Stir' as a bigot and place her on the offenders list at 'Register-her.com' for her misandrist comments.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/nicole-fabian-weber-placed-on-offenders-registry/

Ms. Fabian Weber has written an opinion piece applauding the actions of a 29-year-old Vietnamese woman who severed her husband's penis with a pair of scissors and then threw it in the Taiwanese River "like it ain't no thang". Ms. Fabian-Weber describes the mutilation as "Bad. Ass." and proclaims that she has "always admired a woman who has the cojones to cut off a man's weenus".

I left the following comment,

The author, and everyone on here who has commented agreeing with her sentiments, is a misandrist hypocrite. Unless, of course, you're all willing and ready to advocate men who have been victims of abusive, philandering wives cutting out the genitals of their wives as retaliation? I didn't think so.

I have a male friend whose wife is a drug addict and a thoroughly unimpressive specimen of humanity. She has cheated on him on countless occasions. She treats their children like the unfortunate family gerbil who's left forgotten in his cage, only to be brought out on occasion to entertain company or what not. She is abusive and she is cruel. She is also a product of her addiction. Addiction changes people and destroys the lives of all around them. Personally, I think he should take the children and leave her. She has done far too much harm already and he needs to put the welfare of the children first. I have not, however, recommended him taking a kitchen knife and, upon finding her in her latest drug induced stupor, cutting out her vagina and throwing it down the trash compactor. I can't even write that without getting the chills and feeling nauseous. Yet, look how cavalierly Ms. Fabian-Weber along with a multitude of other like minded individuals in society, discuss the similar mutilation of a man.

Not only do women justify the irreparable mutilation of men...they applaud it; they laugh and make jokes about it; they call it empowering and herald each new horrific incident as an act of heroic justice. Frankly, I find it all very chilling. We are, after all, talking about actual human beings. Men are not merely symbols of female victimization, to be discarded and used as we see fit in order to further 'the female cause'.

I would encourage everyone to go over to The Stir and express their disgust with Ms. Fabian-Weber and her comments.


http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/127533/wife_cuts_off_husbands_penis?result=comment_added&comment_state=member&success=1#comments

Slutwalk NYC

I hate to beat a dead horse, particularly one so ridiculous and crass...but why oh why can't the Slutwalk die? I realize some may suggest that stupid bloggers like Kim giving it continued attention may be part of the problem but, sadly, with or without my commentary, it continues to thrive. Some feminists are heralding Slutwalk as the best and biggest thing to happen in feminism in some time, "The future of feminism....A rebellion against sexual standards!" A pathetic and ridiculous display of privileged entitled women with too much time and not enough sense! O.K., I admit....that last bit was mine.

I was of the opinion and hope that Slutwalk, overwhelmed by a wave of ridicule, mockery and scorn, would be quickly swept under the rug and recognized as the embarrassment that it is. Instead, it seems that feminists have finally found a way to connect with the new tide of young women. I guess, in retrospect, I'm not all that surprised by the "movements" popularity. They've also found a way to capture the media and the general public's attention. It's like the Jerry Springer of protests...absolutely appalling and pathetic....but you just can't help but watch.

Of course, feminists view the whole thing in their typical myopic fashion.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/12040/slutwalk_nyc_an_important_success_corsets_and_all

"I did see a few women wearing corsets at SlutWalk. They were easy to find—you just had to look for the camera crews—but there weren’t many. More women went topless. This, I soon realized, was brilliant; the press cameras had to stay away from them. The men on the sidewalk were less inhibited; they gathered on stoops, at intersections, or in their fire escapes, holding out phone cameras, rapt with predatory fascination."

Oy vey. So women are strolling down public streets TOPLESS but it's the men who are uninhibited? What the heck were those disgusting leering men thinking? They should have locked themselves away in closets or something so they wouldn't have been able to see the women. If they had any decency at all they would have gouged out their very eyes instead of accosting these poor women with their stares. Women have every right to parade topless through downtown New York City in the middle of the day but how dare men be there and look!

That Slutwalk has been called the "next global feminist movement" should clue feminists in to just how ridiculous their movement has become. I've watched feminism becoming increasingly desperate in it's bid to maintain a semblance of legitimacy for some time now...and here we are. Feminists are overjoyed that they're getting so much attention and completely clueless as to how stupid they look. Not that this should come as a surprise (see Vagina Monologues...another fine example of feminist protest).

Honestly, as one who quantifies herself as anti feminist, I suppose I should cheer on the Slutwalkers. I say "should" because, quite frankly, it's embarrassing. I would much prefer to see feminism die out because a majority of women stood up and denounced it for the hate movement that it is. Instead, feminists themselves have made it almost unnecessary to undermine feminism...as they're doing such a bang up job all on their own. Every overblown, ridiculous claim they make concerning rape, abuse, the oppression of women...does more to invalidate their movement then any anti feminist such as myself could ever do. They've made themselves ridiculous and are well on their way to losing all legitimacy. Of course, as I've stated before, the problem anymore isn't so much feminism...as we see from our Slutwalkers, it's becoming little more than a crude and tasteless joke. The problem is the mess it's left in it's wake.

Taking Back Slut

Perhaps you’ve heard about the latest angry women protests dubbed “slutwalks”. In response to Toronto Policeman, Michael Sanguinetti’s advice that, in order to avoid victimization, women should refrain from dressing like “sluts”, women are taking to the streets clad in slutgear to protest.

Granted, Mr. Sanguinetti could have chosen his words a bit more carefully, but, let’s face it…. the advice, while a touch unrefined, is basically sound. It’s similar to advice my mother gave me and that I would pass along to my own daughter. Unsurprisingly, feminists are blowing his remark out proportion, automatically equating victimization with rape, alleging that Mr. Sanguinetti, instead of stating simple truths, is telling women that if they dress provocatively they deserve to be raped.

In these slutwalks, women are gearing up in bikinis and lingerie and scrawling the word “slut” upon their bare skin in an effort to “take back” the word slut. From the SlutwalkToronto.com, “And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.”

Why is that feminists are always taking back things that no sane, logical person would want in the first place?

Generally when a group of individuals unite and rally to take something back….it’s something you actually want; something good that has been wrongfully maligned. All I ever see feminists taking back are things I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Instead of taking back 'bitch' or 'slut'; how about we try taking back wife, mother or femininity. Instead of re-appropriating slut, how about reclaiming honesty, virtue and integrity? But I guess we wouldn’t see feminists marching to take back those things…as they are the ones who have fought voraciously to malign and destroy them.

I suppose this is why I identify so much more with the men’s movement than with feminism. I can rally behind men taking back “father”, “masculinity”, “man”….because they are good things that have been wrongfully vilified. They are worth fighting for; worth taking back. Conversely, I will forever stand at odds with feminists because I have absolutely no interest in fighting for their causes. They are the antithesis of everything I stand for....forever fighting for all the wrong things.

There Are No Vampires

Any one remotely observant has heard about or had opportunity to notice the ‘Twilight’ phenomena. Women young and old are veritably obsessed with the series. It may come as a surprise to some, but I actually understand this. I understand losing oneself in the fictional worlds encased within the pages of books. Throughout my life, I’ve spent countless hours in the imaginary worlds of Orson Scott Card, C.S. Lewis, Richard Adams, J.R.R. Tolkien....among many others. As a child, my parents would punish me by not allowing me to sit in my room and read because, given my choice, that’s where I would be.

There did however, come a point where I realized that I was trading in experiences and opportunities in the real world for those in my fictional ones. My fictional worlds were an escape; places that were exciting and adventurous but, always, much, much safer and insular for a shy and insecure child than the real world.

As a teenager, I learned to reach outside my shell. I continued to enjoy books, but forced myself to take an active part in the world around me. What a plethora of opportunities there are to engage in and to grow from in the world. There is a wealth of knowledge to be found in books, but that knowledge cannot take the place of the kind of learning that comes from life experience. One cannot truly experience life, its highs or its lows, through the pages of a book and it is only through truly experiencing life that one hones character and is able to develop empathy and integrity. We can learn about the kind of person we’d like to become in a book, but we can never develop great qualities without first living and experiencing them.

Let’s return to ‘Twilight’ for a moment...women are obsessed with vampires because they are the ultimate dark knight. They come, not only to sweep you off your feet and take you away from the mundane trivialities of day to day life, but from life itself and all the pesky little inconveniences that mortality entails.

The tragedy is that women spend their time daydreaming about being rescued from life instead of grabbing onto it, immersing themselves in it and living it. Life is messy. It isn’t the picture perfect experience found in romance books. No matter how brave or handsome the knight in shining armor, at the end of the day, there will still be a house to clean, jobs to do, kids to feed, noses to wipe....this is just life. Instead of cherishing the moments of it, regardless how seemingly small and inconsequential, women abnegate and renounce it. They mourn and revile their common, mundane existences while missing irreplaceable and integral opportunities for growth.

Ultimately, there never was a perfect knight in shining armor...not really, because at the end of the day, our knight was just a man; a human being, equipped with the prerequisite agglomeration of human faults and weaknesses. He never could have saved us because he would have had to save us from ourselves and from inescapable aspects of human existence. Thus, women have abandoned their human knights for mythical, immortal beings.

But there are no vampires. There is only this one life that we have and all the messy inconveniences that come with it...because life is messy. It’s messy and difficult but it’s also wonderful and beautiful. We can waste life pining for things we’ll never have; things that never have, can or will exist, or we can jump head first into it and make the most of it....the most of ourselves.

What a shallow and ego-centric notion this whole knight/vampire business is to begin with; imagine wasting life wishing for someone to save you; to take responsibility for your happiness, when you could actually be out there doing something for someone else. You could be doing your best to help others instead of fruitlessly pining for something that will never happen. It is no one’s responsibility to take upon them the insurmountable task of saving us from ourselves. Happiness and contentment are things that are found within and not something that we can gain from others.

Once again, no matter how dashing, brave, noble and wonderful, the knight in shining armor will always fall short. This is how entitled; how detached from logic and reality women have become. If our knight in shining armor can no longer make the cut, what chance does the average, decent guy stand? Women are so immersed in what they want; the guaranteed perfect happy ending they are convinced they are owed, but they place no focus on what they are bringing to the table....which increasingly is little more than a myriad of impossible expectations.

As much as I love my fictional, literary worlds where I engage in epic battles against the powers of darkness, overcome incredible odds and have assisted in saving the world on several occasions....in real life, I can actually make a difference. I can fight against evils in the world, by speaking out against them, by choosing and defending right and by living a good and moral existence. I may never be a heroine that saves the world, but I can strive to be a great wife and mother, devoting my time to my family and in seeking to aid and uplift those around me. I may not be able to defeat terrible villains but I can do my small bit to defeat hunger, sadness and hopelessness in the downtrodden, defeated and destitute that I come in contact with. And, while I will never be spirited away by a dark and handsome vampire and imbued with immortality and eternal youth, I can have a real relationship with a decent man who I can love and who loves me back. While it may not be the great and fantastic voyage found within the fictional worlds of books…it is real; it is the voyage of life and it is infinitely more rewarding than any that can be found in a book.

I Have Been Declared An Enemy

Well, it's official...I've been placed upon the "Enemies List" (guffaw, chuckle) of Mr. David Furtrelle on his 'Man boobz' blog. Of course, if I'm an enemy, I can only imagine what qualifies one as a friend....that old adage springs to mind concerning the company one keeps....ahem.

Anyhow....let's do a quick evaluation of me to more clearly elucidate someone who Mr. Furtrelle has declared his "enemy".

I am a rather uncompromising individual who believes that nothing is of greater importance than truth and right. I am a proponent of honesty, integrity and virtue and a strident advocate for the necessity of being held accountable for one's choices and actions.

I abhor convenient morality and flexible value systems.

I believe in treating others with kindness and respect and in the value of selfless charity. I condemn behaviors that ignore and would seek to undermine the rights of others. I denounce selfishness, shallowness, puerility, lasciviousness and ego-centrism.

My enemies are nihilism, dishonesty, hypocrisy, narcissism, and the blatant disregard for the lives of others.

On my blog, I seek to promote that which is of worth. I encourage women to embrace values of substance and to disavow selfish, childish behaviors and convenient morality. I condemn misandry in society and promote such ignored, belittled and antiquated notions as the importance of fathers, the necessity of families and the undeniable value of honing one's character and leading a life ruled by honesty and integrity.

One must ask, Mr. Furtrelle, if I am your enemy...what does that say about you?

Why I Do What I Do

FEMINISM-Encompasses a mantra of absolute freedom of choice for women, i.e. the ability to behave in any chosen manner, freed from expectations and responsibilities; embraces immorality and promiscuity while refusing to recognize absolutes concerning right and wrong, thus promoting convenient and flexible morality; maligns marriage, parenthood and all forms of social expectations and accountability; encourages shallow, narcissistic behavior; forwards an agenda of socialism, encouraging big government and dependency upon the state; promotes the interests of women at the expense of men, encouraging the intentional denigration of men, masculinity and fatherhood.

This is what I fight against.

When I started blogging, I'd never heard of the MRM or MRA's. I'd never read an anti-feminist blog or been on a men's rights forum. I started blogging because I saw something I found destructive and reprehensible and decided I needed to do SOMETHING, regardless how small, about it.

This is how I deal with that which I find abhorrent. When I realized how many animals were neglected, abused and abandoned, I joined animal rescue and started fostering, rehabilitating and re-homing dogs. When I recognized the abuse of children, I started working with children. When I realized the neglect of U.S. veterans, I started donating to our local veterans and going to visit those that are left old and forgotten in care facilities. When I realized the amount of homeless and hungry, I joined local groups to help feed, shelter and clothe the homeless.

Now, I'm not setting myself up as some kind of saint. This is what I have to do in order to exist in a world where there is so much I find abhorrent. I've found that if I am doing what I can to make a difference, I don't become overwhelmed by that which I find unacceptable.

The same thing goes for the rights of men, fathers and the state of womanhood. I am horrified by what has been done to fathers. I am saddened by what women have allowed themselves to become. I am angry at what has been done to the family and to the bonds between husband and wife; parent and child.

I do what I do because I cannot do otherwise, not because I am indelibly stuck in the middle of 'all this'....quite the contrary. I am fairly lucky. Unlike the scores of men who have no choice but to deal with the ravages of feminism, whose lives have been destroyed by the family court system, by specious allegations of harassment or by false allegations of rape....none of 'this' significantly effects my life. I live in a rather isolated area, comfortably surrounded by people who share my views, values and standards. My family and I spend much of our spare time in the mountains, blissfully removed from the ailments of modern civilization.

Still...despite the ease with which I could distance myself from that which I find deplorable, I don't. I don't, because I believe that once a wrong has been recognized, a person should be honor bound to do what they can to fight against that wrong.

I would issue a challenge to everyone who recognizes wrongs....especially to those women who recognize them but opt to remain still and silent because they, like I, are relatively sheltered from the evils in their nice, safe, little worlds. Stand for something. Stand for right and stand against wrong. I know it is a familiar mantra here on my blog, but it is one that cannot be repeated enough.

My children questioned me once about what they felt was excessive and unnecessary repetition at church. I believe their exact complaint was that they "repeat the same stuff over and over again". My response to them was, "So are you doing everything right, yet?"

I will continue to repeat my call, "over and over again" for people to stand up for what is right as long as so many voices remain silent. Feminism, the hate movement, is led by the loud and vicious minority...one whose voices could be countered and drowned out if more people would simply stand up and speak out. Speak out for little boys who are being ignored in order to champion their female counterparts, speak out for the young men who are taught that they are dangerous and violent; something that women and children need to be protected from....something to be feared. Speak out for the fathers who have been labeled "unnecessary"; for scores of men who suffer in silence in a society that screams, "WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU" in it's every effort, action and piece of legislation. Speak out for the number of men who will quietly end their lives, not even leaving a note because they assume that nobody really cares.

I will end this post by linking to The False Rape Society, simply because there are few better examples of the evils that need combating then the Hofstra false rape case. This is what I am fighting for....the lives of men.

Hofstra False Rape Case

The True Nature of Feminism

Anyone familiar with my blog is fairly familiar with my take on feminism. My assertions are often countered by women proclaiming that feminism isn’t really bad; that the things I relate are only representative of a small, extreme, fringe element, are taken out of context or, the ultimate denial, that they are simply not a part of feminism. I addressed this contention in my post The Truth About Feminism. Despite the plethora of supporting evidence to my position presented in this post, I continue to receive comments from self-proclaimed feminists denying the dark and insidious nature of feminism.

I’m often astounded by how little these women actually know and understand about the movement they support. I can’t imagine choosing to label myself something without an extensive knowledge and understanding of that label, yet, women continue to label themselves feminists while refusing to accept or believe what feminism really is.

There seems to be a perpetual attempt to reinvent and reclaim feminism….something tantamount to trying to reinvent and reclaim Nazism in my eyes. It doesn’t matter how you repackage or try to sell it…it’s never going to be anything more than a hate movement. Anything built upon a foundation of hate and lies will always eventually fall back to the invidious roots that support it.

Feminism was never a peaceful, loving movement interested only in equal treatment and opportunity for all. Even with today’s attempt to package it up to appear more palatable, feminists still fail to make even the merest pretense of caring about the rights or concerns of anyone besides women. When was the last time you saw a feminist say, “Holy crap! Women are falsely accusing men of rape right and left….we need to do something about this!”? How many feminists have you heard express concern for the disproportionate number of men committing suicide or sitting in jail? How many feminists concern themselves with the rights of men to have access to their children?

Feminists go so far as to justify and even celebrate injustices and misfortunes that befall men if they believe those miseries will somehow benefit women. It’s “good” for a man to be raped because then he will have more empathy for the plight of female rape victims. It’s acceptable for innocent men to sit in jail, wrongly accused and convicted, if it means eliminating the odd chance that an actual rapists goes free.

Feminists could care less about men, families, children, society….unless it somehow directly affects or benefits women. They could care less about any injustices suffered by men…because feminism is built on a foundation of hatred and lies; hatred for the natural differences of and the bonds between men and women; lies that women have been perpetually abused and oppressed by men.

Feminists have no concern for men because they believe that men deserve any injustices that befall them. They want men to pay and to suffer for abuses allegedly perpetrated against women. At heart, they are destructively jealous of masculinity and loathing of femininity.

Feminism refuses to acknowledge or recognize the sacrifices of men. Women were not oppressed by men. They were cared for, loved and sheltered by men. Men fought, bled and died for their wives and children. The greatest love of all is to lay down one’s life for another…and this is what feminists have dubbed “oppression”….effectively twisting and vilifying tremendous love and sacrifice.

Feminism is not and never was a movement for the majority of women. It was engendered by a small subset of women, predominantly lesbian, who truly sought and desired for the sexes to be separate. The average woman’s idea of Utopia is in no way parallel to that inspired by feminism. A world where the bonds between men and women have been broken is not a world that most women want. Women have allowed feminists, a group that in no way represents their interests or desires....to represent their interests and desires.

So feminists, please, spare me the rhetoric about the "true nature" of feminism. I know, far better apparently then you do, the true nature of feminism. Feminism is a hate movement. It is only concerned with expanding it's own perverse and fallacious concept of the interests of women....expanding them at the expense of everyone and everything else. I'm not interested in trying to distort the truth in order to make it more palatable. Feminism is the rattle snake on the mountain....I know what it is and I'm not interested in picking it up.

I'm Not A Spoiled Brat!

I'm was driving through town today, navigating the hustle and bustle that predictably accompanies this time of year with everyone getting their kids ready to go back to school. As I was sitting at an intersection waiting for the light to turn, I noticed the personalized license plate frame on the Audi in front of me. It read, "I'm not a spoiled brat....I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!"

Now, I could understand this slogan being emblazoned on the t-shirt of a precocious toddler but the car in question was being driven by a woman who appeared to be in her mid-thirties. A mom, with children of her own, who had chosen to proudly proclaim herself a spoiled brat.

I remember as a small child being admonished to not behave like a spoiled brat. Being labeled thus was embarrassing and humiliating. It was definitely not a badge of honor or something to boast about as we see from the woman in question. I would like to suggest that this woman is a rarity or an aberration but that simply isn't the case. The attitude conveyed by that ridiculous license plate frame sums up much of what is wrong with modern women who choose to proudly display their immaturity, selfishness and disregard for others. They revel in their ability to abjure personal responsibility and brag about being able to get away with behaving like spoiled children.

I happen to feel intensely sorry for this woman's husband, along with all husbands who are married to women like her, who, instead of a partner and help meet, are burdened with an additional child to raise....a child that they cannot ground, punish or restrict....a child with the ability to take from them everything they hold dear should she not get her own way.

A marriage is supposed to be a collaboration of adults...two people joined and working together....fully committed to the best interests of their marriage and family. It is not supposed to be a man shouldering all responsibility, not only for the children he sires, but also for the adult he's married to.

Children should have the benefit of being raised by adults...mature individuals who are able to teach them fundamental lessons on behavior and accountability. How can we possibly expect children to understand the value of personal responsibility when they are being raised by women who flaunt their ability to avoid such responsibiliy? How is a young girl going to understand the value she should bring as a wife and mother if she is raised by a woman who ignores her obligations in exchange for the ability to behave as a spoiled child.

As a wife and mother, I tend not to think in terms of me or what I want. I think about my family; what is best for my marriage and how I can best serve the interests of my children because that is my responsibility....the obligation I accepted when I chose to get married and to have children. There is no room as a wife and mother for behaving like a spoiled, selfish, immature child. It is a mother's job to teach her children not to behave thus, teaching first and foremost through her own example.

Because We Can

During a press conference for her new movie, Jennifer Aniston announced,

“Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don’t have to settle with a man just to have that child,”

Hate to break it to her...but women have realized this for some time now...hence the plethora of children currently being raised by single moms in western society.

Now, it may come as a surprise, but I don't intend to spend the majority of this post decrying feminism's destructive attack upon fathers and the nuclear family....destructive as it's been. Nor am I going to spend very much time detailing the appalling manner in which Ms. Aniston has relegated the bearing and nurturing of children to the status of some mundane and inconsequential endeavor ("just to have that child"). Stepping aside from this and Ms. Aniston's despicable, yet entirely too predictable, 'father's are unnecessary' rhetoric, I would like to specifically address her emphasis on what women 'can' do.

Today, women have limitless options of what they 'can' do...which feminists aggressively wield as symbols of female strength and empowerment.

We got it...women can do anything they want.

We can dress in next to nothing and parade ourselves through the streets if we want, we can sleep with as many men as we can fit into a day if we want, we can abort our children or choose to keep them and sue for child support if we want, we can walk out on our marriages if we want, we can have children and condemn them to a life without ever knowing a father if we want...all free from censure because woe unto anyone who dares question, judge or condemn us for our actions.

What a disturbing and shallow thing our empowered, modern day women have become....so consumed with proving what they can do that they've lost all sense of what they should do.

Growing up, even as a small child, I understood that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should and that to act to the detriment of others was wrong. It's time that women, instead of triumphing over our ability to do anything we want because we can, regardless of its affect upon others, society our even our own souls....start focusing on whether or not we should. It's time to start asking the morally relevant questions....in fact, it's long past time.

The very best possible scenario is for children to be born to parents who want and love them and to be raised with both a mother and a father in the home. A woman should never plan to have children without a father who is actively involved in his/her life because children need a father.

According to the logic of Aniston and her ilk, if a woman wants a baby she is simply entitled to have one. What is intrinsically wrong with this thinking is that it's egocentric and rooted in selfishness....and parenthood, when done correctly, is the single most selfless endeavor a human being can undertake. There is no room for puerile, narcissistic whim when it comes to the caring for and bringing forth of life.

I'm weary of hearing about what women want and what they can do when we should be focusing on what's right, what is best for the whole and for the betterment of society. What does it matter what I want or what I can do if it comes at the detriment of others? Why should an innocent child be forced to pay for the entitlement of women? Why should anyone? Why should marriage and families be destroyed and society subsequently fail all so women are able to prove that they can do what they want?

Feminists Celebrating Abortion

Anti-life feminists are ecstatically heralding a recent episode of 'Friday Night Lights' for it's "bravery" in the way it has handled a situation of teenage pregnancy. As for the details, I'll have to take their word on it because I don't watch the show, but, apparently, the feminist glee revolves around the decision of 15 year old Becky Sproles to have an abortion.

http://community-classic.feministing.com/2010/07/im-rooting-for-an-abortion-thi.html

One article on feministing.com was entitled, 'I'm rooting for an abortion this Friday night'. Does that seem odd to you for those who purport to defend choice? It's the reason I choose to call those who are pro-abortion 'anti-life' instead of the more PC 'pro-choice'. I've yet to see a self-proclaimed 'pro-choicer' celebrate when a women chooses not to abort a child. It's only when an unplanned pregnancy ends in abortion that feminist's start celebrating it and call it "pro-female", as a subsequent feministing.com article praised the 'Friday Night Lights' episode for being.

http://feministing.com/2010/08/06/dont-mess-with-tami/

Apparently, getting pregnant and choosing to have the baby is anti-female and anti-choice. The only choice that is acceptable and brave by feminist standards is the one that ends in choosing to kill your unborn child. Making the truly laudable decisions, such as altering your life for the life of another and taking responsibility for your actions, is deemed unworthy of commendation. Wholly unsurprising, I suppose, for a movement that promotes selfishness and a lack of accountability in women.

In the Washington Post, Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood, similarly praises this episode of 'Friday Night Lights'. Ms. Feldt, in her promotion of abortion, proclaims,

Even before Roe v. Wade legalized it in 1973, abortion was common. Most everyone knew of someone who had died from a back-alley abortion, or a child who had been orphaned by one. The abortion rights movement was, as a result, intimately connected to the larger women's rights movement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072302432.html

Really? I was born shortly after Roe v. Wade, but, for the sake of understanding, I've asked my mom, grandmas, aunts....not one of them ever knew anyone, or even knew someone who knew someone, who had died in a back-alley abortion. They knew that such a thing occasionally happened, but it was far from the common occurrence Ms. Feldt would like her readers to believe it to have been. Women were not dying in droves in American back-alleys pre-1973. The vast, vast majority of women who became pregnant did what women have been doing since humans first walked the Earth...they had babies.

1972 was the last full year before Roe vs. Wade. For that year, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. Now, I'm not one to make little of the deaths of 39 women, but it's an exchange I'd be willing to make for the MILLION or so babies that are aborted annually in the U.S. And, please, spare me the poor women who are victims of rape and incest angle...don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone who is a victim of rape or incest should be forced to bear the child, but a 2000 study in the U.S. showed the percentage of pregnancies aborted because of incest or rape as a whopping 1%. Yep, you read that correctly, 1%. The top three reasons a woman has an abortion?

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy

Abortions due to risk to maternal health? 2.8%

Overwhelmingly, the reasons women choose to abort their children have nothing to do with life threatening conditions, rape or incest. Of course, our abortion applauding feminists are fully aware of and quite comfortable with this fact.

Make no mistake, feminists consider each every baby aborted a victory for 'the cause'.

Standing Up For Right

Hi Kim;

I'm sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you could help me.

I have spent the last year or so studying feminism and the harm it has brought society. I don't know how long you have been involved in anti-feminism/men's rights, but I have the impression it has been a while. Would you mind recommending a site that is woman friendly? Are there any? Every one I have seen and joined as of yet (and it's been a fair few) have been more anti-woman than pro-men. I frequently find myself feeling less than sympathetic,and indeed sometimes hostile, towards these men - not at all what I want to achieve!


I want to learn more, become involved, and support men's rights but I am extremely uncomfortable doing so with all of the sites I have found so far. I come to you as a concerned wife and mother. Thank you.

What you see above is a message sent to me by a woman. I've received more than one such message. Invariably, they come from women who are opposed to the rampant misandry they see in society, who reject (or are at least starting to reject) feminism but are uncomfortable at MRA sites and forums because of the anti-women sentiments they perceive there.

While I responded to the above message individually, I would like to respond to the rest collectively.

First of all, I think it bears mentioning that men have been on the receiving end of a concerted effort to extirpate them. The very law that purports to protect us has conspired to destroy the lives of men. They have been vilified; their goodness and generosity maligned and used against them. They have been betrayed by those whom they have loved, cared for and sought to protect.

Yes, there are angry, sad, disillusioned, disappointed and disgusted men.

I would even submit that men aren't nearly as angry as they have every right to be under the circumstances considering that many of them have had their lives decimated....everything they have worked for and cared about ripped away from them. And, while there may be a few voices that are hostile toward women...that is NOTHING compared to an entire society and legal system that is geared toward the decimation of men.

That said, the reason to oppose misandry in society and feminism is because they are wrong. It isn't to fit in, to join a group or to expand one's social horizons. Who cares if you are unwelcome or uncomfortable at a men's forum? The entire online community could hate you and it should have zero effect on what you do because you shouldn't be doing it in order to gain approval. If you want fanfare and pats on the back, then adhere to and promulgate the oh-so-popular feminist ideologies....stand upon a platform of hatred and anti-male bias if you're looking for acceptance, praise and adulation. For me....I would rather do what is right.

You don't even have to be part of an online forum (although I do recommend taking the time to read the articles and further educate yourself) in order to fight misandry. Start your own site, or your own blog, and wage your own war. Fight feminism in the home, at work, on the streets and amongst your peers. Speak out against hatred. Speak out each and every time you hear the common, readily accepted biases and slurs against men. Stand up in defense of such "antiquated notions" as honesty, virtue, marital fidelity, integrity, kindness and compassion. Condemn the feminist culture that encourages promiscuity, lasciviousness, cruelty, selfishness and a lack of accountability in women. Denounce double standards and biases in society and within our legal system. Stand up in support of a father's right to parent his children and censure those who would suggest a father is anything less than integral in the lives of his children. Deprecate each and every incidence of violence, dishonesty, cruelty and evil on the part of women and demand that they be held accountable for their actions.

What difference does it make if you don't like someone on a forum? You shouldn't be doing this for them...at least not on an individual level. You should be doing it for your fathers and for their fathers...for the countless, nameless, forgotten men upon whose backs our society was built. You should be doing it for your brothers and your husbands whom you love and for your sons whose job it is for you to protect. You should be doing it for society and humanity and you should even be doing it for yourself because, as bad as it is to live in a world decayed by a corrupting evil....to live in such a world and have done NOTHING is inexcusable.

Ultimately, the reason to do what is right is simply because it is the right thing to do.

You may not be able to change the world, but you can make a difference in the lives of those around you. There are so many ways to help. A few additional things that I do and recommend;

-Organize a coat drive in your area and collect coats for the homeless (the vast majority of which are men).
-Suggest doing an "angel tree" at your work or church for the local VA Homes and hospitals (for anyone who is unfamiliar with angel trees, they are Christmas trees whose sole ornaments are comprised of paper angels with a 'wish list' for different individuals. People can pick an angel off the tree and purchase the things on the list. I've done this for veterans, elderly in retirement homes, the homeless and impoverished children, and it is always my family's favorite part of Christmas).
-Find like minded individuals and together start a letter writing campaign protesting misandry in our media and legal system.

This is what integrity is. It is deciding what is right and standing up for it no matter what.

*I started this post about a month ago (it's been sitting with plenty of company in the dusty archives of Kim's uncompleted posts) and was reminded of it when I read Hestia's recent blog post 'The Place Women for in the MRM'. I would recommend reading it as she adds additional insight and ideas on activism.

Happy Father's Day!

I apologize that this is a little late....I've been busy celebrating all the wonderful fathers in my own life. I'd be remiss though, if I didn't take a moment to say happy Father's Day to fathers everywhere.

A child needs a father like a fish needs water....we all need our fathers.

A few of my favorite quotes on fathers.


He didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it. -Clarence Budington Kelland


My father used to play with my brother and me in the yard. Mother would come out and say, "You're tearing up the grass." "We're not raising grass," Dad would reply. "We're raising boys." -Harmon Killebrew

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years. -Mark Twain

Workplace Illogic

My husband related an incident to me recently. I'm sure similar scenarios are played out in workplaces across America on a daily basis. I'm sure that anyone reading this will be able to think of an almost mirror occurrence they've seen, experienced or heard about.

A woman at his work has a penchant for wearing low, cleavage revealing tops and short, tight skirts. She makes a habit of leaning forward while wearing said shirts to give her audience (when male and attractive) a full display of her assets.

Some men at his workplace take full advantage of this show (and why not....if she's putting it out there for everyone to see). Other men (especially those in management positions, like my husband) work really hard to avoid looking at her at all....as, instead of female assets, all they tend to see is sexual harassment suits on the horizon.

All of management is made to tiptoe around her....because you can't ever say anything about a woman's right to flaunt her sexuality. Of course, smelly guy gets told (as nicely as possible) that he needs to bath more frequently, and the the man who likes to take his shoes off is asked to keep then on while at work because it's inappropriate and unhygienic......

Recently, the young woman in question came to human resources with (surprise, surprise) a complaint of sexual harassment. Allegedly, she was walking by one of the men that work there and he bent down to get a better view of what she was displaying in her miniskirt (according to the guy, he was bending down to pick up something he dropped and didn't even realize she was there).

Now, I don't know if the man was guilty of intentional ogling. Even if he was....can we really blame him? As I told my husband, her problem wasn't that she was being ogled (that was her intention) it was who was doing the ogling. HE wasn't the kind of guy she wanted noticing her barely concealed assets. Now, the three or four guys she finds attractive that convene around her desk daily for their own little work time show....she has no problem with. In fact, she revels in their attention. The poor man she finds unworthy of her immodest display...he's some creepy guy that "really made her uncomfortable" and makes her feel like she's working in a "hostile environment".

In a more logical world, human resources would have been able to laugh away her allegations, citing cause and effect. They would have been able to point out the obvious....that if you're going to put it all out there on display....don't be offended when people notice. In today's world of illogic and double standards, the man was given an official warning and put on probation. Incidentally, the woman in question, despite feeling so uncomfortable and violated, continues to dress exactly as she did before.

False Rape Strike Force

My attention has been called to a blog formed from a collaboration of admirable and prominent voices within the MRM....Archivist, Dr. Snark, Fidelbogen and E. Steven Berkimer. Please check in frequently at their False Rape Strike Force blog, keeping an eye out for activism opportunities on the horizon.

http://littlewhiterapelies.blogspot.com/

Mary Winkler....Survivor and Heroine

Kim Essex from Waff News has taken the time to update us on the latest in Mary Winkler's life. In case you've somehow remained unaware of the despicable exploits of Ms. Winkler or simply need a refresher, see here;

http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2008/08/mary-winkler-gets-custody.html


Some highlights from the Waff article;

The Tennessee woman convicted of killing her minister husband with a shotgun blast to the back is speaking about her new life and raising her girls.

Mary Winkler has come a long way from being the frail and timid preacher's wife who took the stand in her own defense.

Please note the shameful attempt to turn Ms. Winkler into both victim and heroine.

Ms. Winkler's come a long way.
'
Having overcome horrific abuse at the hands of her husband (like being asked to wear red, high heels during sex...the horror! the horror!), she's no longer the oppressed, "frail", "timid" woman she once was....now she's strong and empowered.

Having successfully gotten away with murder....she's an inspiration to us all.

The jury found Mary Winkler guilty of voluntary manslaughter for the shooting death. She's served her time and successfully won back custody of her three daughters from her dead husband's parents.

Served her time? Well, yes, I suppose if five months in county jail and two months in a mental health facility qualifies as "time served" for the crime of cold-blooded murder....

Now she's revealing a new secret about her life. It's a whole different world these days for Mary Winkler.

She's renting a home in Smithville, Tennessee and raising her three daughters.

"This is wonderful, just having the land. And the girls will get out in there and will run and they enjoy that," said Winkler of her daughters, Patricia, Ally, and Brianna.

Winkler says they're always looking to pitch in around the house.

"They understand they need to do a little bit more around the house, they need to help out and they've done a great job," said Winkler.

How wonderful for Ms. Winkler...how sweet and precious this description of motherhood, family and domestic bliss. Are we expected to forget that the reason the girls need to "do a little bit more around the house" is because she shot their father in the back and left him there to die? Does she forget? Is she even cognizant of how disturbing her lack of remorse or recognition of her crimes is?

Yes, how wonderful, Ms. Winkler, that you are able to enjoy your life with your daughters. Too bad their father lies rotting in the ground where you put him. How do you explain that to your daughters? Oh, yes, I forgot...you're the victim. He was abusive. He got mad when you financially ruined the family by getting involved in 'The Nigerian Scam' money swindle...and, of course, we can't forget those red high heels. Surely, he deserved to die.

Winkler says she needs that help now that she is dealing with a new obstacle in her life. She's been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. "It was such a scary time. At one point we thought I had a stroke just because the disabilities were on the right side of my body," she explained.

The diagnosis threw Winkler for a loop just when she thought her life was beginning to settle down.

If there is any karmic justice in this life or the next...MS will be among the least of Ms. Winkler's concerns.

Winkler served less than 300 days behind bars and she also had to get mental health treatment.

With that past her, she focused on making a better life for her girls, going back to school and getting a job.

She says that goal seems much harder to reach now that she's been diagnosed with a disease that has no known cure.

"That" past her? Oh, you mean that little incident of her murdering her husband? Well, I suppose if one considers the brevity of her sentence, it really was just a minor inconvenience....a little hiccup in the road for Ms. Winkler.

As for the shotgun blast that day in march four years ago, Mary Winkler says she hopes her actions won't affect how people treat her girls.

"Whatever reason people have any problem with me, that's fine. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but these girls are treated for who they are, not because of what their mother's done," said Winkler. "They're three very fine young ladies."

How convenient that Ms. Winkler chooses to represent the condemnation of cold-blooded murder as an "opinion". Once again, appallingly evident is that Ms. Winkler doesn't think she did anything wrong. My unmitigated horror and disgust at her actions are not a given...not a normal, expected reaction to what she's done...they're simply my "opinion".

As for her daughters....I agree. I do hope they aren't judged and made to suffer for their mother's crimes. Lord knows, they will suffer enough being raised by their sociopath mother, without the benefit of their father....whom she killed.

Here's the link to the article if you care to read it in its entirety.

http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=12548291

She's a Woman...So She Must Be the Victim

Hat tip to Outdoors at Antimisandry for the following....

Mother Charged in Deaths of Two Vancouver Infants

The news article tells of Vancouver mom, 24 year old Sarah Jee-Wah Leung, who has been charged with the murders of her two infant sons. The body of one was found a year ago in a plastic bag outside of Leung's home. Leung was questioned at the time and then released....allowing her to become pregnant again. The body of this newborn son was buried in a landfill.

Now, I could spend great lengths of time discussing failures on behalf of the legal system that allowed Ms. Leung the opportunity to murder a second baby, but that isn't the intent of this post. Nor is the intent to vilify mothers everywhere because of the actions of Ms. Leung. What I do want to address is the shocking comments from some concerning this woman's actions.

A few examples from the comments section,

If you impregnate a woman that child is your responsibility. If you think there is a chance that you could have impregnated a woman it is your responsibility to determine whether or not she is really pregnant with your child. If you do otherwise you are a deadbeat that is not taking responsibility for his actions It does have to involve both parties, a baby is made up of 2 people! Unless the father was unaware that he had a child with this woman then he should be charged!! Probably not with murder but with neglient of a child, and accomplice to a crime considering he should have been around taking care of his child to have known the mother's mental state! Both parties acted in a disgusting manner!

Charged with what, pray tell? Murder? A man, merely by fathering a child, should be held culpable for the mother's actions? Unlike the innocent babies she murdered, Ms. Leung is not a child. She is solely responsible for her actions. The father(s) who may not even be in Ms. Leung's life or aware that he is a father, bears no responsibility for the actions of Ms. Leung.

I would have thought that she'd receive therapy after the first event and be under some supervision. Failing that, where were the concerns of her neighbours? This location is one of the most culturally diverse in town, take care of one another!

Please notice how this commenter refers to murdering one's child, putting his body in a plastic bag and tossing it out in the yard as "the first event". This isn't a horrific evil act...it's just some little event that took place a year ago. Of course, the real issue is that the neighbors weren't around and helping poor Ms. Leung out. Surely they bear responsibility for the repeat of that first little mishap.

Where is the man who fathered the pregnancy?
Does he know that his babies were killed?
Tow of them should be proceeded to court charges. Not the mother only.
If they didn't try to act the mating themselves in the first place, there would be no such miserable mischief taking place.
Once they had held hand in hand doing the close intimacy, started from the inception moment, they didn't take the contraceptive precaution preparation, they should know there were chances to be getting pregnancy. But, unfortunately, they had missed it out the precaution taken before enjoying their desire of copulation. They have to pay for their irresponsibility.

More trying to redirect blame to the father.

There is also the possibility that this was the result of very serious, yet undiagnosed post-partum depression.

Can't forget the usual standby....postpartum depression.

It takes two to tango. No charges for the man who impregnated this woman?
Obviously, not all the story here.

There's more....but you get the gist. A woman has done something despicable and the first response by many is to find someone else to blame....because we all know that women are incapable of horrific acts and that evil is solely the realm of men. Surely it must be the fault of the father, the system, forces beyond her control or society in general.

I left the following comment on this article and encourage others to take the time to comment as well.

*Sigh* As usual, a woman is accused of committing a horrific crime and the apologists start coming out of the woodwork. Instead of frantically seeking for somewhere else to direct the blame, it's time to start holding women accountable for their actions. Two dead infants, seemingly at their mother's hands, and all some people can do is try to find somebody else to blame. 'Where is the father'....because surely we can assign some blame to him.

I wonder where the father is as well. Very possibly, the mother doesn't even know herself who the father(s) is. Very possibly, the man or men never even knew they were a father. Also possible, some poor guy is going to find out that the child he never knew he had was murdered at the hands of his mother. It's telling when the focus of two dead babies becomes who failed the mother and how.

What is painfully clear is the desperate attempt by the morally defunct to remove all accountability from women. I've seen discussions on children who commit murder that are far less forgiving toward the perpetrators then people often are toward women who commit similar crimes. I've often opined that feminism, despite all it's squawking about empowerment and equality, has been very effective in reducing women to the status of children. I'm starting to rethink this position. Lately, I've noticed that children are often held to a higher standard of accountability than women. We must not criticize, we must not condemn, we must never question....even if we're talking about something as horrific as the murder of infants.

The feminist hierarchy is very clearly set with women firmly at the top. The focus of this tragedy should be on the lost lives of these innocent babies. Where instead does it go? Upon the woman. Dead babies are all but forgotten in the desperate bid to free the mother from bearing the responsibility for and the consequences from her actions.

Anonymity For U.K. Men Accused of Rape

Apparently, there is actually the odd bout of common sense amid politicians in the U.K. The newly formed Lib/Con coalition published a government program containing a pledge that would grant men who are accused of rape the same anonymity that is allowed rape accusers in court (imagine that, innocent until proven guilty...what a novel idea).

Predictably, feminists are outraged at the concept of intrinsic human rights being extended to men as well as women, contending that such a move would A) imply that women are likely to lie about rape and B) even going so far as to suggest that victims of rape would be less likely to come forward if men were granted anonymity. How very typical of feminists to make this all about women. Why protect innocent men if there's the merest chance it may prove detrimental to the feminist agenda.

That the lives of men who are accused of rape are irrevocably damaged is a fact. Despite feminist attempts, there is no room for debate on the matter. The stigma that such an accusation carries is irrevocable. The accused will always live under a shadow of doubt. People will always wonder.....they will always suspect.

There are a myriad of tales of horror. Tales of men who lost their jobs, their families, who were savagely beaten, who were killed, who were falsely convicted and spent years in prison, who took their own lives....all due to false accusations. Unfortunately, in the public eye, any man accused of rape is guilty. There is no innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion, an accusation is the equivalent of a conviction, regardless of what the court finds....regardless of whether or not the case ever even goes to trial.

Feminists would have us believe that the court system is failing women by the low number of rape convictions (I believe 6% in the U.K.). Feminists try to use this low figure to show bias against women in the court system. However, what feminists generally fail to point out is that of the rape accusations where there is sufficient evidence and cause to go to court, there is a conviction rate of nearly 60%. Bias? Well, yes....bias is alive and well within the court system but it isn't to the detriment of women. The bias lies in the way women are allowed to get away with a crime as heinous as falsely accusing a man of rape, with little to no repercussions.

Feminists would also have us believe that false rape accusations are an anomaly...too few and infrequent to be bear relevance. While I wish this were the case, the evidence suggests otherwise.

A study of rape allegations in Indiana over a nine-year period revealed that over 40% were shown to be false — not merely unproven. According to the author, “These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.” ( Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations. )

In 1985, a study of 556 rape allegations found that 27% accusers recanted when faced with a polygraph (which can be ordered in the military), and independent evaluation showed a false accusation rate of 60%. (McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.)


http://www.billoblog.com/?p=134

Of course, even without a shred of supporting evidence....I would be skeptical of feminist claims. One need merely watch the nightly news to see the disturbing trend of false rape allegations and the corresponding lack of conscience they imply.

I will hope this measure is simply the first step in a chain of such measures. I will hope that after U.K. men who have been accused of rape are granted anonymity, they will move on to measures to adequately address the growing number of false rape accusations. I will hope that we will eventually see a day where false rape accusers are given the same sentences they were willing to subject their victims to and I will hope they serve every bit as much time in jail for their despicable crimes. Additionally, I will hope that politicians in the U.S. will emulate their counterparts in the U.K., dredging up their own bit of common sense and putting an end to the atrocities currently going on in our court system.

I would encourage everyone to write your representatives in Congress, praising the combined efforts in the U.K. and demanding that we in the U.S. implement similar measures.


The False Rape Society has two posts concerning opposition to the U.K. anonymity measure.

A Call To Arms

Refutation of Motion Opposing Anonymity

Be sure to check out both links and take advantage of activism opportunities to speak out in support of anonymity for men accused of rape.

Memorial Day

A Response to 'The Concerns of Women'

Some of you may recall the letter I sent out to feminist.com along with a handful of other "women's sites" (I use quotation marks as I consider the "women's" part dubious....they definitely don't represent or speak for me). For anyone who missed it...here's my post,

The Concerns of Women



Well, I recently, belatedly and surprisingly did receive the following response.

Thanks for reaching out to feminist.com and forgive me if this is a duplicate response. And if not a duplicate -- apologies for responding so late.


I general I think if anyone is bringing attention to violence committed by women it's feminists. (Case in point -- see Ann Jones, When Women Kill). And while I think it's uniquely feminists is because they take women's rage seriously - most people discount violences by women precisely because they underestimate the power of women and what they are capable of. It's also feminist who are trying to understand the roots of violence, which often begins in childhood and begins with being violated in those initial years and how it manifests over time.


Good luck raising more awareness about this...but hopefully your desire to point out women as culprits won't overshadow the fact that men are more likely to be abuses. Take care Amy

Sigh...not that I expected anything more.

You'll notice that the author points out it is feminists who have pioneered addressing violent women....of course, it's also feminist who are "trying to understand the roots of violence" and how it "begins with being violated in those initial years". In other words, feminists are delving into violence committed women in order to see how it isn't their fault and how some man is ultimately to blame.

The best part, though, comes at the end, where I am reminded that any horrific actions or behaviors on the part of women are really insignificant because "men are more likely to be abuse(r)s". And that....is feminism in a nutshell....avoidance and denial of anything remotely negative about women and an immediate redirection of focus to those horrible, evil men. Why concern ourselves with children being abused and murdered by their mothers or by women showing a complete disregard for the value of life as they lodge false rape accusations at innocent men. What could these things matter as long as there are men out there hurting women. Apparently, nothing is of as great of importance as the welfare of women...not even the lives of children.

The state of womanhood will continue it's stark decline until the time comes that those who purport to speak in their behalf start addressing the issues that really effect women. While we can't control the actions of others the one thing we have complete autonomy over is our own actions. Apparently it's better to be hapless victims then to take responsibility for one's own life....but wait....I thought women were strong and empowered....ah yes, just one more feminist contradiction.

Mother Returns Adopted Son To Russia

Sad, disturbing story that's causing quite a bit of controversy.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/09/russia-adoption-tennessee.html

In short, a mother in the U.S. adopts a 7 year old boy from Russia. After having him in her home for some months, she sticks a note on him that she's changed her mind because he's violent and disturbed and has her mother drive him to the airport where he's put on a plane and returned to the Russia.

This is the comment I left on this article,

It's unsurprising if this little boy had emotional and behavioral problems. Such things should be anticipated in these types of situations. Sadly, I've no doubt that whatever emotional issues he may have had at the onset of this adoption have been significantly compounded. He needed love and care. He needed to know that there were people who would be there for him no matter what.

Once you legally adopt a child, the life and care of that child is your responsiblity until he/she is an adult. This is no different than a woman giving birth and then, following a trial period, sending the child back in a cab to the hospital with a note that she'd changed her mind.

The care and raising of a child is an enormous responsiblity. To wipe one's hands of their obligations where another life is involved.....especially when the life is that of an innocent child, is unconscionable.

I know people who adopted a little boy from an orphanage (Vietnamese, I believe). He was in the orphanage from birth and was never held, rocked or shown affection of any kind. He had a plethora of behavioral issues. They stood by him and did their best for him, and no, it was never easy....but that is what they obligated to do when they made the commitment to raise and care for him.

I will hope that there is someone who will see and care about the needs of this little boy. I hope that the damage that has been done by his adoptive family can be countered and that someone can show him his worth and that he deserves to be loved.

As I said in my quote, I appreciate that an unloved, unwanted child who's been raised in a Russian orphanage could have some pretty hefty baggage to deal with. I appreciate that the woman who adopted him could have been unprepared for this baggage and felt very much in over her head. Regardless....he's a little boy. He's not a pair of shoes that you can just package up and send off with a note that they didn't fit.

I've been involved in animal rescue and fostering for some time. There are some pretty strong feelings (all negative) amongst those of us in the rescue world for people who adopt dogs, decide they can't handle them and then abandon or turn them over to the pound. We understand that people don't always realize how much time, effort and commitment are involved in responsible dog ownership, we understand that sometimes people bite off more than they can chew...but that doesn't excuse abandoning one's commitment to a life you have obligated to care for.....and these are dogs.

We're talking about a little boy; a seven year old little boy. Let me put seven years old into perspective for you. Your average seven year old in the U.S. has probably been tying his shoes for a year now and is finally getting pretty good at. He MAY have lost his first tooth and is really excited about getting money from the tooth fairy. He's recently started going to elementary school.

This seven year old thought he had a home and a family and, instead, was taken to the airport and put on a plane to Russia by himself. I can't even imagine how confused and scared he must have been.

I don't care if the adoption agency did misrepresent the situation. This child deserved much better than to be taught, yet again, that he is unloved, unwanted and uncared for. I've seen many "you should walk a mile in the mother's shoes" type comments about this situation and I have to say...some things are simply and inexcusably wrong. If I were to walk a mile in this woman's shoes and emulate her actions, then I would simply and inexcusably be wrong.

It's Only Right When It Benefits Women

This was written in 2006 but it's a mindset that needs addressing.

http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1154011687.83/archive

Women Gain When Men Wrongly Accused of Rape Are Freed

Run Date: 07/27/06
By Maddy deLone
WeNews commentator
The Innocence Project often opens the prison gates for men falsely accused of sex assault. Its staff is often asked whether its work serves the interests of rape survivors and women generally. Commentator Maddy deLone says the answers are yes and yes.

Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's eNews.


(WOMENSENEWS)--Earlier this month, Alan Newton walked out of a Bronx courtroom a free man. Twenty-two years after he was convicted for a brutal rape that he didn't commit, he was finally exonerated. For the first time since 1984, he decided what he would wear and what he would do.

One of the first things he did was approach several dozen reporters to talk about the rape survivor who mistakenly identified him as the perpetrator, leading to his conviction. Before addressing his own wrongful conviction and his new freedom, he said his thoughts were with the rape survivor. His voice chocked with emotion, he expressed compassion and sympathy for her.

To date, 182 people nationwide have been exonerated with DNA testing. The Innocence Project represented many of them, just as we represented Alan Newton. Because we only take cases where DNA can yield conclusive proof of innocence, many of our clients are men who were wrongly convicted of sexual assault. Ninety percent of the 182 exonerations involved sexual assault (sometimes in combination with murder and other crimes). While the criminal justice system began using DNA testing two decades ago to help identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent, it has become more prevalent and more sophisticated in recent years.

Since our clients are primarily men convicted of heinous crimes against women, some people wonder whether our work serves the interests of rape survivors and women generally. I strongly believe that it does in very specific, individual ways, and also more broadly and profoundly.

When No Justice Is Served
When the wrong man is convicted of assaulting a woman, nobody sees justice. The true perpetrator can remain at large, unpunished for a horrible crime and able to rape again. In one-third of the 182 DNA exonerations, we haven't just proved someone's innocence; the DNA has been used to help identify the true perpetrator.

As Alan Newton recognized earlier this month, wrongful convictions--once they're finally overturned--reopen crime victims' wounds and prevent them from moving forward, often decades after a crime. Once DNA proves that the wrong man was convicted, rape survivors are often brought right back to the night of the crime. Many are left questioning how they identified the wrong man, and wondering whether they will have to endure another trial, years later. The pain survivors experience at such times could be avoided if wrongful convictions were prevented in the first place.

Beyond the substantial consequences for the wrongly accused and individual rape survivors, wrongful convictions concern many of us because people of color and poor people are disproportionately targeted by our criminal justice system. That's troubling enough, but when it's done in the name of protecting the public and punishing violence against women, we cannot stand by.

More Men of Color Convicted
Among the 182 exoneration cases, where the race of wrongly convicted people is known, nearly 75 percent are men of color. No two cases are alike, but in many of them, police focused on an African American man immediately and ignored information that might have led to other suspects. In some of them, police coerced confessions, prosecutors concealed evidence and defense attorneys for poor defendants failed to challenge faulty evidence and law enforcement tactics.

The leading cause of wrongful convictions--playing a factor in about 75 percent of the exoneration cases--is eyewitness misidentification. The day after Alan Newton was exonerated in the Bronx, a member of a "men's advocacy" group called our office. He wasn't calling to help Newton find a job or offering other support to him, as many others have. He wanted to know why the Innocence Project doesn't pursue perjury charges against rape survivors who identify the wrong man.

Aside from the patently offensive notion of putting rape survivors on trial, the truth is that eyewitness misidentification is often the result of flawed law enforcement techniques that lead crime victims to identify a suspect who police already presume is guilty. The Innocence Project pursues policy reforms to improve identification techniques nationwide so crime victims aren't led to misidentify innocent people. These include specific changes to police lineup procedures, which have already been adopted by a number of cities, states and counties.

Women Who Help Our Work
A number of rape survivors and crime victims work with the Innocence Project to remedy the deeply embedded problems in our criminal justice system that cause wrongful convictions in the first place. They are all incredibly strong, powerful and amazing women. A particularly inspiring partner in our work is Christy Sheppard of Oklahoma.

Her cousin, Debra Sue Carter, was brutally raped and murdered in 1982. Six years later, Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson were convicted; Fritz was sentenced to life in prison, while Williamson received the death penalty and came within five days of being executed. In 1999, both men were exonerated with DNA testing, which indicated that the state's main witness against them was actually the perpetrator.

In the years since, Christy Sheppard has pressed for state legislation to create an Innocence Commission that would study wrongful convictions in the state and identify steps to avoid future wrongful convictions. She says this advocacy is her way of fighting for real justice for her cousin, and for countless other women.

In very different ways, Christy Sheppard and Alan Newton remind us why working to free the wrongly convicted and prevent wrongful convictions is critical for everyone involved. They show us not just what's at stake, but that all of us can--and must--do our part to correct injustice.

Let me preface this by saying that I have an enormous amount of respect for the efforts of The Innocence Project. Those involved devote their time to freeing individuals who have been wrongly convicted and it is through their efforts that many men who have been falsely accused of rape and other crimes have been freed.

For this, I applaud them.

That said....the premise of this article is to convince people that it is beneficial to women if innocent men who are wrongly convicted of rape are freed from jail.

WHO CARES?

What bearing should it have upon the righting of a heinous wrong if it serves the interests of women? It is done because it is right; it is done because anything less should be unthinkable.

Unquestionably, we all benefit and the greater good is served when right and justice prevail but even if this were not the case; even if it could be indisputably proven that women were negatively effected by innocent men being released from jail....WHO CARES?

It's a telling commentary that this issue is even addressed....that even for one minute, when discussing the wrongful imprisonment of innocent men, there should be a need to expound upon it's mutual benefits to women.

Is this how we now define justice? Is right now determined by whether or not something benefits women? Do we need to convince the masses that something will ultimately serve the best interest of women in order for it to be deemed worthy of action?

An innocent man should not have to sit one day behind bars. An innocent man should not have to have his life destroyed for something he never did. An innocent man should be set free from jail because he is innocent. Whether or not such an action is beneficial to women is immaterial. It is an offense to justice, truth and right that this question was ever asked. Above all, it is an offense to the innocent men whose lives have been wasted behind bars for crimes they didn’t commit.

Poor Sue Norton

Thanks to Welmer at 'The Spearhead' for the following:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1260412/How-does-wife-cope-husband-terribly-injured-war-Sue--walked-away.html

Long story short....Sue Norton tells of how hard it was on her to have her husband, Capt. Peter Norman, lose an arm and a leg and the overwhelming experience of being expected to help and care for him...so overwhelming that she decided to leave him because of it.

I had planned on writing at length about this article, but, due to my usual time constraints and plethora of other obligations, I will, instead, post the comment I left at The Spearhead, responding to the following,

Both men and women do terrible things to each other. They betray, abandon,neglect and abuse. Honestly, I don’t think either sex beats the other when it comes to treating spouses like garbage. However, when men do something horrible, they are usually contrite. Often, they take the blame. In fact, in many cases men will take the blame even when they weren’t at fault.

It would have been preferable if Sue Norton had simply not taken blame in this situation. Instead, she made an unconscionable and flagrant attempt to garner sympathy for herself at the expense of her husband. How nice it must be for Mr. Norton to have it aired to the world what a horrific and trying ordeal it was for his wife to have to care for him. I wonder if Sue Norton bothered to think of that. Oh well, the man’s already lost an arm and a leg….what’s a bit more of his pride.

I find the comments applauding Ms. Norton for her honesty particularly offensive. While I am a huge proponant of honesty….it is commendable when it denotes bravery or integrity. Sue Norton’s selfish bid for sympathy has nothing to do with bravery or integrity.

Sympathy? I have it in truckloads for her husband and those two little boys. As for Sue Norton….had she stood by her husband, been his support and emotional rock in what must have been the most devastating experience of his life, had she done everything in her power to hold her family together….she would have my respect and admiration. Even then, that is simply what she should have done.

I also left a comment on the Dailymail article....it has yet to appear. Although, I do wonder whether they don't post comments over the weekend. That said, I encourage everyone to take the time to post on this article. It would be particularly nice to see some support of Pete Norton, someone who deserves, not only our compassion, but our admiration.

Amy Bishop

Things just get more and more disturbing in the case of Amy Bishop. For anyone who isn't up to speed....Amy Bishop is the 44 year old college professor who, while attending a Biology Dept. meeting, pulled out a 9 millimeter handgun and began shooting those closest to her. She shot a total of six colleagues, 3 of whom died.

Now it's come to light that Dr. Bishop fatally shot her 18 year old brother some years ago. The shooting was ruled an accident. Here are details of events following the shooting,


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232944

A former auto-body worker claims Amy Bishop put a gun to his chest and demanded a getaway car just minutes after she shot her brother to death 24 years ago in a controversial case that is now being reviewed.

Tom Pettigrew, 45, told the Herald he was working at the Dave Dinger Ford auto repair shop in South Braintree, near the former Bishop home, when he saw the gun-wielding woman run into the dealership with what he thought was a BB gun.

Pettigrew, of Quincy, who was 22 at the time, recalled telling his co-oworkers: “I’m like, ‘Did I just see what I just saw?’ ”

Pettigrew said he heard noise coming from where car keys are stored, so he went to investigate.

“I go over to the door and I can sense that she’s right near the door,” Pettigrew said. “I’m thinking it’s a BB gun. I open the door and she’s right there and we basically bumped into each other and I got a shotgun right in my chest!”

“And she’s like, ‘Hands up!’ and I’m like, ‘Yes ma’am’ ”

Bishop appeared agitated and nervous, Pettigrew said. The University of Alabama professor now accused of killing three colleagues Friday said she needed a car because, “I got into a fight with my husband and he’s going to kill me,” the worker recalled.

Pettigrew then watched as Bishop walked through the dealership looking at cars, all the while grasping the gun.

By then, police arrived and swarmed the parking lot. One armed officer climbed up on a nearby roof, Pettigrew said, and could have taken her out.

Instead, they arrested her. Braintree police Chief Paul Frazier has said officers on duty claim they were forced by retired former Chief John Polio to let Bishop, whose mother was a member of the police personnel board, go. Polio denies that and said then-District Attorney William Delahunt investigated the case and ruled it an accident.

Pettigrew said police questioned him after the incident but he never heard from them again.

Michelle Malkin documents additional details of disturbing, aggressive and erratic behavior by Ms. Bishop,

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/17/i-am-dr-amy-bishop/

The woman was out of control. Law enforcement officers knew it. Her family knew it. Academia must have known it. How many more incidents like this will be disclosed before we stop the charade of plausible deniability? And how did she continue to get pass after pass? Who vouched for her? Who will take responsibility?

Via the Boston Globe:

Amy Bishop was charged with assault in 2002 IHOP dispute

In March, 2002, Bishop walked into an International House of Pancakes in Peabody
with her family, asked for a booster seat for one of her children, and learned the last seat had gone to another mother.

Bishop, according to a police report, strode over to the other woman, demanded the seat and launched into a profanity-laced rant.

When the woman would not give the seat up, Bishop punched her in the head, all the while yelling “I am Dr. Amy Bishop.”
***
Thanks to commenters below, here are links to the latest
stories showing that students and professors knew Amy Bishop was a dangerous
loon:

Professor Had Raised Concerns About Accused Shooter’s Mental Health

Her colleagues agree that she could be unusual. William Setzer, chairman of the chemistry department, recalls that she would interrupt meetings with bizarre tangents, “left field kind of stuff.” Robert O. Lawton, a biology professor who was in the room during the shooting but escaped unscathed, also thought she could be strange, but said she wasn’t the strangest academic he’d run across in his long career.
Another professor, however, has long been wary of Ms. Bishop. He asked The Chronicle not to use his name because, considering recent events, he is worried about his own safety. The professor, who was a member of Ms. Bishop’s tenure-review committee, said he first became concerned about Ms. Bishop’s mental health “about five minutes after I met her.”

The professor said that during a meeting of the tenure-review committee, he expressed his opinion that Ms. Bishop was “crazy.” Word of what he said made it back to Ms. Bishop. In September, after her tenure denial, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging gender discrimination. The professor’s remark was going to be used as possible evidence in that case.

And students complained:

Students said they signed a petition and complained to no avail about the classroom conduct of an Alabama professor accused of killing three colleagues and wounding three others in a shooting rampage at a faculty meeting.

The students upset with biology professor Amy Bishop told The Associated Press they went to University of Alabama in Huntsville administrators at least three times a year ago, complaining that she was ineffective in the classroom and had odd, unsettling ways.

The students said Bishop never made eye contact during conversations, taught by reading out of a textbook and made frequent references to Harvard University, her beloved alma mater.

“We could tell something was off, that she was not like other teachers,” said nursing
student Caitlin Phillips.

Despite the myriad of disturbing incidences and events, Amy Bishop was still allowed to go blithely about her life. One would question why Ms. Bishop was even free to commit her most recent murders after the death of her brother....a case that appears to have been grossly mishandled.

Along with additional accounts of alarming behavior by Ms. Bishop, 'The New York Times' documents details about the (mis)handling of the shooting of Amy Bishop's brother, Seth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html?pagewanted=3

Police officers began to question Amy, but her mother arrived and told her not to answer any more questions. Paul Frazier, the current police chief of Braintree, said that Amy Bishop’s release “did not sit well with these officers,” and that the lieutenant in charge of booking that night told him a higher-up had given instructions to stop the booking process.

In an interview Wednesday, the area’s current prosecutor, William R. Keating, district attorney of Norfolk County, was highly critical of the handling of the shooting 24 years ago, particularly because it appears that Amy Bishop’s actions after her brother’s shooting — demanding a car at gunpoint and refusing an officer’s orders to drop the gun — were not conveyed to state authorities who investigated the case.

“It’s not a minor thing that would be omitted,” Mr. Keating said. Mr. Keating said Amy Bishop could have been charged with weapons and assault felonies, which would probably have prompted a psychiatric evaluation. Had such a charge, or any of the others that followed, been on her record, it could have changed the course of Dr. Bishop’s career, and the fate of those who died in Huntsville.

Instead, the investigation was stopped.

Did someone intervene to save Amy Bishop from prosecution? Her mother served on the town committee, an elected legislative panel of 240 members that set the town’s
spending. Or was Amy’s release merely a town’s way of caring for its own, the
way small towns do?

That night, after the gory mess in the kitchen had been cleaned up by helpful neighbors, one of the investigating officers, Billy Finn, stopped by to see if the family needed food.

“You cannot imagine how kind the Braintree police were to us,” Judy Bishop told The Braintree Forum and Observer a week later.

Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has ordered the State Police to review its role in the case, and the district attorney is also conducting an inquiry.

If Ms. Bishop's actions are recieved in a manner similar to those of Marc Lepine (shooter in the Montreal Massacre), we should expect to see this incident used as a platform to address violence perpetrated by women. We should expect to see a movement formed to counter the death, terror and brutality inflicted upon the innocent masses by evil, violent women.

More likely, we'll see the question posed over and over....How did society fail Amy Bishop? What outside influences pushed her to commit such horrific atrocities?

Society did indeed fail. It failed 18 year old Seth Bishop whose death no one even bothered to investigate. It failed the untold number of individuals Ms. Bishop was allowed to terrorize over the years with her violent, erratic behavior. It failed the three people she fatally shot and the other three she wounded. Had, at any point, Ms. Bishop been held accountable for her actions, 3 people would probably still be alive.