Friday, February 29, 2008
Swede Gets 18 Months For Trying To Make His Girlfriend Miscarry By Mixing Pills In Her Food
(AP) A Swedish court of appeal on Tuesday sentenced a 27-year-old man to 18 months in prison for trying to make his girlfriend miscarry by mixing abortion pills in her food. The man, who was not named for legal reasons, had his jail term increased from a previous one-year sentence set by a district court in June. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden found the man guilty of aggravated assault for attempting to make his girlfriend of eight years miscarry by giving her a yoghurt containing three ground-up pills. The sentence also included a more minor count of assault. The court documents said the woman had decided to have the baby even though he felt he was not ready to be a father. The man ordered some pills on the Internet and fooled his doctor into prescribing others for another condition. The woman ate the yoghurt and suffered severe stomach pains and vaginal bleeding. When she later realized what she had eaten, she decided to have an abortion, fearing that the fetus had been permanently damaged by the pills. The defendant's lawyer, Lars Boberg, said his client would most likely appeal the ruling.
When I read this, I was honestly appalled by what the boyfriend did. A person trying to furtively kill their child; trying to take away that unborn life without the consent or knowledge of their significant other is just an incredibly heinous act. You'd like to think something like this was an isolated incidence, the unprecedented actions of a disturbed individual....unfortunately, versions of this disgusting crime are committed daily.
46 million times this year, a woman will decide to end the life of her child. Of course, as it's perfectly legal and as the law provides her with the right to do so without the father's consent or knowledge, one can only guess how often the crime we see above is repeated. While the defendant in this case gets 18 months in prison not to mention the revile and scorn of society, the women who commit the same travesty are met with sympathy and solidarity from the feminist hordes.
I can guarantee you that upon hearing of this case, feminists everywhere were outraged. How dare he try to kill that poor woman's child! I can also guarantee you that these same feminists will defend to the end a woman's right to do the exact same thing. You see, according to feminists, a child inside the womb is only a viable human being when a man ends it's life. If a woman does so, then it becomes a fetus with no human attributes or right to life.
A man causing the end of an unborn life=murder
A woman causing the end of an unborn life=her right to choose.
Like I said...hypocrisy, they name is feminism.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Take special note of the first paragraph. If that isn't a depiction of the society we live in today, I don't know what is. The condition of the family is a direct reflection of the condition of society. When one fails, so will the other.
Feminism is dedicated to the destruction of family
Communism and Socialism all know that they can not survive with strong families. Strong families make strong communities, and strong communities keep government power in check. Break down the families, and the door is wide open to centralizing power in government. Once families break down through divorce, welfare, cohabitation, etc. government gets more and more involved in everyday life. More and more centralized government control.
"Destroy the family," as Lenin said, "and you destroy society." Thereby he merely repeated what Socrates had said before and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the ultimate father -- could be constructed.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. ? Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman -- Do I hear YFS / DSS / CPS here??
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking. ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p. 100 (and you wonder WHY feminism ATTACKS home-making)
"How will the family unit be destroyed.... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ... -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women." -- From article, "Is Marriage the Answer?" by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995
"[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jagger, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." [Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York, International Publishers,1942) p.58]
"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]
Patricia Ireland of NOW has referred to the Congress of the United States of America as "twisted" for supporting such notions as marriage and family in a publication titled "Father's Count Act will hurt Women and Kids", January 28, 2000, by Patricia Ireland
*N* *O* *W* Action Alert -- October 20, 1999 -- Fathers' Rights Bill Advances in the House. This Action alert explains that the Father's Rights legislation before Congress is "bad for women and children" because it will "promote marriage" and "disseminat[e] information about the advantages of marriage", "promote successful parenting" and "disseminat[e] information about good parenting practices", and "help fathers and their families ... leave ... welfare". A plain reading of the Action Alert shows that when read in full context NOW will do ANYTHING to destroy marriages, families, and even children.
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p. 537: We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.
"[F]eminists who ceaselessly inveigh against their own oppression by men (often hardly specifying its exact nature) would ignore how they themselves have oppressed ? feminine women. It oppresses a woman who could delight in domesticity to tell her that her domesticity makes her a parasitic inferior to men. It oppresses a woman who yearns to stay home with her children to tell her she is worthy only insofar as she achieves in the workplace." ~ F. Carolyn Graglia, A Brief Against Feminism, page 349
So long as we insist upon defining our identities only in terms of our work, so long as we try to blind ourselves to the needs of our children and harden our hearts against them, we will continue to feel torn, dissatisfied, and exhausted?. The guilt we feel for neglecting our children is a byproduct of our love for them. It keeps us from straying too far from them, for too long. Their cry should be more compelling than the call from the office." ~ Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us, page 143.
"The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New York...All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Morgan (ed), 1970 p. 537.
"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. -- (Andrea Dworkin)
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men" from "The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971.
... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.
The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the most pervasive prejudice in the Western world. -- Judith Stacey
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" -- Sheila CronanThe little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work -- Toni Morrison
"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- From Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p. 294
Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time -- Ms. Ehrenreich extols the "long and honorable tradition of 'anti-family' thought," waxing nostalgic for those early feminists who regarded marriage as just another version of prostitution. This deeply defective institution "can hardly be the moral foundation of everything else," she argues, pining for the day when "someone invents a sustainable alternative."Barbara Ehrenreich in Time: Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence,... Even in the ostensibly "functional," nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries...
Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and fathers who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society. Borst, William, Ph.D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1, January 2003, pg 2. (Online version at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf) Cited in the Amicus brief for Massachusetts advisory opinion on Gay Marriage, opposing gay marriage. http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/woodb01/011004_Mass_Brief.htm
Hillary vs. the Patriarchy
By Erica JongMonday, February 4, 2008; 12:00 AM
""Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women," said Bill Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday, one of the many "news" outlets to expose Kristol's reliable sexism. "The Democratic establishment would be crazy to follow an establishment that led it to defeat year after year," Kristol continued in his woolly, repetitive style. "White women are a problem, you know. We all live with that."
Bill Kristol has been much criticized for his war mongering, arrogance, poor writing and lack of fact checking. But at least the guy is honest. He considers women a problem -- especially white women. And he feels confident enough as an alpha male to be open about it. "I shouldn't have said that," he demurred. But he can say anything he likes and still fall eternally upward. He's a white man, lord of all he surveys -- including Hillary Rodham Clinton."
(DID I JUST READ THAT CORRECTLY??? Did Ms. Jong, author of the hideously racist and biggoted 'I'm So Tired of Pink Men' article, really have the audacity to call somebody else on biggotry? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Of course, in the same paragraph she calls Mr. Kristol a "white man, lord of all he surveys", but I guess that's...different. After all, Ms. Jong's part of the victim class while Mr. Kristol is a member of the oppressive patriarchy.)
"I, too, have been watching Hillary Clinton with admiration, love, hate, annoyance and empathy since she appeared on the national scene 16 years ago. (Can it be only16 years?) I've had a hard time making up my mind about her. Perhaps that's because I identify with her so strongly.
I'm hardly the only woman who sees my life mirrored in hers. She's always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her. She endured a demanding Republican father she could seldom please and a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos. She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber.
Nothing she did was ever enough to stop her detractors. Supporting a politician husband by being a successful lawyer, raising a terrific daughter, saving her marriage when the love of her life publicly humiliated her -- these are things that would be considered enormously admirable in most politicians and public figures. But because she's a white woman, she's been pilloried for them.
I understand my hopeful friends who think an Obama button will change America. But I'm sticking with Hillary. I trust her because all her life, her pro bono work has been for mothers and children. And mothers and children -- of all colors -- are the most oppressed group in our country. I trust her to speak for our children and grandchildren -- and for us. She always has."
(And that....just says it all.)
Ms. Jong posted a follow up article to Hillary VS. the Patriarchy called, Patriarchy: 1000, Hillary: 0...don't you just love those titles.
"Ever since I wrote an article in the Washington Post ten days ago, I've been getting love letters from women and super-smart men and brickbats from the Hillary-Haters. Unfortunately the Hillary-Haters are in charge. They monopolize the networks, the newspapers, the talk shows -- both radio and TV. They are crossing their legs for fear of castration. They are wearing the body armor our troops never got. Or got too late to matter. They are determined that a woman will not prove herself competent as Commander in Chief.
What's their ammunition? Oh, it's simple. They call her Mrs. Clinton, not Ms. or Senator. They pull out those nutcrackers in the shape of her supposed thighs. They complain about her ankles -- too thick. They complain on Fox TV that "White women are the problem" -- (idiot boy Kristol, the brain-damaged scion of Irving who rose through nepotism like our unelected "president"). Then they say she has "baggage" -- which could mean wrinkles, or her husband, or her daughter Chelsea whom they say she is "pimping." Then they say she never divorced Bill -- as if it's anyone's business. Then they moon over Obama's rhetorical style. Then they make it appear that she's a drone or a worker bee and has no royal jelly. Or else she has royal jelly and is queen bee. And that's her problem.
If Bill defends her, he's a pimp. If he doesn't, he's a creep. If Chelsea campaigns, it's cynical. If Obama trots out those cute little girls Michelle gave birth to, he's a family man. If Michelle attacks Hillary, it's news. If Hillary attacks Michelle -- well she can't because that would be racist. All we need now is a black woman in this race -- Maya or Oprah or Toni or Gayle or Donna -- any of whom would be a far better president than the one we've still got (not to mention his surrogate Dad, Dick Cheney, his co war-criminal). You couldn't attack Oprah or Maya or Toni or Gayle or Donna because of their color. Wow -- what an idea! Oprah for President. I'd definitely vote for that. I adore Maya Angelou as both person and poet. Toni Morrison is a genius and a true progressive. Gayle King is an executive, mother, communicator. Donna B. is a spokeswoman on CNN. Oprah -- well, she's Oprah -- way beyond having a last name.
Let me tell you about the Hillary-Haters who fill my inbox, they can't spell. They also believe in witchcraft. They believe HRC boils eye of newt with unborn baby's hair and little Jewish children not yet circumcised. They think she had a child with Vince Foster (even though Chelsea looks much like Bill and even his mother), then murdered him. They think she will leave Iraq, not leave Iraq, give us universal health care, not give us universal health care, sanction the killing of fetuses, not sanction the killing of fetuses, defend Israel, not defend Israel, end the Death Tax, not end the Death tax.
Honey, they are all mixed up. But they know they hate. And not just her -- but lots of people and things and ideas.
Ho hum. We've seen this all before in the United States of Amnesia (Gore Vidal's brilliant phrase). Remember Geraldine Ferraro -- tarred with the brush of her Italian-American husband, whom they claimed was a mafioso? Remember Bella Abzug, attacked for her hats (which covered too large a brain)? Remember Eleanor Roosevelt, attacked for her teeth? Remember Victoria Woodhull (the first woman to run for president) "hanged" as a whore? Remember Emma Goldman rode out of town on a rail -- for being Jewish, liking to dance and supporting the rights of the working classes? "
" If I have to watch another great American woman thrown in the dustbin of history to please the patriarchy, I'll move to Canada -- where they live four years longer than we because they have universal health care. Or Italy -- where Berlusconi played at being Mussolini but life is sweet anyway and people take vacations in August and at Chanukah (Christmas or Diwali or Kwaanza) and Passover (Easter).
Ok folks, stick your heads in the sand like Maureen Dowd who thinks we're not against women but just against Clinton "baggage." Or Barbara Walters who seems to have forgotten how viciously she was attacked when she got her first million dollar contract -- worth only half a million in Euros today.
Or Oprah who forgets she wasn't always Oprah -- I knew her when she had two names. She was always really smart, but she used to identify with women. And now she's joined the Obamarama. I get it. I understand. People want their own color in the White House (pun intended). And nobody said Barack wasn't brilliant. "
Yes, poor, poor Hillary. Once again, she's under attack by the terrible patriarchy. Didn't you all know that you're not allowed to question her? The fact that she's running for office is neither here nor there. She's a woman, therefore, any negative opinions of her are based solely on sexism and misogyny. That she's a wholly unpleasant human being is not up for discussion because the patriarchy is to blame for that as well. We all know the only reason a woman in a position of power would be a vile, scary creature is because patriarchal oppression has left her no other choice.
Of course, Mitt Romney is a member of some weird cult that he'll try to convert the entire country to. The first thing I ever heard about Obama was that he's a closet Muslim waiting to infiltrate our government. McCain's a pseudo-Republican traitor. Male presidential candidates have been criticized on every single aspect of their personal as well as political lives....but the only reason people criticize Hillary is because she's a woman. It's such a convenient arguement, isn't it? You're not allowed to question her on her politics, person, actions or opinions, because then you're being sexist. I'm sure every candidate wishes he could run under such circumstances. To people like Ms. Jong, anything less than special treatment for women equals discrimination.
The real reason Ms. Jong is angry is because American women, even some of her fellow feminists, have let her down by not being quite as biased as she'd expected of them. We were all supposed to rally around Mrs. Clinton for no other reason than her gender. Those of us who refuse to vote for Hillary because we actually value our presidential candidates on little things like, oh I don't know, political agendas and and where they stand on the issues, are traitors. Of course, it's probably not our fault, we are, after all, women. Undoubtedly it's the the sexist misogynistic attacks on Mrs. Clinton, perpetrated by the patriarchy, that have brainwashed us all.
Monday, February 25, 2008
What campus rape crisis?
Promiscuity and hype have created a phony epidemic at colleges.
By Heather Mac Donald
Los Angeles Times
February 24, 2008
It's a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center.
Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged
campus rape epidemic -- but no one calls. Could this mean that the
crisis is overblown? No. It means, according to campus sexual-assault
organizations, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever
imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding
to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their
It is a central claim of these organizations that between a fifth and
a quarter of all college women will be raped or will be the targets of
attempted rape by the end of their college years. Harvard's Office of
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response uses the 20% to 25% statistic.
Websites at New York University, Syracuse University, Penn State and
the University of Virginia, among many other places, use the figures
And who will be the assailants of these women? Not terrifying
strangers who will grab them in dark alleys, but the guys sitting next
to them in class or at the cafeteria.
If the one-in-four statistic is correct, campus rape represents a
crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No felony, much less one as
serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20% or
25%, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one
of the most violent cities in the U.S., was 2,400 murders, rapes,
robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants -- a rate
Such a crime wave -- in which millions of young women would graduate
having suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a
woman can experience -- would require nothing less than a state of
emergency. Admissions policies, which if the numbers are true are
allowing in tens of thousands of vicious criminals, would require a
complete revision, perhaps banning male students entirely. The
nation's nearly 10 million female undergraduates would need to take
the most stringent safety precautions.
None of this crisis response occurs, of course -- because the crisis
So where do the numbers come from? During the 1980s, feminist
researchers committed to the rape-culture theory discovered that
asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing
results -- very few women said that they had been. So Ms. magazine
commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss
to develop a different way to measure the prevalence of rape.
Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them
if they had ever experienced actions that she then classified as rape.
One question, for example, asked, "Have you had sexual intercourse
when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" -- a
question that is ambiguous on several fronts, including the woman's
degree of incapacitation, the causal relation between being given a
drink and having sexual intercourse, and the man's intentions. Koss'
method produced the 25% rate, which Ms. then published.
It was a flawed study on a number of levels, but the most powerful
refutation came from her own subjects: 73% of the women whom the study
characterized as rape victims told the researchers that they hadn't
been raped. Further, 42% of the study's supposed victims said they had
had intercourse again with their alleged assailants -- though it is
highly unlikely that a raped woman would have sex again with the fiend
who attacked her.
Despite all this, the numbers have stuck. Today, John Foubert, an
education professor at William and Mary College (and founder of a
group called One-in-Four, which works on sexual assault issues and has
chapters on 17 campuses), says, "The one-in-four statistic has been
replicated in several studies for several decades. To the extent that
social science can prove anything, which I believe it can, the one-in-
four statistic has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. My
instincts tell me that the statistic is actually much higher."
Yet subsequent campus rape studies keep turning up the pesky
divergence between the victims' and the researchers' point of view.
A 2006 survey of sorority women at the University of Virginia, for
example, found that only 23% of the subjects whom the survey
characterized as rape victims felt that they had been raped -- a
result that the university's director of sexual and domestic violence
services calls "discouraging." Equally damning was a 2000 campus rape
study conducted under the aegis of the Department of Justice. Sixty-
five percent of those whom the researchers called "completed rape"
victims and three-quarters of "attempted rape" victims said that they
did not think that their experiences were "serious enough to report."
Believing in the campus rape epidemic, it turns out, requires ignoring
women's own interpretations of their experiences.
Nevertheless, none of the weaknesses in the research has had the
slightest drag on the campus "anti-rape" movement, because the
movement is political, not empirical. In a rape culture, which
"condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm,"
sexual assault will wind up underreported, argued Carole Goldberg, the
director of Yale's Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and
Education Center, in a March 2007 newsletter. Campus rape centers and
24-hour hotlines, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal
funding, are ubiquitous.
Needless to say, those facilities don't appear to get a tremendous
amount of use. For example, Hillary Wing-Richards, the associate
director of sexual-assault prevention at James Madison University,
said the school's campus rape "help line" gets a varying number of
calls, some of which are "request-for-information calls" -- where to
go, who to talk to and the like.
"Some months there are 10 and others, one or two," she said.
Referring to rape hotlines, risk management consultant Brett Sokolow
laments: "The problem is, on so many of our campuses, very few people
ever call. And mostly we've resigned ourselves to the underutilization
of these resources."
Federal law requires colleges to publish reported crimes affecting
their students. The numbers of reported sexual assaults -- the law
does not require their confirmation -- usually run under half a dozen
a year on private campuses, and maybe two to three times that at large
So what reality does lie behind the rape hype? I believe that it's the
booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-
night, stands. Students in the '60s demanded that college
administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. The colleges
meekly complied and opened a Pandora's box of boorish, promiscuous
behavior that gets cruder each year.
This culture has been written about widely. College women -- as well
as men -- reportedly drink heavily before and during parties. For the
women, that drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests Karin Agness, a
recent University of Virginia graduate and founder of NeW, a club for
conservative university women: It frees the drinker from
responsibility and "provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that
she ordinarily wouldn't." Nights can include a meaningless sexual
encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know.
In all these drunken couplings, there may be some deplorable instances
of forced and truly non-consensual sex. But most campus "rape" cases
exist in the gray area of seeming cooperation and tacit consent, which
is why they are almost never prosecuted criminally.
"Ninety-nine percent of all college rape cases would be thrown out of
court in a twinkling," observes University of Pennsylvania history
professor Alan Kors.
Many students hold on to the view that women usually have the power to
determine whether a campus social event ends with intercourse. A
female Rutgers student expressed a common sentiment in a university
sexual-assault survey: "When we go out to parties and I see girls and
the way they dress and the way they act ... and just the way they are,
under the influence and um, then they like accuse them of like, 'Oh
yeah, my boyfriend did this to me' or whatever, I honestly always
think it's their fault."
But suggest to a rape bureaucrat that female students share
responsibility for the outcome of an evening and that greater sexual
restraint would prevent campus "rape," and you might as well be saying
that women should don the burka.
College officials have responded to the fallout of the college sexual
revolution not with sound advice but with bizarre and anachronistic
legalisms for responding to postcoital second thoughts.
University of Virginia students, for example, may demand a formal
adjudication before the Sexual Assault Board; they can request a
"structured meeting" with the Office of the Dean of Students by filing
a formal complaint; or they can seek voluntary mediation.
Risk-management consultants travel the country to help colleges craft
legal rules for student sexual congress.
"If one partner puts a condom on the other, does that signify that
they are consenting to intercourse?" asks Alan D. Berkowitz, a campus
rape consultant. Short of guiding the thus-sheathed instrumentality to
port, it's hard to imagine a clearer signal of consent, although
Berkowitz apparently finds it "inherently ambiguous."
And even as the campus rape industry decries alleged male predation, a
parallel campus sex bureaucracy sends the message that students should
have recreational sex at every opportunity.
New York University offers workshops on orgasms and "Sex Toys for
Safer Sex" ("an evening with rubber, silicone and vibrating toys") in
residence halls and various student clubs. Brown University's Student
Services helps students answer the compelling question: "How can I
bring sex toys into my relationship?" Princeton University's "Safer
Sex Jeopardy" game for freshmen lists six types of vibrators and eight
kinds of penile toys.
Why, exactly, are schools offering workshops on orgasms? Are students
already so saturated with knowledge of the evolution of constitutional
democracy, say, that colleges should reroute their resources to
matters available on porn websites?
Remarkably, many students emerge from this farrago of mixed messages
with common sense intact.
In a November column in the University of Virginia's student
newspaper, a third-year student gave the real scoop on frat parties:
They're filled with men hoping to have sex. Rather than calling these
men "rapists," columnist Katelyn Kiley offered some practical wisdom
to the women trooping off to Virginia's fraternity row:
"It's probably a good idea to keep your clothes on, and at the end of
the night, to go home to your own bed. Interestingly enough, that's
how you get [the guys] to keep asking you back."
Maybe such young iconoclasts can take up another discredited idea:
College is for learning. Fighting male dominance or catering to the
libidinal impulses released in the 1960s are sorry substitutes for the
pursuit of knowledge.
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal, from
which this is adapted.
Notice in the first paragraph;
"Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No. It means, according to campus sexual-assault organizations, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever
imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering."
Translation, if young women aren't calling in by the scores to support our campus rape crisis hysteria, then we need to bring in more counselors to convince them they've been victims of rape. We must bring in the feminists to tell young women that what they thought was consensual sex, really wasn't. That if, at any time during said incidence they felt unsure, wavered in their conviction, were in any way impaired in judgement or just regretted it afterwards.....well that was rape.
If you read how the 1 in 4 statistic (which is constantly spouted as fact and used as justication by feminsts) was reached, it's obvious how flawed that figure really is...but how many of us didn't already know that? Without any background on the biased, flawed and inaccurate methods used to reach such a number, I still always knew it was ridiculous. I know many, many women. I know one who's been raped. Now don't get me wrong, I probably know several who, according to the standards used by the feminist researchers, would be considered victims of rape, but I'm talking about real rape. I'm not talking about, 'I'm embarassed by what I did so I'll call it rape', or 'I was so drunk I don't remember what I did so I'm going to assume it was rape'. I'm talking about real honest to goodness rape. I don't know what the real statistics are on that. Feminists have so thoroughly blurred the lines of what is and isn't rape that acquiring honest to goodness accurate numbers is virtually impossible. What I do know is that it's not 25%. Not even ten or five percent. It does happen, and when it does it's wrong, but thanks to feminist rape hysteria, it's hard to know anymore.
"But suggest to a rape bureaucrat that female students share
responsibility for the outcome of an evening and that greater sexual
restraint would prevent campus "rape," and you might as well be saying
that women should don the burka."
Exactly, because, according to feminists, a woman should never bear responsibility for her actions. It's all part of the 'don't blame the victim strategy'. Suggesting that a woman should be accountable for the decisions she makes, the company she keeps or the lifestyle she pursues is no longer common sense, it's 'blaming the victim'. Any expectations of personal accountability on the part of women becomes 'blaming the victim'.
Ofcourse, the feminists are less than happy with Ms. Mac Donald's excellent assessment of the campus rape crisis. I wandered over to feministing.com to see their response and needless to say they were...displeased. They've urged their readers to contact the L.A. Times to express their outrage that such an article was published. Undoubtedly the L.A. Times will soon be bombarded by letters from hordes of angry feminists....how DARE they print the truth. Here's the link where you can write the L.A. Times. I, for one, will be writing to express how refreshing it was to see something unbiased and honest for a change.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
A sincere apology …
January 18, 2008, 8:54 pm
I know I said I won’t be posting much, but the fact is that I need to apologize. It’s been less than a week since school is back in session, and I’ve already been challenged to look at my world from a different lense. For that, I am thankful. The apology note is below.
I feel the need to apologize to all who’ve been on this blog during the past few months. It’s all my fault.
I am not making any excuses for it, but I will say this: I failed to see things from your perspetives and paradigms, and I am wrong for it. I wasn’t wrong because I didn’t see it, but because I refused to take the time to see it.
Instead of being critical at myself and my own belief systems, I became critical of the knowlege and claims of radical feminism. I held my “truth” and “values” as the only ones that could be correct, and as a privileged male, doing so only furthered my patriarchy. I took the advice to ”listen to women” as meaning “submit to women,” while all along, it simply means to learn from women’s voices and experiences.
In doing so, I leaned further to the other side of the line - the one that I’d been a part of all my life. In doing so, I moved further from feminism, and deeper into the patriarchy. For that, I apologize.
The words I use and the jobs I take, while I can justify them with the way I view the world, take on a whole different meaning for women. Rather than trying to see things from women’s perspectives, I was defiant and defended my own perspective. My shots at radical feminism was based on my lack of understanding of untapped knowlege and experiences. My attack on radical feminsm was based on on the male lense, the lense of the oppressor, rather than the oppressed.
From my vantage point, I don’t see everything. I see very little because in belonging to the class that rules, rather than the one being subjugated, I DID NOT need to see a lot. I was wrong.
To truly be effective in feminism, I must not only have the values and the convictions, but also the knowlege of women’s experiences. Too often, I’ve neglected those stories and experiences when they are told to me, because in my world, individual stories are written off as meaningless. They are written off as being useless in the fight for power and control.
Know that while my convictions and values were there, my practice was not, and most of the time, it was an unconscious decision. Most of the time, it was based on my “intuition” and “instincts,” the majority of which was socially constructed based on male power.
As such, I strive to do better in the future …to share less and listen more. The paths to social activism starts with the values and convictions that all are equal, but without the knowlege of what or how to best serve women, then said values and convictions are useless.
I am working on that knowlege and I will continue to do so. Sometimes, all I need is a dose of reality - a talking-to by a feminist mentor, for me to see what I’ve done wrong.
Perhaps that’s what scares me the most …what the hell do I do when I am out of college and there are no professors for me to call and ask the critical questions? What the hell do I do when I don’t know what’s best for women? Do my professors hold all the answers, or do individual experiences of individual women matter more? Those are the questions I am still trying to answer, and in coming back to the women’s studies program this semester, I hope to answer those questions.
PFM has, on the occasion, dared to question the all-encompassing suffering endured by women. At some point, he disagreed on one level or another with the alleged perpetual victimization of women at the hands of men. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with the radical feminists and now he's seeking to make amends for his audacity (which can surely be blamed on those evil man genes of his).
Obviously, Mr. Profeministmale is of the 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' persuasion. Reading this, one has to ask, but at what cost? Apparently, one's dignity is sacrificed, and the casual observer would think that surely an admission such as we see above would earn PFM a position of respect amongst the feminists. Not so. Observe the response by one of his feminist readers,
1. Since you saw “listening to women” as meaning “submiting to women” and in light of your other comments, you are clearly not a pro-feminist male. Perhaps one day you will become one, but you are not one now. You may consider the appropriateness of referring to yourself with that label.
2. Don’t worry about deciding “what is best for women.” We do not need our oppressors deciding what is best for us, lest of all a member of the oppressor class who is still so committed to furthering patriarchy.
3. If you are upset that I am not giving you a cookie for apologizing, then you are advised to read your post again and consider what may be fueling your reaction.
Sorry, buddy. Simply by being a man, you're relegated to the position of oppressor. Maybe you didn't read that in the fine print when you decided to side with the feminists. Maybe, when you decided to sacrifice your sense of dignity and self-worth, they should have told you that it would never be enough, that YOU would never be enough. Unless you can somehow become a woman, you will always be part of the patriarchy.
I imagine our aspiring feminist friend is a nice guy. I'm sure he thought he was doing a great and noble thing, trying to empathize with the plight of women and all they've suffered at the hands of his horrible gender. What he doesn't realize is that A)it's largely based on lies and half truths and B) they will never accept him. To the radical feminists he seeks to befriend, he will always be a potential rapist, a potential abuser, molester, cheater....in short, he will always be a man.
I honestly couldn't help but feel sorry for the poor guy. He was obviously completely deluded and brain-washed. I wanted to somehow get through to him that he shouldn't have to spend the rest of his life trying to make amends for nothing more than being born a man, so I posted the following comment on his blog,
Do you really believe what you just wrote? Women are subjugated? Men are vile oppressors? You and every other man out there are not responsible for the bad actions of a few. You don’t have to spend the rest of your life trying to make amends for crimes you didn’t commit and things you didn’t do.
You’ve obviously spent too much time listening to the radical feminists because they’ve got you convinced that by virtue of your gender you are responsible for this terrible “oppression” women are supposed to be under.
Western women are not oppressed. They are the opposite of oppressed. All of society bends over backwards to appease, empower and make excuses for them.
If you’re interested in being a kind, compassionate individual, get out there and help those truly oppressed and in need, like the homeless, the destitute, those that are sick, old and alone. Your time would be far better served than wasting it apologizing for things you didn’t do to people who judge you, not by the caliber of your character or merits of your actions, but by your gender.
You might have noticed if you clicked on the link above that my comment is missing. Yes, PFM deleted my comment. Comments are not moderated, so it isn't that he just didn't approve it, he actually went in and deleted it. It seems ridiculous to me, after all, I wasn't rude or verbally abusive. I didn't yell or scream or lodge personal attacks. What I did was I stated the truth...and for people immersed in lies and perversion of truth, there are few things worse to hear then the truth. For feminists, the truth destroys the entire foundation their beliefs are based on, which is why they do everything they can not to have to face it.
I'm sure PFM believes himself to be an enlightened man, but that's really a commentary on today's society. I can think of few things more telling then when ignorance and perversion of truth are perceived as forward thinking and enlightenment.
Monday, February 18, 2008
I put this up in the Activism section in support of Denise Noe's call for some MRA activism. (Denise is a member here, very occasionally and a columnist on MND, from where the quote comes.)She brings the case of William Hetherington who has been in jail now for 20 years. His crime? He was accused by his wife of spousal rape. He refused to plead guilty. The parole Board refuses to parole him unless he admits guilt. He insists he is innocent.There is a terrible injustice here. Denise gives adresses to make complaints to and Bill's address. This man needs our support.
1) Mary Winkler, who shot her sleeping husband in the back, convicted only of voluntary manslaughter and released after about a year in custody.
2) Melissa Drexler, the infamous prom mom, who gave birth in a restroom stall, strangled her newborn, pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter, and was paroled after three years in prison.
3) Gertrude Baniszewski committed what might be the worst torture-slaying ever perpetrated against a single victim. In 1965, she starved, beat, scalded, and burned 16-year-old Sylvia Likens. I wrote an article about the barbarism Baniszewski visited on her teen victim and that story can be found athttp://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/likens/1.html. Baniszewski was convicted of first-degree murder and paroled after twenty years in prison.
In the above cases, the victims were killed and killed not by accident but on purpose. In the third case, the victim was murdered with extraordinary and protracted cruelty.By contrast, the supposed victim of Mr. Hetherington was left very much alive. Yet he has been subjected to the horrors of prison life for over two decades. It is a blight on American justice that he is still behind bars.
I again urge my readers to write to the Michigan Parole Board at the following address.
Michigan Parole Board
C/o Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003Lansing, MI
Letters should mention Mr. Hetherington's name and his inmate number of 186155. Mr. Hetherington likes copies of letters sent to the parole board to be mailed to him. His address follows:
William J. Hetherington
City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.
Denise gives you some ammunition and the adresses.All you need to do is spend ten minutes composing a letter to the Board and to Bill, and pay for a couple of stamps.
I can not stress strongly enough the need for action over this injustice. Twenty years behind bars for spousal rape while murders are walking away serving a mere handful of years for their crimes is ridiculous. Below is the letter I'll be sending to the parole board and I urge others to do so as well.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to you in regard to William J. Hetherington #186155. It recently came to my attention that Mr. Hetherington has been incarcerated for 20 years having been convicted of spousal rape. It’s also been brought to my attention that Mr. Hetherington has been up for parole on more than one occasion during the two decades he’s been imprisoned and has been denied parole each time because he refuses to admit guilt for the crime he’s convicted of. Now, I’m not going to traverse the muddy waters of spousal rape. I’ll not go into the near impossibility of proving rape or consent without the benefit of witnesses. I won't submit examples of how the merits of this case and subsequent conviction are questionable, at best. Nor will I delve into the possibility that a man’s opting to remain incarcerated for two decades as a matter of principal before he’ll admit to committing what he’s been accused of could perhaps be a reflection of his innocence.
What I will address is that Mr. Hetherington has been incarcerated for longer than many murderers. Mary Winkler served a mere year in jail for shooting her husband in the back. A mother, (Denise Solero), received nothing more than 5 years probation for colluding with her boyfriend in the murder of her young daughter. Day in and day out we hear of parents who receive what amounts to little more than a slap on the hand for unthinkable abuses of their children. I could give accounts of case upon case of convicted murderers being paroled after having served less than ten years of their sentences. Yet, here we have Mr. Hetherington, whose wife, to my knowledge, remained very much healthy and alive following their encounter, who’s been sitting behind bars for 20 years. If you can possibly justify to me a reason to have kept Mr. Hetherington behind bars for 20 years, I would love to hear it. Regardless of whether or not he'll admit guilt, after 20 years behind bars, Mr. Hetherington has MORE THAN paid for any crime he may have committed.
I would like to say please parole Mr. Hetherington before a severe injustice has occurred, but I’m afraid it’s too late for that. Instead, I’ll say, please parole Mr Hetherington before this severe injustice is furthered.
Now, in case any of you are experiences a crisis of conscience at the thought of sticking up for a convicted rapist, let me give you a few details of the case.
William and Linda Hetherington married in 1971; the marriage was an unhappy one and between 1978 and 1985 William sought divorce, then the couple reconciled, and finally divorce was sought again. During this period, Linda brought, then withdrew, charges of spousal rape more than once, with one such incident described in the media as "the first of several times that Linda would accuse her husband of raping her, at times when bringing charges was to her advantage".
In May 1985 following Linda's travelling without notice to another state, divorce was filed. It was expected that Hetherington would win custody due to Linda's history of abandonment of the children and family, for a period of more than two months. In August, Linda claimed he had raped her a month earlier and he was imprisoned briefly. Although released shortly afterwards, the timing caused custody to be given to Linda, with the judge commenting that custody would have gone to William had he not been incarcerated at the time of the hearing, but that he could apply later for custody instead.
A month later, after William was released, he applied for custody. A hearing was set for October 7, but before this could take place, Linda again accused him of rape, claiming he had taped and tied her up, threatened that she was about to "meet her maker", abducted her by car, cut her clothing off, and raped her. According to William she invited sexual intercourse at her mother's home where she was staying, then began demanding money she believed he had. After some confusion, according to "several witnesses", Linda's mother insisted charges were pressed.
The evidence in the case has been criticized. A pelvic examination of Linda 3 hours after the alleged incident showed no evidence of forcible injury, described as "very unusual" in a rape case by the doctor. Although police officers stated that possible adhesive tape traces were visible on her face, doctors examining her found that no traces of that kind existed, and the scissors alleged to be used to cut the tape showed no adhesive traces either. Other evidence - the tape, gloves and underwear - was said by Linda to have been flushed down the toilet by her assailant. A neighbor, Reinhardt, added further evidence that contradicted the story - that William's car had been at the location Linda alleged she was abducted and therefore she had known he was there (she claimed she had not known), and that during the alleged rape she had left the house to get something from the car, then returned to the house to talk further. Sperm was found in Linda's clothing; however William had previously had a vasectomy, a form of sterilization which makes a man incapable of emitting sperm.
The court-appointed psychiatrist was supportive of William's case. Lacking prior record, sentencing guidelines at the time were 6 to 10 years (average time served by a convicted rapist in Michigan is 5 years), and this was reinforced by a "highly favorable" report that concluded William's personality seemed to "substantiate his explanation of what has occurred", and that "this is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual.... He does not appear to be an individual who is dangerous for society." 
There was also strong suspicion that the prosecution was motivated by other factors. Weiss, who was running for the Michigan Supreme Court at the time, was claimed to be "grandstanding for the feminist vote":
"In the midst of running for the Michigan Supreme Court, Weiss made a dramatic statement in which he asserted that 'murder may have been less harmful' than William's acts. He also painted a picture of a grislier crime than the one in question: 'He raped her four times at a minimum, on a single day ... every opening of her body, every cavity, had been invaded violently.' (The charges involved one act of forced oral sex and one act of vaginal penetration, with no allegations of anal intercourse.) Urging the court to 'Let the women of this world know this is not tolerated,' he asked for a sentence of 30 to 60 years." 
Likewise the judge, Thomas Yeotis, discredited the psychiatrists view on the grounds that "you make a nice appearance, and yet, there's something about you that disturbs me." The psychiatrist was one whose opinion the judge is said to have "relied on" for 20 years before, and continued to do so after.
If you need further convincing,
The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer.
For 12 years, the court refused to provide Hetherington with a transcript of the trial. Without funds, he was unable to buy one, so he was effectively denied his right of appeal, and no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.
At the sentencing, prosecutor Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and falsely accused him of beating Linda. Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists.
Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets.
Ten years after Hetherington's conviction, a volunteer attorney, Jeff Feldman, using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage, and the prosecution had never disclosed them to the defense.
The photographs were then examined by a forensic photographer in Miami, John Valor, using all modern techniques. Valor's four-page notarized report detailed his impressive expertise, including service as the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial-killer Ted Bundy.
Valor's sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 stated that the pictures of Linda showed absolutely no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, and that marks would have been clearly visible if there had been any. If a government witness gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but Hetherington didn't get it.
Years later, a completely unsolicited letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had been employed by Linda as a babysitter. Suchy's letter is hearsay, but it has the ring of authenticity.
Suchy wrote that Linda told her she made up the story about rape because she was then pregnant with the baby of her boyfriend, and he pushed her to press rape charges, saying that she would have to "get rid of Hetherington or he wouldn't take care of the baby."
Over the years, several pro bono lawyers and concerned citizens have tried to secure a pardon or a parole for Hetherington, but Michigan appears determined to make him serve 30 years because he won't admit guilt and because the bureaucracy won't admit it made a mistake.
Almost everyone who reads the record of what happened to William Hetherington concludes that he was unjustly accused, unjustly convicted, unjustly sentenced, unjustly denied his due process and appeal rights, unjustly denied a new trial based on physical evidence of inaccurate testimony by government witnesses, and unjustly denied parole.
A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty.
I don't think any of us in good conscience can sit idly by, doing and saying nothing about this disgusting betrayal of justice. Please join me in voicing your disapproval. Even if nothing comes of it, at least Mr. Hetherington knows that he is not alone and not forgotten.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
So tell me truthfully everyone...am I the only one who's still shocked by this kind of 'literature' (I use the term loosely)? Am I just ridiculously naive that when I happen upon such trash I feel disgusted and nauseous? Am I alone still horrified and appalled by such things?
It's just too long and too pathetic to copy and paste in it's entirety, but I will post some of the 'highlights'.
"Dear Frustrated Wife,
Good News! Right now, I'm going to let you in on the secrets you need to take the guess work and mystery out of divorce without sacrificing your lifestyle and financial security!
Hi. My name is Cathi Adams. I've written a book called "Divorce Secrets: What Every Woman Should Know!" I wrote "Divorce Secrets" because each year over 1 Million women suffer the same fate... often unexpectedly. They wake up one morning and BAM!
Life as they know it is over. Their marriage has ended and they're on their own. Often abandoned with little or no income to support themselves or their children."
Hmmm....that's an interesting scenario she relates considering 70% of divorces are instigated by women. I sincerely doubt it comes as quite the shock the author's portrayed....well, at least not to the women. The author warns women that they need to be prepared because they have no way of knowing when their husbands might come home and unexpectantly utter the phrase, "I'm not happy. I want a divorce." Now, I'm not saying that no man has ever said such a thing...but come on, let's be honest....what group of people in today's society has been led to believe that they have the inalienable right to BE happy? What group of people tend to believe that all and any actions on their part are excusable under the guise of "I'm not happy"? I'll give you a hint....it's the same group of people that are responsible for instigating 70% of divorces.
“Are you trapped in an unhappy marriage because you believe that you can’t afford to leave?”
What if I showed you step-by-step, how to not only survive your divorce, but actually thrive because of it? Would you be excited?
You should be!
With "Divorce Secrets" you will quickly and easily learn my proven, divorce tested system to maximize your financial security before, during and after your divorce."
Oh, good job, Ms. Adams. Way to get women all geared up and gung-ho over the end of their marriages. Way to trivialize the institution of marriage and the immensity of ending a marriage. This isn't something horrible and devastating...no, no, women should be "excited" at the prospect of divorce.
You owe it to yourself -- you owe it to your kids, to take the necessary steps and financially prepare.
If you are desperate to get out of your marriage...
If you fear that your husband is cheating, or has lost interest...
If you are afraid he may file for divorce...
If you don’t know how to support yourself in the event of divorce...
If you want to file, but your afraid that you can't afford to live on your own...
...then it’s time to start planning your financial future. With "Divorce Secrets; What Every Woman Should Know" you will be provided with a step-by-step plan for getting out of your marriage and securing your financial future for the rest of your life.
Learning These Powerful "Divorce Secrets" Will Give You the Upper Hand!
Divorce is a dirty business that leaves many women with only a tiny fraction of their husband’s assets, forced to face an uncertain and frightening future alone. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
"Divorce Secrets" gives you a plan of action from A to Z. From making the decision to divorce, to holding onto the money, to starting a new life, you will be guided every step of the way.
You can come out of your divorce on top. Divorce may be the most difficult experience of your life, but with "Divorce Secrets" you will know how to maximize every advantage you have, and use them to build a wonderful, positive new life.
That's right, don't go into marriage with the unflinching conviction that it is for life. Instead, you should be furtively planning along the way how best to secure as many of the marital assets as possible, should you decide as some point that you're no longer happy.
But why should we take the author's word on things....why not hear what her satisfied customers have been saying?
Make HIM Pay for Your Escape...
"Just acting on only one or two of the many tremendous tips in this wonderful book will save (or make) you thousands of dollars before, during and after your divorce!
This book gives you all the tools you need to get BIG ongoing payments from your husband and even make HIM pay for your escape from the marriage! WOW!
I have 3 daughters and Divorce Secrets will be required reading for them before getting married. Not because I want them to get a divorce, but simply because your book is the best resource I have ever seen for protecting women from the financial devastation they will face from a divorce.
Thank you so much Cathi!"
- E. Graham,Kansas City, MO
O.K., this just makes me literally ill from start to finish. From making your husband pay so that you can "escape" your marriage, to how to get nice, fat payments for abandoning your marriage, up to the part where she's going to make it required reading for her daughters before they get married....because, what's a mother for if not to ruin any chance of her children being happy?You Are Doing A Wonderful Service For Women!
"Cathi, You are doing a wonderful service for women! Great book! I really enjoyed it."
- Barbara, New York
Yeah, kind of like the service feminists did when they told women they could have the best of both worlds, that they had every right to expect the whole world to cater to them, that all the things that declared us women were worthless.....leading to a generation of women who don't know who they are or what they want and who are destined to be unfulfilled and unhappy. Yep, they've done us quite the service. The author teaching women to be conniving and dishonest, to view their husbands and their marriages as something to overcome and get the best of is not what I would call a beneficial service.
We Think It's Fantastic!
"My daughter and I are reading your book. We think it is fantastic!! We have learned so much. You are an angel sent from heaven. Thank you for helping us! Keep up the great work!! You GO girl!!!"
- Nancy, Virginia
Ah yes, no piece of literature for the modern, empowered woman would be complete without the familiar feminist call to arms...."You Go Girl".
Well, I'm going to counter 'Divorce Secrets For Women' with 'Kim's Secrets For Women', and it'll take about one short paragraph instead of an entire book and it's comes completely free of charge.
If you want to secure a happy future for yourself and your children, treat your husband and your marriage with the love and respect they deserve. Stop rolling your eyes, stop shaking your head, stop thinking you are somehow superior and entitled to preferential treatment. Start recognizing and showing appreciation for all the sacrifices your husband makes for his family. Start thinking of things you can do for your husband, start thinking of ways to make him happy, start trying to put him first. Stop faking headaches, stop acting like intimacy is some big chore you're doing out of obligation. Start enjoying your relationship and all the things you first loved, but quickly forgot, about the man you married.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
O.K., so maybe I dont 100% agree with the method, but the message is right on. If kids are loud, boisterous, full of energy, have short attention spans.....that's because THEY ARE KIDS. Fifty years ago if your son had a hard time sitting still in class, you might have affectionately ruffled his hair or rolled your eyes and said, "yep, he's 100% boy". Nowadays, they'd want him tested for ADHD and put on medication. If kids are full of energy, it's because they're kids. If they're out of control, chances are it has more to do with a lack of parenting and discipline than a need to be medicated.
The statistics show that boys are three times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, but that it is not understood why. I'll tell you why, because the diagnosing symptoms of ADHD describe pretty much every boy I know. How many healthy, active boys don't have a hard time sitting still and focusing in class? I can count the number I remember from my school days on one hand. When I was in school, it would have been the one boy who was sitting quietly in his chair, not being loud and energetic, that people would have been the most concerned about.
This is so classic for today's society. It's always the easy way out and avoidance of responsibility. Instead of realizing that it's hard for some children, boys especially, to sit quietly still and focused through a 7 hour school day and working with that, it's much easier to sedate them. Instead of saying, hmmm, maybe the fact that our children are out of control is a direct reflection of our parenting, it's much more convenient to lay the blame on a behavioral problem.
Now, I'd like to clarify that I do think there are bonafide instances of ADHD...situations where the child is suffering from a behavioral disorder and could benefit from medical treatment, HOWEVER, these are the few and far between. In most instances, my advice would be that if your child is full of energy and has a hard time sitting still, take a second to be thankful that your child is healthy. If your child won't listen or behave, take a minute to evaluate your parenting. Telling children that there's something wrong with them for doing nothing more than acting like a normal child, simply because it's easier, is one more travesty we in society have to answer for.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
I'm also amazed that so many women, having declared men unnecessary, having mocked and scorned them, having treated them like a dirt....would even think such a thing as chivalry might still be on the table. Why should a man feel the need to take care of, protect and defend someone who has blatantly said, "You are not needed."? I suppose chivalry would be an o.k. thing if a man were honored and respected. As it is......I hardly see why today's 'empowered woman' would expect such a thing from men.
It's not that I'm opposed to the concept of chivalry. The definition I attribute most to chivalry is that it is "based on brave, courteous and honourable behaviour". I think we should All act chivalrously as our abilities allow. While I might be of little use lifting something heavy or fixing a car, I would always try to help someone in need to the extent of my abilities. Chivalry, in my eyes, has more to do with what we expect from ourselves than what others expect of us. My husband is very chivalrous towards me. If we're out shopping and it's cold or raining, he drops me off at the front door so I don't have to walk and then parks the car and walks through the rain and cold himself. Now, I would never expect him to do such a thing, but I imagine that's part of equation. Any act of charity, kindness or benevolence is damaged when it's expected, utterly destroyed when it's unappreciated.
As usual the key element that women miss is that these things have to go both ways. I imagine, if I never lifted a finger to do anything selfless for my husband, if I treated him like with the kind of exasperation and irritation that hallmarks many of today's marriages....he'd be a little less inclined to indulge in these displays of chivalry. We both act according to our abilities to take care of the other. If he knows I have to go somewhere early in the morning, he'll go out and shovel the driveway that night so that I don't have to worry about it, he makes sure he fills the cars up if he knows I'll be driving them so that I don't have to stop and get gas......All these little things that make me amazed at how wonderful he is. By the same token, I go out of my way to do little things I know make him happy, backrubs after work, taking care of things in the morning so he can sleep in, planning his favorite meals.....we act chivalrously towards each other.
As for the widely accepted definition of chivalry, i.e., a man protects and defers to women regardless of how they are treated by said women, that's just out of line with human nature. People need to feel respected and appreciated. People who are treated with scorn and contempt do not feel compelled to aid the person who belittles them. The idea that women are entitled to chivalrous behavior from men, for no other reason than by virtue of their gender is, quite frankly, ridiculous. By it's current and generally accepted definition, chivalry needed to die.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Hat tip to Marx at antimisandry.com for bringing this to my attention.
Men's Abortion Rights: What Will They Think of Next?
By Sherrie L. Porter, Communication Intern
January 18, 2008
The religious right has fought hard to chip away at women's rights and personal freedoms for decades. Over the years, we have faced a range of attempts – some successful - to take away a woman's control over her body. Men's abortions rights, the newest disturbing trend in the battle to undermine Roe v Wade, claims that men are "victims" of abortion.
The idea of male victims stems from the concept of "post-abortion syndrome" -- a nonscientific term coined in the 1980s by abortion opponents who claim that women experience psychological trauma after terminating a pregnancy. While there are no long-term, credible research studies, proponents of this creatively named "condition" claim it leads to depression in women, as well as alcoholism and drug addiction.
In a recent Los Angeles Times piece, "Changing Abortion's Pronoun," writer Stephanie Simon sees the political calculation behind the curtain: "Abortion is one of the most common surgeries in the country, with more than 1 million performed a year; while some who chose the procedure surely come to regret it, doctors say they see no epidemic of trauma in either men or women."
Despite the lack of evidence for post-abortion syndrome in either gender, anti-abortion advocates suggest "lost fatherhood" can lead to domestic violence and an addiction to sex. Both claims seem to suggest a rationale for men behaving badly. Men, they suggest, experience symptoms of post-abortion syndrome equally if not more powerfully than women. Male victims throughout the country are sharing stories of "their abortions." In November, anti-abortion activists met in San Francisco for what they boasted was "the first ever conference on the effects of abortion on men."
In the movement for men's abortion rights, Ohio legislators are attempting to make headway. Ohio house bill 287, seeks to give a man the legal right to decide whether or not the woman he impregnates should get an abortion and would make it mandatory for all women to have the written consent of "the father of the fetus" before she can go forward with the procedure. Under the same legislation, rape and incest victims would need a police report to "prove" they need an abortion. As for a woman who does not know (or doesn't want to reveal) who the man is, she would be unable to elect the procedure. Anyone, including doctors, who violate the bill would be guilty of "abortion fraud" and charged with a misdemeanor.
"If a woman wishes to include a man in her decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy, she may do so. But the state cannot mandate that she do so," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Requiring a 'permission slip' for abortion would mock the right guaranteed in Roe v. Wade."
Ohio HB 287 was introduced by Republican State Rep. John Adams in July 2007 and now sits at the desk of the House Health Committee. While it is unlikely that the bill will set sail--due to a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is not Constitutional--NOW activists are working across the country to fight the continual assaults on women's reproductive autonomy.
"What the extremists really want is an end to all abortion and birth control, severely restricting the personal, medical decisions of every woman in the U.S.," said NOW Action Vice President Melody Drnach. "While we will fight this legislation and every other attempt to deny our reproductive rights, we will not take our eyes off of the very real and dangerous fight that these extremists are waging against women."
Shame on Ms. Porter and shame on feminists everywhere for being so unfeeling as to deny that having a say regarding the life of his child has any effect on a man. I think one of our most driving instincts are our parental ones. The instinct to take care of, defend and protect one's offspring is as natural and inherent as any we possess.
"Men's abortions rights, the newest disturbing trend in the battle to undermine Roe v Wade, claims that men are "victims" of abortion." Yep, that's a disturbing thought....the concept that men should actually have some rights concerning the life of their child. [/sarcasm] Especially offensive is the way the author attempts to mock fathers ("victims") who have been negatively affected by not having the ability to protect the life of his child. Ms. Porter has once again managed to prove that feminists only care about such concepts as rights and fairness as they relate to women. Men, apparently, don't rate such things.
"Despite the lack of evidence for post-abortion syndrome in either gender, anti-abortion advocates suggest "lost fatherhood" can lead to domestic violence and an addiction to sex. " Well, I don't know about any of that, but what I do know is that women should try switching it around. Women everywhere should stop and imagine what it would be like if someone else held all the keys concerning the life of their unborn child. They should imagine what it would be like if they'd created life, a life they valued, cherished and wanted, and then somebody else came along and said, "sorry, I've decided to end this life". Once women have put themselves in that position, then they should voice their opinions as to whether or not such a thing would have an emotional toll. I, for one, know I would fight to the extent of my abilities to be able to keep my child....and not just because I would consider abortion murder, but because that's my baby, my child, a part of me that I valued from the moment I became aware of it's existence. Not being able to stop somebody else from ending the life of my child would have an emotional toll that I can't even imagine. Mocking the idea that a man might be capable of feeling the same is exceptionally cold and callous.
"What the extremists really want is an end to all abortion and birth control, severely restricting the personal, medical decisions of every woman in the U.S.," said NOW Action Vice President Melody Drnach. "While we will fight this legislation and every other attempt to deny our reproductive rights, we will not take our eyes off of the very real and dangerous fight that these extremists are waging against women." Well, I don't consider myself an extremist, but I'll tell you what I'd like. I'd like a human life to count for more than a woman's right to choose. I'd like an admission that the rights of a father are just as worthy of protecting as the rights of a mother; an admission that the concept that a man is negatively effected by the loss of an unborn's child's life is not some ridiculous joke put out by extremists.
This reminds me of something I've long speculated on. There's a quote that's quite popular in feminist circles, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Perhaps...but I think they cut that quote a bit short. Viewing articles such as this, along with additional rhetoric championed by feminists, I think more fitting would have been, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people...and that men aren't".
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Dumpyourwifenow.com is not a site that advocates the indiscriminate abandoning of one's spouse....quite the contrary. It's a site created by people like me, people who have looked at the current state of marriage, the current attitude of today's 'empowered woman'....and cringed. It's a site that realizes the challenges faced by men in today's screwed up society and seeks to address the situation. The statistics speak for themselves. 50% of marriages end in divorce and 70% of those divorces are instigated by women. And, let's be honest now, how many men that file for divorce are in loving, supportive marriages with wives who respect and appreciate them? More than a handful of men would read that and wonder, "do those even exist?". I know people don't want to hear it, the truth is not easy to face, but the fact is, under the influence of feminism, one of the riskiest things a man can do in today's world is get married.....which is very, very sad.
The dream, i.e. marriage to the love of your life, kids, grandkids.....has become more of a risk then some men are willing to take. Even if they're lucky enough to find a really good woman, someone who recognizes the value of things such as commitment and integrity, still, thanks to no-fault divorce laws along with custody and support laws that disgracefully favor the rights of the woman over the man, should his wife decide, upon a whim, that she wants a divorce, he stands to lose everything....at least everything that matters. Even if he's financially stable enough to provide for himself while paying child support and alimony payments, chances are he'll only get to see his children on weekends and holidays.....IF his wife chooses to follow the custody agreement. If she doesn't, that means a long, ugly court battle that often yields him little....if anything.
My take on http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/ is that they realize what men are up against. They realize that many women today have very little respect for the institution of marriage and even less respect for men. The media's taught us that men are a joke; there for our ridicule and amusement. Feminism has taught us that men are, at best, unnecessary and inferior, at worst, all potential rapists, murderers and abusers. The law has taught us that, when it comes to their children, a man's rights are few to none. Women have been taught that it's all about them, that nothing matters more than them and their happiness, including any lives that get in the way of and are consequently destroyed as a result of pursuing that happiness. Many women go into marriage expecting everything while giving nothing...and then they're astounded when their husbands are unhappy or fed-up.
There's an article on their website right now featuring yours truly (thanks guys!) that makes some very good points. I'll let you read it in it's entirety on your own, but here's a sample so you can see for yourself exactly what it is the men over there are trying to get across,
"The intent of this blog was to never judge women has a whole, but to point out the sick and twisted things that many of their gender partake in and perform against men; and to do our best to get that to stop! Many of those things were a result of feminism and it’s skewed movement (for example, it’s made a mockery of the family court system).
We here at dumpyourwifenow.com, hope you ladies get equal pay. We hope you become an executive at Coca Cola, if that is what you want? And we want your false allegations in court to stop. We want you to give us joint custody of our children… and many other other things that are simply fair when reviewed with an open mind.
I’m always hearing in the media about the bad things men do and not enough of what good things we do. Sadly, I’ve seen too many rotten women and only a few that are good. However, this writer refuses to give up looking for the good ones, I know they exist. Although I’ve admitted frequently in the blog, trying to find a good woman is like trying to find a tootsie roll in a pool of turds.
This blog will continue to focus on the ills of the gender until those ills become the minority. Good women need to see what their evil sisters are doing to the good men in the world. It has got to stop!"
Yes, indeed it has got to stop. It's time for women to take a long, hard look at ourselves and the state of society. It's time to face up to some ugly truths and it's time to make some changes.
Be sure to go over and check out the rest of the site as well!