Feminist definition: “Sick” –> adj.
1. A man who consistently supports equal legal rights while opposing feminist domination.
2. Someone winning a debate with a feminist.
3. A man who refuses to kowtow to feminism. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack. Translation: “You’re right on, but I won’t admit it.”
Well, well, well…………….
Whatever happened to the “superwomen”, the “perfect human” the “whatever a man can do we can do better” or this one I like the most ” women are the world’s greatest communicators”.
We have all heard them rant about that one. The truth is they only communicate it with themselves, we just get the drivel.
But here we have the “WGC” having another communication’s attack.
It really does have a good major whinge, does it not. Cannot help cycling through them, typical female.
Begins with the right sentiments………obviously needs a testosterone shot.
From: Penny Date: 06/02/2004
Subject: the feminine mystique Email: penelope_rice@yahoo.com
Message:
I may be female, but I hate EVERYTHING that is forced on me simply because I have 2 X chromosomes. I hate the obsession with my body, the restrictions in choice of occupation, the lack of autonomy, the powerlessness, and the lack of belonging. I hate the fact that there is no such thing as ’sisterhood’–women will stab each other in the back in a heartbeat if there is a man involved. I hate having to perpetually look like a 21 year old beach bunny. I hate the fact that my entire worth as a human being is defined by whether I am a ‘10′ or just a ‘5′. I hate how judgemental and competitive women are towards one another. I hate how you constantly have to read between the lines whenever you talk to a woman. I hate how women will never give the gods-honest-truth when you ask for it. I hate how the women who get a lot of guys strut around like they are god’s gift to humanity. I hate how weak, immature, and irrational so many women are. I hate how women all over the world allow themselves to be debased and subjugated without so much as a whimper of protest. I hate the whole ‘feminine’ image: a dainty, weak, compliant, emotional, irrational, moody, sex-obsessed, immature, child-like doll whose only goal is to get married and get pregnant with 8 million babies. Bah humbug!
What an over-rated human being these women think they are. I wondered where or how the single mom was going to get this this type of income.
No wonder they all want to be on their own and spend plenty of time at home with bubby.
Good income if you can get it. I might see if I can get one of these jobs as well.
Amazingly “Job titles new to the list this year include psychologist, laundry machine operator and computer operator”.
Yes it takes a genius to press the button on a washing machine and to plug in a computer which any child over five can do. But it’s worth the inflated women’s rate. And look a “psychologist” does this mean that she will stop saying to the child ” you wait until your Father comes home”.
I don’t think so. What a joke.
Here is one way to cut back the wage bill…….
Stay-At-Home Mom’s ‘Salary’ Rises To $134,121
POSTED: 11:50 am EDT May 5, 2006
UPDATED: 12:00 pm EDT May 5, 2006
WALTHAM, Mass. — The cost of paying a stay-at-home mom for all the work she does is on the rise.Salary.com said if they got paid, stay-at-home moms would pull down $134,121 this year — a raise of $2,650 from last year’s theoretical salary.
Moms who work outside the home would get an annual paycheck of $86,876 for the “mom job” portion of their work, in addition to their actual “work job” salary.
Salary.com put together a list of job titles that best matched a stay-at-home mom’s definition of the work she does.
Among them — in the order of hours spent per week — are housekeeper, day-care center teacher and cook.
Job titles new to the list this year include psychologist, laundry machine operator and computer operator.
Ah…yes.
We have a different explanation on where these ludicrous figures come from……..
This is another of these so-called “studies” that destroys the meaning. They’re usually performed by voodoo-science graduates, journalism graduates, women’s studies types, or b-school/law graduates that went on the “math-lite” version of the course.
What that excerpt cleverly fails to note is that one of the jobs they are deriving women’s salaries from is CEO.
Moreover, they derived salaries for people working in NYC and area. That definitely represents cost-of-living for the area this “study” is being distributed to. Not.
Yep. Every stay-at-home mom is the equivalent of a Fortune 500 CEO. Brilliant.
Why don’t we have a study that compares stay-at-home women to:
- maid (legal or illegal), typically under minimum wage when you count travel time, even for legals in a big city;
- taxi driver, typically under minimum wage plus tips.
- waitress, under minimum wage plus tips
- laundry worker, minimum wage
- babysitter, under minimum wage
- short order cook, maybe $10-$15/hr; microwaving doesn’t count.
- private under-the-books tutor (typically $10-$15/hr)All, in all, that sums up to $5 or so an hour. Let’s say $6. So, about $250/wk, $1000/mo, $12000/yr, no napkins required. In fairness, we could add “sex-worker” and miscellaneous for $6000 more /yr for a total of $18000/yr.
Now, we have to compute her benefit package and what she should pay for it, since almost all of those jobs have no benefits.
- Car and fuel provided (usually very good car, $400/mo)
- Housing provided (usually luxuriousm and free run of it, $1000/mo)
- Clothing allowance ($250/mo)
- Medical care ($400/mo)
- Pension ($400/mo)
- life-time job security, even if falls ill ($Priceless, say $500/mo).So we have 2750/mo in benefits. 33k/year. And I didn’t even add in psychological counselling (listening to her) at $100/hr.
So, 33k-18k = 15k per year that the woman should be PAYING the man!
What a deal for her.
Of course, both of these “studies” are ridiculous, but it’s a game more than just the feminists can play at.
A woman who is willing and happy to stay home and do a good job helping raising children, keeping a home and caring first for the family (as should her husband) is priceless.
There are few in the west, in this decadent age.
-wolfe
CYA and abuse at the HREOC.
What goes on in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission these days is anyone’s guess. But useful work isn’t on the cards it seems. Covering the proverbial backside is though.
Pru Goward, in the job for five years, hasn’t even looked at the abuse of human rights in Tasmania despite numerous alarm calls from Tassie’s High Court Judges, the Law Society and others regarding the abuse of men in the ‘Safe at Home’ Act. The situation there cuts across most of the areas under her remit: Human Rights, Sexual Discrimination, Equal Opportunity.
Now she has a new egregious attack on men to ignore, and boy is she noisily ignoring it. A letter to the Editor of the Herald – Sun pointing out the ‘Chopper’ Read adverts resulting in Pru attacking the messenger.
What ads are these, you ask? It seems that a shadowy group calling itself the Schwartz Foundation has hired the notorious psychopath-murderer, Mark ‘Chopper’ Read, to tell us all that men sent to jail for offenses against women will get seven shades of you know what beaten out of them. The ads have been screened and quickly taken off but only because of the criticism. SBS has a copy and has run for cover. The Salvation Army was quick off the mark in the Courier-Mail with its condemnation and researchers at the University of Queensland reckoned it might ‘backfire’. I’ll say. It is now singing the backside of the lazy arses in HREOC.
The HREOC was set up to guarantee the UN’s Universal Human Rights Charter to which Australia is a signatory. One paragraph in that august Charter deals specifically with the treatment of prisoners and their protection from violence and here is an ad on TV promoting and advocating just such illegal violence. The advert itself is illegal.
Pru Goward tried to shoot the messenger via the Herald Sun however and evaded the issue by saying it was a private sector matter. Even Julie Bishop, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister got in on the act – in a letter to Tasmania’s Mercury newspaper - pointing the finger away from the Government. Maybe it did originate in some private initiative as they want us to believe but in the public mind it is associated with the other long-running anti-male advertising underwritten by $73 million of taxpayers money, ‘Australia says No to violence against Women’. Violence against men does not seem to bother the Sexual Discrimination Commissioner. Private initiative or not, it advocates illegality and Pru polishes her pointy nails to scratch the face of a man who draws her attention to it.
She tries to ignore the alerts just as her fellow femonazi, Tassie’s ex Attorney General the notoriously sexist Judy Jackson did. “Its only men�. Meanwhile a complaint against Pru has arrived at the HREOC so she now has to investigate herself! Amongst the many questions in the official complaint that Pru needs to give a public answer to are:
Who are the Schwartz Foundation? Is it an Australian or foreign body?
Why are they advocating illegal actions in Australian Government Institutions? Why are they allowed to do this?
What is the Office you work in going to do about them? Prosecute or not? If not, why not?
Why has the Sexual Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward, not acted to uncover them, instead of using her power to abuse a member of the public?
What is Julie Bishop, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues doing in all this?
Why is there no Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Men’s Issues? The absence of this role is rank sexual discrimination.
Why hasn’t Pru Goward investigated the Sexual Discrimination in the Prime Minister’s Office?
Why has Pru Goward attacked a private citizen for raising the issue?
Why has the Office failed to investigate the abuses of human rights in Tasmania?
The Chief Justice of Tasmania, the Head of the Law society, several Judges and many citizens have protested the ‘Safe at Home’ Act which denies natural justice, bail, evidence of crime, and demands mandatory arrest and incarceration of men by a hampered police force, only to be dismissed by a sexist Attorney General who is on public record as saying she will take no notice because the complainers “are only men�. This sexist injustice seems to have been ignored by the Sexual Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward.
Why?
It will be interesting to see if this poor sap who raised the issue gets discriminated against by the anti-discrimination mob.
The same female has accused other males as well and has not paid any penalty for lying and incarcerating a human being under a false pretence.
Some of the laws this lying female has broken would be perjury, as far as I am aware this is a punisable crime if your a male. Obviously not if your a female.
Teacher Cleared Of Rape A teacher who died in prison after being convicted of raping one of his pupils has been posthumously cleared by the Court of Appeal.
It all boiled down to one girl’s word against his, and the jury believed her.
Once again, never fall for the shameful lie perpetually perpetrated by dishonest self-serving western government officials and by their corrupt cronies in the judiciary that their systems of justice are based on the notion that men are deemed to be innocent of a crime until proved otherwise.
Proof is no longer required in cases of ‘abuse’. A single accusation alone - without further evidence - is all that is required to send a man to prison or to have him removed from his own home.
And please do not believe the nonsense that miscarriages of justice like the one above are the fault of the juries. The judges in these cases have the power to throw them out of court on the basis of insufficient evidence to warrant a trial. But, in a nutshell, they are just too self-serving and just too corrupt to do this.
It also emerged that the girl, now 26, made similar allegations against another man, whose CONVICTION was quashed earlier this year.
This letter really outlines the ongoing anti-male attitude in Australia. The Australian Federal Government has just allocated in this years budget 75 MILLION dollars for women only in relation to advertising this message. And a feminised one it is to.
I cannot give you the name of this academic’s article as it was unnamed.
http://ofw.facs.gov.au/
Another assisting the sexist office for women.
I have noticed of late a new spate of TV, newspaper, women’s magazine and billboard propaganda portraying women as victims of male violence, particularly domestic/relationship violence (D/RV). I am very offended that I and my children must be subjected to this propaganda. My son and daughter asked me the other night why there are no ads about women’s violence against men (they have witnessed this by more than one woman against men) and my son was evidently upset that his gender was being attacked. My son is 8 and my daughter is 12. Stop this rot now.
While I deplore violence of any kind, I believe that this Violence Against Women - Australia Says No campaign is socially divisive, harmful to children and ideologically driven.
I had a running debate - through email and letter - with the Office for Women last year over this campaign and was, quite rudely, told that the Office for Women would no longer discuss the matter with me. I called into question many of their figures and beliefs and backed up my points with a plethora of hard academic eveidence (referenced below) that indicates that women and men perpetrate the same amount of D/RV.
The Office for Women used just a handful of studies to suport their claims, of which two were directly sponsored by the Office for Women, one was over fifteen years old (and taken out of context) and two were sponsored by the American National Organization for Women (NOW) to support the US VAWA bill.
Further, the figures that they used to highlight that women were the biggest victims of D/RV were contrived and innaccurate. For example, this doozy, among many, in The Cost of Domestic Violence to the Australian Economy booklet (which is the only document they sent me as evidence of their claims); on page 9 a claim is made that women make up 87% of the victims of D/RV.
At the bottom is this note - violence against male victims is discounted by 75% to take into account a lower injury rate and psychological impact. This fudges the numbers a great deal and does not explain who made this decision, when the discount was made (which is very important in terms of final numbers) and why women who suffered the same injury rates or psychological impact were not also discounted.
The study did not differentiate between heterosexual and bisexual couples, so lesbians who hit their partners were included as men. This study did not canvass men about their experience with D/RV. This study has also been called into question publically by the Bureau of Statistics, which has found errors in the numbers of female perpetrators.
I think it is time to rein in the powers of the radical feminist run Office for Women and make them accountable for the lies, half-truths and ideologically driven propaganda they spout endlessly, in the hope of grabbing even more amounts of Australian tax money (which is still mainly provided by men) to keep themselves rich.
They then use this money to run ideologically driven campaigns, programs and centres that are all about distributing wealth and power from men to women, even though it is quite questionable that women lack power and money as things stand.
It is evident that this propaganda has worked on many people, the evidence of which is the sidetracking of issues in, leading up to and during, the debate over the Family Law Amendment Bill last week. Labor, in particular Nicola Roxon, and the Democrats, in particular Natasha Stott Despoja (I was amazed to see Despoja stand up as a democratically elected official in our great democratic institution of government and infer that it is right for women to falsely accuse men of D/RV in a court of law), attempted to hijack this debate over children’s and father’s rights to have meaningful access to each other by bringing up the D/RV boogeyman time and again.
I am just thankful that others, the Liberals and Family First, stood strong and rejected this garbage for what it is. D/RV does indeed occur, but it is in a small percentage of the populace, is not only perpetrated by men against women and had little to do with this debate.
The Bill clearly states that if violence is happening then circumstances change. However, I do believe that they and women’s lobby groups, financed by the Office for Women no doubt, did deter the government from going that one step further and putting in place a rebuttable presumption of shared care. They win again.
I implore all members of government to educate themselves on this issue and to make a stand. Males (including boys) are constantly and consistently ridiculed, blamed (for everything), forgotten and lambasted in our contemporary society. This is done because of some perceived inequality of times past.
Yes, women did not have the same opportunities in the past, but they did have opportunities that were not open to men, yes things had to change, yes it is only right that my daughter has the same chances in life as my son, but she has. SHE HAS! Laws are in place now to ensure that. Why do we need to keep going until men become second-class citezens. Is that fair to my son (or me for that matter) who has done nothing, or will do nothing, to females but treat them equally and with the same respect he gives males.
Another point is the economic one - this campaign is not working. According to the media, feminists and others, D/RV is on the rise, so obviously this campaign (which has run for 3 years now) is economically unsound. While I believe that this is more a result of the ever moving goal posts on the definition of D/RV (it is now considered D/RV if a man raises his voice, doesn’t feel like having sex or even if he says his wife is spending too much money), or the fact that all these agencies are looking for D/RV in a bid to keep themselves going, it must be a wake up call to the economists.
Even if the evidence below does not convince you or even if you really believe this radical feminist drivel, think about this. According to the trumped up lies and half-truths put out about D/RV by the Office for Women themselves, 13% of D/RV victims are men. What about them and their children? Who represents these men and their children? Who cares about these men and their children? Where are the resources (counselling, financial help, shelters) for these men and their children?
PS I will be sending this letter by mail also.
References:
Deconstructing Self-Defense in Wife-to-Husband Violence
Sarantakos, Sotirios. Journal of Men’s Studies. Harriman: Spring 2004. Vol. 12, Iss. 3; p. 277
Domestic Violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent.
Bruce Headey, Dorothy Scott, David de Vaus
University of Melbourne La Trobe University
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.pdf
Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships
Michelle Carrado, M.J. George, Elizabeth Loxam, L. Jones and Dale Templar
http://www.batteredmen.com/carrgeo1.htm
Psychology of Women Quarterly. September, 2005 issue. This whole issue is about female violence. See especially; Female Violence Against Intimate Partners, An Introduction. Irene Hanson Frieze.
The Abuse Index: Who’s Throwing Stuff and Who’s Getting Hit
Vigneri, Sara. Men’s Health (USA/Canada) May 2000 Vol 15, Issue 4, p150.
Equal Justice Foundation; http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv.htm.
The Feminization of Domestic Violence in America: The Woozle Effect Goes Beyond Rhetoric
Coney, Nancy S., Mackey, Wade C. Journal of Men’s Studies. Harriman: Oct 31, 1999. Vol. 8, Iss. 1
_________________
Feminst Quotes: “The thing everyone is pulling their hair out about (divorce) is the thing I’m most proud about”. Germaine Greer 2004.
“If life is to survive on this planet there must be a decontamination … I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of males”. Mary Daly, professor Boston College 2001.
“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape”. Catherine Mckinnon.
“Men are scum”. Valerie Solanas, 1971.
This is the type of articles that has endless possibilities. Imagine having an android instead of a female at home. No more complaining, no endless harping about any topic that you can think of, no getting screwed when trading it in for another model.
Having someone inthe house that actually does not think the world evolves around it, bliss.
It warms the cockles of my heart.
Korean Scientists Develop Female Android
By Kim Tae-gyu
A child touches the female android named EveR-1 during an exhibition at the Seoul Education Culture Center, Thursday. /Yonhap
Standing 1.6 meters tall and weighing about 50 kilograms, she can understand others, speak, blink with her eyes and makes several facial expressions.
Here’s an earlier version. But it was rejected.
The idea of this newspaper is to spread the word. This copy will print out to one A4 page and will be ideal to glue onto a toilet door or window or post or anywhere where men will see it.
We believe that every male should shovel some gravel, as the saying goes. Make some effort and do something for the Men’s movement so we can at least get back some dignity.
It’s up to you, print out just ten copies and stick them somewhere. It will at least make you feel involved and made an effort to spread the word. If you made the effort then your An MRA. (Men’s Rights Activist) Congratulation, well done.
Australian Men’s Newspaper,A4 size for copying and nailing anywhere to get exposure
I have highlighted the best bits, I’ll wait till I stop laughing…..
Here the other best part “It is also keen for cheerleaders to be seen as athletes in sports wear, rather than bimbos in bikinis.”
Ha,ha,haaaaaaaaahahaha……….
Athletes….MMaaahhhaaaa!!!!!!!
Cheerleaders ordered to cover up
By Hannah Davies
April 16, 2006Queensland Reds cheer leaders … Jasmine, Taryn and Bec (r) - only Bec would have to wrap that midriff, according to Gymnastics Australia / file
SCANTILY-clad cheerleaders have been ordered to cover up because of fears they may be encouraging schoolgirl anorexia.
Cheerleading’s governing body Gymnastics Australia is banning teams from baring their midriffs and has given them until the end of the year to find new uniforms.The organisation believes the revealing costumes make sensitive teenagers feel uncomfortable about their weight and “affect the self-esteem of others”.
It is also keen for cheerleaders to be seen as athletes in sports wear, rather than bimbos in bikinis.
This has angered cheerleading squads who say audiences don’t want a cover-up.
Brisbane Broncos cheerleaders’ manager Anthony Ikin, whose squad is not affected by the ban, described it as “ridiculous and way too extreme”.
“The midriff is not an area to be concerned about exposing … no one wants to go to a game and see people in tracksuits and baggy clothes, it’s not appealing .”
Broncos cheerleader Angeli Chupungco, 21, said she was happy wearing the uniform of a sports top and shorts with stockings. “The outfits are appropriate for what we’re doing and we look the way people want us to look as cheerleaders.”
The ban, which has already been imposed in the United States, will affect teams which are registered with Gymnastics Australia or compete at their events.
This covers 33 Queensland clubs including Logan’s Acrobatics Fanatics, Townsville Dance and Cheerleading, and Cheersport, which has squads in Brisbane and Townsville.
The ban follows the Queensland Reds cheerleaders being forced to cover up and tone down their moves after their revealing bikinis led to complaints from rugby fans.
Gymnastics Australia national cheerleading program manager Nerine Cooper defended the ban, saying it was important to bear in mind that “cheerleading is for family viewing”.
“We don’t want girls to feel under pressure to lose weight because of the uniforms, and we also don’t want girls who see cheerleaders developing self-esteem issues which can lead to anorexia,” she said.
[b]“We also want the cheerleaders to be seen as athletes, not bimbos in uniforms which are too brief.”
Counsellor Alan Spencer, who runs the Gold Coast Eating Disorders Association, said cheerleaders were role models.
“Scantily dressed cheerleaders do contribute to some girls developing anorexia,” he said.
“These cheerleaders are adored by the population and some teenagers see all the love and attention they get and they think they are not measuring up.
“They think if only they could just have their body then people would love them, too.”[/b]
It would seem that it’s just fine to introduce a knifeholder called “all Men are Bastards” knife holder, but what about this one ?
Are we offended yet…………
Wommyns studies is just another excuse for women to get together and work on their already over-bloated victim complex. The only complex that ensures copious amounts of government funding. Billions in fact.
I love this article, especially that the male-hating Greer gets bitten by her own lies and hate.
Absolutely Love it, POETIC JUSTICE
Me laughing at Greer. Hahahahahah!!!!
Feminists ruing their childless lives seems pitiful
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant columnist, recently wrote a piece in The Washington Post that caused me to realize I have definitely mellowed. There was a time when I would have reacted in a kind of “I told you so” smug way. But my reaction was quite different. I felt pity for the childless women described in the piece.
The column begaï,with a quote from a recent interview in the British magazine Aura, headlined “I Was Desperate for a Baby and I Have the Medical Bëlls to Prove It.” Krauthammer asks, “Some love-struck movie star? A lesbian celebrity? No. Germaine Greer, icon of 20th-century feminism.”
“I still have pregnancy dreams,” Greer confessed movingly in the premier issue of the magazine, “waiting with vast joy and confidence for something that will never happen.” Of course, women longing for children is nothing new, but this kind of confession from a hard-core, founding-mother feminist is very telling.
Krauthammer writes: “The one adjective rarely attached to Greer was domestic. And now she reveals the hollowness that haunts her, the terrible sorrow she feels at what she lost: her chance for motherhood. Many years ago, she now writes, she cared for the infant girl of a friend. ‘Ruby lit up my life in a way that nobody, certainly no lover, has ever done. I was not prepared for the incandescent sensuousness of this small child, the generosity of her innocent love.’ ”
By the time Greer experienced this epiphany, she was too old to conceive. She had bought into the feminist myth she helped create, that childbearing was part of the patriarchal plot to keep women enslaved.
As many of you know, I absorbed this mentality in college in the ’60s and was a card-carrying(Feminist throughout the early days of my career. I lapsed out of it somewhere closing in on my mid-30s, when I had my own agonizing experience with the “haunting hollowness” Greer refers to. Thank God I still had time, though I, too, had some difficulty in getting pregnant.
There is something so special in realizing that part of your personhood as a woman, connecting your femininity and sexuality to your power to reproduce. The joy of being pregnant was a unique experience, despite its duration, discomforts and the pain of childbirth. All that just fades into the background when your child is born. And the joy continues to multiply and grow, just like my son, who is now 14 and 6 feet tall.
I recently gave a newspaper interview about my new book, and the reporter asked me a question that left me speechless: “What are you going to be doing in four years when your son graduates from high school and is out of the house?” Of course, intellectually, I know my son is going to grow up and go away to college. But until that moment, I had never thought about what that would actually be like, or what I would do. And then, of course, I didn’t want to think about it. Because while all parents grouse, grumble and complain, our children are the most incredible part of our lives.
So, whereas in the past I might have thought that Germaine Greer had earned her desolation, that it served her right for the critical damage feminists did to all the women with their negative brainwashing about the value of motherhood, I mostly now pity her. All that anger for so long has robbed her and so many others of the most incredible beauty that they as women could experience.
If this is the standard why aren’t more women caught and punished in Australia ?
The Case Against Female Sexual Predators
By GORDON E. FINLEY
Debra Lafave’s court case is over now, and she has immediately moved on to a new man, a national interview on CNN and a new book to write. What an exciting and empowering outcome to this sordid event - for her.
But what of the 14-year-old schoolboy she sexually molested - whose life, by media accounts, never will be the same again? I shudder to think how this experience will shape not only his future relationships with his peers and parents, but above all, his adult relationships with women and perhaps even his role as a father if ever he becomes one.
Of perhaps greater concern, evidence that Lafave represents but the tip of the iceberg can be found in a 2004 U. S. Department of Education report titled “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature.”
This report includes data from two large-scale surveys wherein students report that 43 percent of their molesters were female. Such a proportion of female sexual predators is high by any measure.
For centuries we have entrusted our children to females for nurturance, care and emotional support - not sexual abuse. We must open our hearts and minds to the reality that females can be sexual predators and that their victims are harmed, just as the victims of male sexual predators are harmed.
Lafave has made Tampa - indeed, Florida - synonymous worldwide with a reeking double standard in its punishment of sexual predators: jail for males, fame and fortune for females.
I find nothing in her story that remotely hints that any female sexual predator ever will be deterred by this legal outcome. If anything, I would expect it to encourage female sexual predators, since they now know that they need not fear prosecution in this state.
I believe the Florida Legislature needs to create and fund a Female Sexual Predator Act to protect our sons and daughters from female sexual predators, just as existing laws protect them from male sexual predators.
First and foremost, such an act would provide immediate services - protective, therapeutic and rehabilitative - to the victims of female sexual predators. Second, the act would require equal treatment and uñual punishment under the law for male and female sexual predators.
As a society, we need to reframe the sexual abuse debate to acknowledge that female sexual predators do exist in substantial numbers. Delay in passing a Female Sexual Predator Act only continues to leave children in Florida at risk from further female sexual predation.
Gordon E. Finley is a professor of psychology at Florida International University.
MGTOW (Men going their own way)is spreading worldwide, here is a fine example of Men ignoring and staying away from women. Women are no longer worth the hassle as they not only carry way too much baggage but the potential of being jailed by these liars is just too great.
It’s best to avoid them altogether.
“Across the Pond, the song’s the same. Five-hundred women responded to an Edinburgh restaurant’s promotion for a Single’s Night mixer in “honor” of Valentine’s Day 2002.
Two males responded. TWO. The owner of the restaurant - a woman - said: “We’re a bit disappointed because we thought we’d get so many more guys than girls - after all, they’d have a room full of single women. But I think men take themselves too seriously these days.”â€?
Women still do not see the real reason, they are so self-focused that they are unable to see feminist assisted damage that they have promoted and assisted for all these years.
Women are the new pariahs.
As with the previous article about the women that murdered her husband and then made up the usual story of imagined abuse, here we have another murdering female let off as well.
Feminists indoctrinate judiciary
14 July 2004
Years of feminist propaganda and enforced “gender sensitivity training” reminiscent of communist re-education camps, have created an illusory world in judges’ minds whereby men are naturally evil and violent and where women are saints who only harm or kill when driven by forces beyond their control.
There is ample anecdotal evidence that this indoctrination has led to gross distortions in sentencing rates between men and women.
A particularly pernicious concept dreamed up by feminists is “the battered woman syndrome”. This is essentially a licence to kill. A number of women have walked free from Australian courts after admitting to murdering their husbands. Each claimed she was driven to it by years of violence at the hands of her husband. Unfortunately the husband is not around to give evidence or refute the allegation.
WA Judge lets woman walk free after attempting to murder her children
A 32-year-old woman, whose name was suppressed, walked free from the Western Australian Supreme Court on May 26, 2004 after pleading guilty to four counts of attempting to murder her two daughters, aged two and nine years old. She had attempted to murder her daughters by gassing them in the family car on two separate occasions on June 17, 2003.
WA Chief Justice David Malcolm, a man prone to making pompous, bleeding-heart commentary in the media, ruled that the woman’s antidepressant drugs contributed substantially to her actions, and let her walk free with a suspended jail term.
Justice Malcolm described the woman as a loving mother who cared for her children.
Running a hose from the exhaust pipe into the family car is certainly a novel way to care for your children.
The female/feminist privilege checklist:
1. Do you experience other people paying for your dates, or occasionally even picking up the tab in non-romantic settings? Or paying for vacations when the relationship moves along?
2. Do you occasionally exp!rience subservient gestures by the opposite sex(opening doors, giving up a seat in the bus, standing up when you come in the room)?
3. Are you able to simply pursue what you are interested in at university without much societal pressure on “breadwinning” - although you could also take that route if it interests you?
4.a. Have you had to register for selective service? Would you be ripped out of your life and forced to defend your country in time of attack or national emergency? Can you demand strength and full participation in society, but then get out of this obligation by pretending to be weak with no influence over society (only when it suits you)?
4.b. Can you come up with any and every excuse to get out of this without being laughed at (”No one should be drafted” - when you would be the first to cower in the corner and demand that someone do something if China & Russia combined and attacked full force - and “If men start wars …” when women are the majority of voters and the expression is more likely “Men are SENT in wars …” - exactly what you’re trying to get out of - and sometimes sent by M. Thatcher, G. Meir, I. Gandhi, B. Bhutto and others)
5. Will you statistically get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same offense if you commit a crime?
6. Are you able to take on a job or choose a career route that is only capable of supporting yourself, with no thought to preparing yourself to also support a spouse/children, although you are also free to choose a more difficult career that will bring you more money? Do you not have much pressure on you with regard to this?
7. If you are in a committed relationship, do you have much greater flexibility to choose whether you want to work or simply stay at home (even without kids)?
8. Will you be called an unemployed loser if you decide to be a homemaker?
9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?
10. Are people generally much nicer to you in public? Are you sometimes given privileged treatment?
11. Are you much more capable of “marrying up” - enjoying the money and status that comes with this?
12. Are you statistically much more likely to be given money in a divorce - sometimes huge amounts - even if your behavior caused the divorce (e.g. affair) and even if you didn’t work for the money?
13. If you slap a person - or even knock someone’s tooth out throwing your Aunt Selma’s Christmas mug at that person - is it much more likely to just be viewed as cute, understandable or not a problem?
14. Do you statistically live much longer - possibly due to less stress on you with regard to breadwinning, providing protection, being responsible, not having society viewing you as “expendable” or viewing your problems as not being important?
15. Do you have much more money spent on your health concerns in reality (e.g. 5 times as much on breast cancer as on prostate cancer - although they have roughly the same£qåath rates) while you simultaneously claim that more has to be done for you?
16. Are you much less likely to be homeless? Is more offered to you by society when you are in this position?
17. Is there far less scorn and pressure on you by society when you are an irresponsible doofus? Are your default rates for payment of child support roughly twice those of the other gender, while you simultaneously complain about the other gender not paying?
18. Has whining about and hating the other gender actually been made into a course of studies in college (women’s studies) - as opposed to the true, neutral, unbiased study of this topic - which is simply anthropology?
19. Do you have full opportunity to do anything you want in life - become a doctor, a lawyer, start a business - while simultaneously using the fact that many of your gender don’t CHOOSE themselves to do these things as an argument to try to gain even more advantages? Do you get affirmative action because many of your gender don’t choose to do these things, and thus the numbers don’t “come out right”?
20. Can you manipulate the other gender with sex in some cases to get what you want? Can you pretend like you don’t even know what anyone is talking about on this topic?
21. Can you manipulate using old notions of men protecting and deferring to women when it comes in handy?
22. Can you effectively manipulate by playing the victim? Do tears work sometimes?
23. Can you get sympathy if you don’t work and don’t have children by listing all the household work (hmm … Oprah really does get high ratings, though) while simultaneously being able to bear the cognitive dissonance of calling your sister’s husband who stays home a worthless bum that she ought to leave?
24. Can you “mix and match” traditional and progressive roles - finding just the right mix to get what you want? Can you be a “traditional wife” - enjoying the positive features of that (like not having to work) - while simultaneously being a progressive feminist]lhen THAT gets you advantages? Or having a career while simultaneously using traditional chivalry and male deference to your advantage?
25. Can you constantly say “that’s just typical” and “it doesn’t surprise me a bit” and make a lemon face if you are a parent-in-law? Is near-universal contempt by both genders for your behavior hidden to a much greater extent?
26. Can almost any remark by your partner be construed as verbal abuse if you want sympathy, but the meanest, nastiest, most humiliating things that you can say simply involve “speaking your mind” and “some people just don’t want to hear the truth”?
27. Can you use the fact that gender roles were differentiated long ago - with different advantages/disadvantages for both genders - to try to induce guilt today in people who had absolutely no connection with any of that? Can you say that you have been discriminated against for thousands of years - when you’re only 20 years old - with a straight face? Can you even make things up about history and no one will really check or dare call you on it?
28. Can you propagate myths and outright lies (”Superbowl/domestic violence hoax”, “rule of thumb”, 1/4 rape statistic, intentional misconstrual of pay figures, and many more) and be given a “pass” - without more rigor being demanded?
29. Can you rationalize your own failures using the concept of the “patriarchy”, and blame the other gender for nearly everything that goes wrong in your life - even with quite contorted explanations that no one would otherwise buy - while failures of the other gender are just … failures?
30. Do you want to be treated like a child when it suits you but as an adult when you get an advantage from that? Do you “look the other way” when someone doesn’t require responsibility from you that they certainly would from the other gender?
31. Can you focus heavily on perceived earnings in the workforce - the statistics of which are influenced by people’s choices in reality - while utterly ignoring the inter-family transfer of wealth? Can you completely ignore the fact that one gender picks tougher jobs (garbage collector), works more hours and takes on more responsibility because of more pressure to earn - but the other gender has the same lifestyle and statistically more assets (and not just because of inheritance/earlier age of male at death…). Can you deliberately claim that earnings figures are based on equal pay for equal work? (when you probably full well know that they simply involve all people working more than 35 hours - and don’t take type of job, hours worked over 35/week, danger, responsibility, years in the work force etc. into consideration at all).
32. Is what used to simply be an irritation for grown-ups many years ago - the self-centered rantings and foot stompings of spoiled high-school and college brats - now not only embraced by your movement but almost the modern cornerstone of it?
33. And if you irritated about generalizations and stereotypes - and utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in stereotyping and generalizing about one gender while simultaneously making a career (literally in some cases) whining about your own gender being stereotyped …
… you may have female/feminist privilege! But don’t let on - because you can gain much more with a continual victim status.
The privilidged princess can get away with anything in Australia, murder is just minor compared with the daily event of being arse-raped by the Family Court system here.
Women licensed to kill by Australian courts
7 March 2006Another woman has walked free from an Australian court after murdering her husband. Not only was it murder, it was, according to the prosecution, a cold-blooded and calculated execution.
On 30 September 2004, primary school teacher, Claire Margaret MacDonald, 39, put on a camouflage outfit and rubber gloves, grabbed her husband’s high powered rifle and hid in the bushes near where the family’s Land Rover was parked in a paddock on the couple’s property in Acheron in Victoria, and waited for her husband to arrive.
She lured him to the spot by telling him the Land Rover’s battery was flat. She loaded five bullets into the magazine and kept a sixth in her pocket. After about 90 minutes Warren MacDonald came into view. Clair MacDonald followed him in the rifle’s telescopic sights until he was about 45 metres away. She fired one shot then another and another until she had fired all five rounds. Warren MacDonald fell to the ground, struck in the neck, throat and back. She then took out the sixth bullet from her pocket, loaded it and fired.
As her husband lay bleeding to death on the ground, MacDonald stood over him and berated him for five minutes, telling him how she “hated him for making me do this”.
MacDonald then tried to cover up her crime by telling police that a rabbit-shooter had threatened her husband the previous day.
Only when police began questioning her children did MacDonald change her story and claim she was a battered wife.
“He was hurting my children and he just didn’t deserve to live. I just wanted him out of my life, out of my children’s lives”, MacDonald told police.
During the trial in the Victorian Supreme Court, MacDonald’s defence counsel, James Montgomery, told the jury how Mr MacDonald had “totally dominated” his family, and in particular his wife, through “physical, verbal, psychological and sexual intimidation”. Unfortunately the allegations could not be tested in court as Mr MacDonald was not around to refute or challenge them.
After deliberating for a day, the jury found Claire Margaret MacDonald not guilty on the charge of murder. Amazingly, they also found her not guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. In acquitting Mrs MacDonald, the jury accepted the defence argument that she killed her husband in self-defence.
The MacDonald case is just one of a number of recent cases where a wife has got away with murdering her husband on the grounds of being a battered wife. Why bother having women’s refuges and a myriad of taxpayer funded support agencies? Why not just issue high-powered rifles to all women who claim to be battered?
http://www.australian-news.com.au/Claire_MacDonald.htm
Outragious, another “women are really just victims, really” situation. Quiet rightly the people involved as really annoyed at the favouritism shown to women child abusers.
Anger at sex teacher’s light sentence
March 2, 2006 - 2:27PM
South Australian Premier Mike Rann has called for a report into the suspended sentence given to a teacher who had sex with her 15-year-old student.
The decision not to jail music teacher Bridget Mary Nolan, 25, has sparked widespread outrage, with the teenage victim’s family questioning whether a male teacher would have been treated with such leniency.
Nolan had admitted having sex three times with the boy, who was a student at the country SA school where she worked, last year.
She had faced a maximum seven years’ imprisonment for each of the three convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse, but the SA District Court yesterday suspended a two year jail term after Nolan entered a $1,000, three-year good behaviour bond.
Judge Gordon Barrett said Nolan’s sacking as a teacher, and the considerable media publicity given to her case, had already served as considerable punishment.
“I am entitled to take into account the extent of shame you have already suffered,” he said.
“You have lost your posting and will, in all likelihood, lose your career.
“While that is inevitable, it is, in your case a significant penalty.”
Judge Barrett also noted Nolan, who was depressed after a break-up with her boyfriend at the time, was genuinely remorseful for her crime.
Last year, country SA teacher Kym Slater was jailed after he admitted having sex with two female students.
In Melbourne, physical education teacher Karen Ellis was initially given a suspended sentence for having sex with a student, but was later jailed after an appeal.
Ellis served six months’ jail before she was released last November.
The family of Nolan’s victim today criticised the decision not to jail her.
“Similar cases involving teachers and students where there have been a male perpetrator and a female victim have resulted in a jail term,” the family said in a statement.
They also questioned the extent of Nolan’s depression: “Our understanding of depression has led us to believe it usually causes a loss of libido.”
SA Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras said he would view a prosecutor’s report before deciding whether to appeal.
Premier Mike Rann also said he would seek a report on the case.
“This was an incredible breach of trust,” Mr Rann said.
“This teacher will never teach again and should never teach again.”
Dear Ms Grossman
In your article “Row vs Wade for Men” you make a number errors, in my view.
1. You say that, “Before conception, men and women are arguably “similarly situated” with respect to potential procreation.”
This is not true. Before conception - and, indeed, at all times - women have exclusive control of any pregnancies that might ensue.
According to your logic, you could well argue that someone who is holding a gun is “similarly situated” with respect to the future as someone who is not holding a gun - until such time as the trigger is pulled!
Furthermore, as you say, “Unwed fathers do not automatically have parental rights, but instead must follow statutory procedures to earn them.”
Unwed fathers are clearly not, therefore, “similarly situated” even before conception.
2. You say that, “The fact that he does not want to be a father is constitutionally irrelevant. (For all we know, his ex-girlfriend does not want to be a mother - but may have become one because she does not believe in abortion.)”
This again demonstrates that ‘before conception’, the prospective mother and father are not “similarly situated”. She has an escape clause called abortion. He does not.
Furthermore, whether or not she believes in abortion is something of a red-herring when it comes to this particular issue. Nevertheless, whatever is the case about her beliefs, when it comes to abortion, it is only her beliefs that count; whereas the father’s beliefs, decidedly, do not.
You seem to be suggesting that because the woman alone has the choice over whether or not to abort, she is somehow disadvantaged by the very fact that it is she who has the choice!
3. With reference to claiming damages for an ‘injury’, you say, “And what, exactly, is the injury here? It is not clear why the birth of a normal, healthy child is “injurious” in the way that other torts are.”
But this is a sleight of hand, because (unwilling) fathers in cases such as these are not claiming that the birth of a child is an ‘injury’. They are claiming that the financial demands made on them constitute an ‘injury’.
For example, if you had to pay child support for my child then I am sure that you would not claim that it was the birth of my child that was injurious to you. You would claim that the financial burden that I had unjustly imposed upon you would be injurious to you.
4. You say that, “While it is important that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy, unnecessary economic hardship due to the father’s abdication of his obligations should not push them to make that decision.”
But your use of the phrase “father’s abdication of his obligations” begs the very question that you have just been considering.
Besides which, of course, women often - if not mostly - have abortions for financial considerations.
Finally, in the last third of your article you seem to approve of the notion that state officials should not intrude into private behaviours, especially those of a personal and intimate nature. And you suggest that one good reason for this is that it is virtually impossible to discover the truth that lies behind complex intimate entanglements.
I agree with you.
However, I suspect that you would reverse your position entirely on this point were you talking about investigations of, say, domestic violence or sex assault, where state officials clearly do believe that they can sort out the truths from the lies that exist within complex intimate entanglements.
It seems to me that, as is typical of feminists, you will bend your legal arguments always to the disadvantage of men.
The nub of the matter is this.
Western women have 100% control over their pregnancies; whereas men have no control over them.
Best wishes
Harry
This is the “Preferred Employer” for the “Office for Feminists” sorry Wommyn, want to know why ?
% OF FEMALE EMPLOYEES = 91%
Obviously women are more “equal” than anyone else……
Sexism aquires a new meaning when applied to the sexist “Office for wommin” in Australia.
Billions of dollars in funds is not enough, women superiority is the goal.
Warrigal Care
EOWA asked Warrigal Care, to explain some of their initiatives and workplace programs instigated to achieve equal opportunity in the organisation, and why they are committed to
being an ‘EOWA Employer of Choice for Women’ (EOCFW).
Organisation Information
INDUSTRY SECTOR = Aged Care
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES = 524
% OF FEMALE EMPLOYEES = 91%
% OF FEMALE SENIOR MANAGEMENT = 20% Executive Level
77% Middle Management
Q Why are you committed to becoming an EOCFW?
Warrigal Care is committed to being an employer of choice for women, as we believe in promoting
the best qualities in our people,http://www.eowa.gov.au/case_studies/_docs/eocfw_profile_03_warrigal.pdf
generiert in 2.849 Sekunden. | Powered by WordPress