Feminised Australian Women suck

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 2006

Another 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

Even though the sexist Office for women banned males from the International Women’s Day Function.
The Australian Government and the state governments are cow-towing.

Grovelling for the female vote.

“Women” do not want “equal opportunity”; they are only interested in “women’s supremacyâ€?.

The Office for Women in Australia is not one that will go short of MONEY, that’s for sure. Their greed and avarice denies hospitals and education for children, little harmless children are denied a proper education and the elderly are rejected by hospitals due to lack of funds and here’s why…..

April 2003

The speech by the Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Women’s Interests announced the 2001-2002 Budget, Highlights for Women.

In this speech to parliament the minister outlined 2.74 billion dollars of spending from the federal budget.

- $30 million over four years willl be spent on Office of the Status of Women.

- $2.4 million over four years forr national leadership Initiative for women

- $5.5 million over four years to expand women’s organisations

- $5.5 million over four years to develop women’s information strategy

- $16.5 million over four years too combat sexual assault

- $4.2 million over four years to enhance equal opportunity for women in workplace

- $115.6 million over four years oon women’s health programs

- $71.9 million over four years foor GP’s to increase rates of cervical screening

- $13.5 million over four years too improve the access to undergraduate nursing education in country

- $8 Billion over four years on Childcare

- $35 million over four years to eencourage women in technology, science and innovation

The selfish sex knows no limits. More money, while more males die from more diseases than women, die more from cancer than women and a suicide rate of 7 males a day and men’s death from prostate cancer is 6 per day. Where is the aid or assistance from the government.

You’re joking right ! Men get nothing.

Women don’t care as long it does not affect them.

The 2005-2006 Federal Government Budget.

Making Australia Stronger — Delivering Our Commitments 2005-06
Million
72 Women’s Leadership and Development Program 4.1
73 Women’s Safety Agenda 15.2

88 – Breast Cancer Network Australia 0.3

91 – National Breast Ca.ãer Centre 0.8

HEALTH AND AGEING (continued)

additional amount Million
73 Women’s Safety Agenda 1.0

HUMAN SERVICES
73 Women’s Safety Agenda 0.2

Capital
Health Insurance Commission
73 Women’s Safety Agenda 0.1

Women’s Leadership and Development Programme
2005-06
Department of Family and Million
Community Services 4.1

Women’s Safety Agenda
The Government will provide $75.7 million over four years (including $0.1 million in
capital funding) for the Women’s Safety Agenda,

The measure will provide funding for the continuation of the Violence Against
Women: Australia Says No campaign, training of General Practice nurses in regional
and rural areas and training for Mensline counsellors on domestic violence issues.

Investing in Stronger Regions — practice nurses in rural areas

The Government will provide $17.8 million (including $0.9 million of resourcing and
$0.1 million of capital funding in 2004-05) over five years to fund a new Medicare item
allowing practice nurses in rural areas to undertake a wider range of procedures,
including pap smears and other preventive health checks for women. This measure
commenced on 1 January 2005.
The measure will help to provide rural women with the same opportunity to choose a
female practitioner as is available to women in metropolitan areas. The measure will
also assist in reducing waiting times to see a GP in many rural communities.

Strengthening Cancer Care — Breast Cancer Network Australia

The Government will provide $1.0 million over four years to support the development
of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, which will assist with the further
development and dissemination of resources to help women newly diagnosed with
breast cancer.

Strengthening Cancer Care — National Breast Cancer Centre

The Government will provide an additional $4.0 million over five years (including
$0.8 million in 2004-05) to the National Breast Cancer Centre, to support improved
quality of care, raise awareness about early detection, and identify improved
approaches to the early detection and management of breast cancer.

Strengthening Cancer Care — quitting smoking during pregnancy
The Government will provide $4.3 million over three years to encourage doctors,
health workers and midwives to give advice to pregnant women

Women’s Leadership and Development Programme

The Government will provide $15.0 million over four years for the Women’s Leadership and Development Programme to encourage greater female participation in all parts of Australian life, including leadership roles.

The programme’s activities will include supporting the appointment of women to Australian Government and public company boards, developing a young women’s leadership and mentoring programme in rural and remote areas, increasing women’s participation in all aspects of sport and providing grants to non-government national women’s organisations.

Working Women/Women in Business

• $2.0 million over the period 2004–05 to 2007–08 to deliver approximately 50 home-based business seminars and setting up home-based business clubs in regional locations;
• introduction of a new Mature Age Worker Tax Offset for workers aged 55 and over;
• $15 million over three years, commencing 2005-06, for the Industry Partnerships Program including industry capacity building initiatives and facilitation of women’s leadership and skill development for the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries;
• $14 million over five years from 2006–07 to 2010–2011 for Backing Australia’s Ability:
Building Our Future Through Science and Innovation, including support for women
through grants, scholarships and access to agribusiness development learning tools;
• enhancements to the simplified taxation system to assist small business; and
• $50 million over the period 2004–05 to 2006–07 for the Regulation Reduction Incentive
Fund to further encourage the local government sector to introduce reforms that benefit
home-based businesses.

Indigenous Women and Housing
• $102.8 million over four years to maintain the real value and improve the effectiveness of the Australian Government’s Indigenous housing investments.

NATIONAL DEPRESSION INITIATIVE, BEYONDBLUE

How much of these funds will be spent on males ?

Depression is a leading cause of illness and disability. It is a major health issue for women in particular. More than 500,000 adult Australian women experience depressive illness each year, over 60 per cent of all sufferers. Around 7.4 per cent of Australian women experience depression. One in ten young women aged 18 to 24 years is significantly affected.

The Healthy for Life Program provides $102.4 million over four years to improve the health of Indigenous mothers, babies and children,

Depression is a leading cause of illness and disability. It is a major health issue for women in particular. More than 500,000 adult Australian women experience depressive illness each year, over 60 per cent of all sufferers. Around 7.4 per cent of Australian women experience depression. One in ten young women aged 18 to 24 years is significantly affected.

$52.2 million over four years (commencing in 2004–05) was announced by the
Minister for Ageing in February 2005, for dementia research, new dementia management
services, improved training of health professionals and new tools and guidelines to help
GPs, as well as prevention and early intervention initiatives.

Communication
Through a range of activities the Australian Government will continue to showcase and
celebrate the achievements of Australian women. This will occur through staging major
events, such as International Women’s Day, and maintaining a range of publications,
and websites that provide useful information to women.

Divorce Self Defense

by Pete Jensen

First. Decide right now if you want to be a winner or a loser. You are about to enter the Lion Pit, and whatever your religious persuasion before, you are now a Christian. Get used to it, grow up and accept it. Any misconceptions you had about morality, right and wrong, and justice in the Justice System are bunk. All such things are absolutely irrelevant. Your sole concern is legal, and illegal. If it goes to a judge, you are not facing Solomon who will try to establish something fair. That is the job of a mediator. The judge will decide who is the winner, and who is the loser. If you don’t want to be a winner, take their offer right now, and get out of my class. I guarantee it will be far more generous that what the judge decides. The court is NOT your friend.

Number two. I want you to say something right now: “She will never do that to me, she would never be like that.� If you wish to paraphrase, be my guest. I’ll wait.

Done?

Good. Now, let that be the last time you ever say that. This is not the nice, sweet girl you married. This is the bitch that is divorcing you. Grow up. Accept it. Right now she is plotting how to get you. And probably has been. Either be prepared to treat her as your mortal enemy, or confess that you really didn’t want to be a winner after all. She will treat you as such, I guarantee you. Don’t let anyone shame you with words like “Not sinking to her level.� While you should avoid illegal and unethical behavior which will be punished or looked on with a jaundiced eye, I grant, you should absolutely sink to her level otherwise. There is no such thing as a moral victory here. Any people who say this to you want to see you put your club down so they can see her clobber you with hers. These people are NOT your friends.

With me so far? Number three. You cannot stop this divorce. You can only delay it, at best, and you will be punished for doing so. The judge and the court doesn’t want to see you any more then necessary. Why? Yes, you in the back –uh huh – that’s right! Because they are NOT your friend! No fault divorce is the law in every state of the Union, and every province in Canada. And she decided she wanted out long ago. If she wanted to work it out, she would have suggested counseling. Your marriage is over, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, as the saying goes. Grow up. Accept it. She does NOT want to be your friend anymore.

Allrighty, those are the ground rules. Questions? No? Part two then.

Some things you should have. First, despite what you may have heard about “Planning for divorce only assures divorce� I am here to tell you that it is unvarnished crap. You should have incriminating papers, financial records, valuable identification, and a certain amount of cash secured somewhere. This location should be a place you know, and have ready access to. Duplicate keys for many things should be there as well. If you keep such things in your home, you are an idiot.

If you have a lick of sense, you will have cop=¡s of cancelled checks, money orders, and such with your signature to show you are paying the bills. I don’t care if it is coming out of a joint account, if you sign it, you pay it. If she signs it, she pays it. It’s that simple, and it’s amazing how many men get nailed by this piece of chicanery.

Next, have the name of a good, man friendly attorney. You can find these out by listening to men who have gotten a reasonable deal in a divorce, or by listening to women who have lost in a case. While rare, these people exist. Make sure they still practice. You need to call them, right now, and make an appointment. Again, I will wait.

At the risk of indulging in 20/20 hindsight, you should have seen the signs. She has stopped having sex with you, she is not talking to you, she won’t tell you what is wrong, and if she does speak to you it is a litany of grievances and past offenses, whether real or imagined. Your job is not to argue here. You will not convince her. No matter what you do, you can do no right. She has already steeled herself to dispose of you, and is working up a good mad so she can treat you like her mortal enemy, and not feel guilty. She is erasing every good memory of you from her head.

Her habits have changed. Women are creatures who love habit, routine, and the familiar. Is she showing a persistent interest in finances? Does she hang up the phone quickly? Does she disappear for hours on end? Does she have mysterious appointments? Chances are she is consulting an attorney, and quite likely having an affair. This doesn’t matter if she is, but it is a hint and a half for you.

There is no sense in getting angry or confronting her, such will only give her the excuse she is looking for. If you are in this state, rejoice. You have hope to get out with your skin intact.

Forewarned is forearmed, and if at all possible (And legal) you should put a tap on the phone and record calls. This is NOT for evidence. This is to give you a heads up, and let you know what she is planning. It will not be admitted in any evidence, and you should make this tap removeable and secure the tapes elsewhere. In any event, be your own detective. In addition, if you have a firearm, your bong from High school, or any recreational pharmaceuticals at all, get rid of them from your residence. Cupcake will, I promise, point out that you have an old roach clip hanging from your rear view mirror, and have you busted for residue from 1986.

Now here is where most men self destruct. Do not confront her. Do not beg, plead, argue, or cry to her. Pretend that everything is fine. Pretend you are the ignorant sucker she is counting on you to be. What you do is this – armed with the knowledge of her plans, pre-empt them. If she talks about getting the restraining order next Monday, you do so on Friday. If she talks about moving, stay home that day. Do not allow her to put her plan into action first. She is counting on the element of surprise, and if y} remove that, all will fall apart on her. On that day will be the confrontation, and it is certain, if you have played your cards correctly, she will flip her lid. This is what you want.

One thing you need to remember is to stay absolutely, one-hundred percent calm at all times. The police are NOT your friends, and have been trained to look for any excuse to jail you. It doesn’t matter if you are a 140 pound accountant, and she is an Olympic weightlifter with four black belts. You are the male. You are the batterer, or the potential one. She is the poor dear who must be protected. No matter how it flies in the face of reason, all she has to do is claim being “afraid� and you are sunk. Utterly doomed. In addition, if you are calm, she will more than likely go from flipping out to absolutely berserk. This is NOT how it was supposed to be!

If the police must be called, you call them. Do not meet them outside. If you are outside, it is easier to make you be the one to leave. Do not cower inside. If they have to coax you out, you will piss them off. Be in the doorway, with your hands visible. Ask them in, and ask them to remove her, and if at all possible, have your attorney there or on the way. Cops will not screw with attorneys or step one inch out of line while they are present. The only thing a cop fears or respects is an attorney, acting in their official capacity.

Under no circumstances do you ever admit to yelling, threatening, raising your voice, raising your hand, or hitting her – and here, I don’t care if you lie. Admit nothing, find a simple story, and stick to it. Under no circumstances do you agree to leave. Don’t fight if they remove you – BUT DO NOT – I repeat - *DO* *NOT* leave. Do not surrender the house or your children If you leave, you have abandoned the home. The court will view this as black and white, anything else as an excuse, and you will never, ever get them back.

Do not let her take the kids. Do not let her take jewelry or papers. Do agree to allow her to take clothes, and only clothes, under, in order of preference, 1) You will get them for her, 2) Your attorney can supervise, 3) The officer can supervise. This will make you look good and reasonable. Let her take toiletries. Let her take nothing else. If you have more than one car, give up the one you do not want to see again. Do not let her take credit or bank cards. Make sure she has enough money for a hotel room for two nights, and about $50 for food if she has money, or write her a check for it. This will make you seem like a generous prince. Do not, however, at this point be alone with her. Have a cop with you at all times.

Upon her leaving, change the locks and notify your attorney that you want a restraining order. At this point, I want you to understand one thing, and one thing only, if you realize nothing else at all�: You are paying that attorney for their expertise. If they suggest a course of action, especially if they have a proven track record of success, do what they say. This is why you are paying them. Let them have the wheel, and you be the passenger.

Do not talk to you wife after that except as directed by your attorney.

Do not call her, or try to contact her. You have no idea how swiftly this can be twisted into stalking and harassment.

Do not let her take the kids until you have a solid parenting agreement that has the court’s blessing. Courts get real pissed off when they are disobeyed. If they haven’t ruled, they can’t be disobeyed now, can they? Congratulations sucker. You just surrendered your kids to her custody. Look them real hard in the face and hug them tight. You might not see them for a spell.

If she asks for anything, your answer should be – yes, you in the hat? No! Nimrod! Give her nothing because she asks! Yes, you in St. Louis – correct! “I’ll run that by my attorney� is the correct answer. Follow your attorney’s advice. If he says, “Screw her!� then don’t be moved by tears or begging. If he says, “Go ahead, that’ll make you look good� do it with a smile. Your attorney, and your attorney alone is your friend, because you have PAID for that friendship.

Do not sleep with her. This is begging for a rape charge. What is fundamental number two? Yes, she will do it.

Do not bring “loose women� home. Swear off drinking, your Friday night poker parties, the dope, and any vice which might be brought up against you. While it is irrelevant for you to bring it up, she will be heard. Give her no excuse that you aren’t feeding the kids right, that you are letting them stay up, that you are leaving them alone. Don’t even smoke in your house. Keep it clean, even if you have to hire a service. If DCFS shows up, you want to be Little Sammy Homemaker.

Above all, do not tip your hand. Do not show your cards to her mother, her brother, her best friend, to the girl you are banging. Two people can keep a secret, but only if one is dead. It will get back to her, and you will regret it. Yes, her Best Friend thinks she always treated you so bad, and does this feel good, and how are you going to get her, here let me undo that, and I’ll never tell a soul – yeah, right. And how many times have we heard a woman tell us a secret she promised never to tell? Especially when she has probably been sent on a dirt-collecting mission to begin with. Stay alert, and trust no friend except the ones bought and paid for.

Now, in closing, as I said, I am no attorney, and the mileage on this may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You will still be playing on her turf, and with people disposed to favor her, if not outright biased against you. But you use this as a guideline, after running it by your attorney, and you will stand one heck of a lot better chance than the last poor slob. How do I know this? I lifted a lot of the ideas from a the postings of feminist attornies on “wimmin’s� sites while I was trolling as a woman. It pays to know your enemies.

Okay. Class dismissed. I’ll pray there won’t be a test for you.

Pete Jensen

Mom’s Make Lousy Dads

by Burt Prelutsky

One of the more fatuous beliefs that has been foisted off by self-proclaimed feminists and other politically correct lamebrains is that children don’t really need fathers. I used to say that American women, thanks to increased salaries and well-stocked sperm banks, had reached a point where they only needed men to open ketchup bottles and get stuff down from high shelves. Ladies, I was joking!

I had no idea that so many women took the line to heart. Thanks to my good joke and Gloria Steinem’s bad one – that crack about fish needing bicycles – women have become increasingly wacky. What is really surprising, considering that thirty years of feminist propaganda has promoted the natural superiority of females, is how masculine, in the worst sense of the word, women have become. Surely I am not the only person who has noticed that these days young women are just as likely as men to smoke, to get bombed on booze and cuss in public, and perhaps even likelier to drive like maniacs and to flip you off for daring to share the road with them.

In the business world, far too many women salivate at the thought of being regarded as cold and ruthless. They are every bit as likely to torment and humiliate their employees, and to promote an atmosphere of fear and anger, especially among their female underlings. Call these women cut-throat and they think you’re trying to sweet talk them.

Perhaps it’s simply a case of Stockholm syndrome gone amuck. As you probably know, that’s a situation in which hostages come to identify, not with their rescuers, but with their captors. Women, in their own defense, might possibly claim that they’d been powLless for so long that it was inevitable that they’d take on the very characteristics they’ve despised. But that’s a load of hooey. I say, if you’re going to behave like an idiot and a bully, don’t make excuses for your boorishness. God knows men don’t! Inasmuch as more and more women are eager to hand off their offspring to a nanny, a granny or a nursery school, you have to wonder why most of them even bother giving birth. All they seem to have to show for the experience are stretch marks. In a society that is determined to accept the nutty notion that two gay men or a pair of lesbians are just as likely – they really mean likelier – to raise a normal, healthy child as a married man and woman, how could anybody dare suggest that a single woman isn’t equally capable? Well, she isn’t. This is especially true when the child is a boy. No matter how hard she tries, no matter how much she cares, no matter how many broken nails she’s willing to sacrifice in order to play catch with the kid, the bottom line is she’s a woman. And just because so many of the morons in Hollywood have turned single motherhood into just another fad, sort of like collagen lips and plastic bosoms, doesn’t make it a good idea.

It simply makes sense that a boy needs a man in his life to act as a role model, to show him not only how to curb his temper and to temper his testosterone, but also how to avoid being feminized into something resembling a well-dressed eunuch. The point I am looking to make I saw made perfectly in a segment of a TV magazine show some years ago. It seems that in Africa, on a game preserve, the rangers were discovering the mutilated carcasses of several rhinos. They couldn’t determine who was responsible for the carnage, and they couldn’t imagine a motive. After conducting an investigation, they found to their amazement that a band of teenage elephants were killing the rhinos for no other reason than that they felt like it. It was their version of drive-by shootings. Like our own urban gangs, the young rogues even had a leader.

The rangers thought long and hard about the problem. The first thing they realized was that the teenagers were free to make up their own evil rules of behavior because, like the blood-thirsty kids in “Lord of the Flies,� there were no adults in their world. All the bull elephants had been slaughtered by poachers for their ivory. Then, because they didn’t have to answer to politicians or social workers, the rangers did two essential things. First, having determined he was incorrigible, they killed the leader of the pack. Next, they flew in several bull elephants. In no time at all, order was restored. The big guys let it be known that if there was any more rhino-stomping, there would be hell to pay. Their message was short and sweet; namely that elephants don’t behave that way.

So, for all their professional advances, there are still a few things that women simply can’t do as well as men. Some of those things, such as throwing a football forty yards in a perfect spiral or crushing a beer can on their forehead, aren’t all that essential. Important, I’ll grant you, but not absolutely essential to society at large. However, when it comes to rearing male children, we’d all probably be better off if the ladies simply dropped the kids off in the woods for wolves to raise.

Burt Prelutsky

The New Wommin.

THE PATHOLOGY OF THE FEMALE-HEADED FAMILY

“Women,” wrote Ramsey Clark in l970, in his celebrated book Crime in America, “are not a threat to the public.” But he also wrote, in discussing the male juvenile criminals who are a threat to the public, that “three-fourths came from broken homes.” That means mostly female-headed homes. That means that while the single mothers of these criminals do not themselves commit crimes and go to prison, the socialization they give their children has an extraordinarily high correlation with the male crime of the next generation. This socialization, in fact, is the “root cause of crime” which Clark wrote his book to explore. He had found the explanation he sought and he didn’t know it. It was concealed by the generation-long time-lag between cause and effect and by the sex-switch between generations: like hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females–or rather by single females. Instead of seeing the true connection, Clark gave his readers this:

If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what must be seen is the dehumanizing effect on the individual of slums, racism, ignorance and violence, of corruption and impotence to fulfill rights, of poverty and unemployment and idleness, of generations of malnutrition, of congenital brain damage and prenatal neglect, of sickness and disease, of pollution, of decrepit, dirty, ugly, unsafe, overcrowded housing, of alcoholism and narcotics addiction, of avarice, anxiety, fear, hatred, hopelessness and injustice. These are the fountainheads of crime.

Not so. If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what must be seen is its relationship with the female-headed family. Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.

The Garbage Generation

The Marriage No-Shows
July 14, 2004
by Carey Roberts

This week Washington lawmakers took up the historical debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment. But the good Senators appear to be blissfully unaware of the trend that overshadows the controversies surrounding gay marriage — the fact that millions of American men are marital no-shows.

Stripped down to its bare essentials, marriage is an enduring social contract between a consenting man and woman. Before they agree to enter into this sacred union, both parties must have the expectation of benefit. But the disturbing fact is, millions of American men have come to believe that marriage is a losing proposition.

News of the Marriage Strike first began to settle into our national consciousness in 2002. That year Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University interviewed 60 men to probe their attitudes about marriage. And to their surprise, they discovered that some of these men were flat-out opposed to tying the knot.

So this year, the Rutgers researchers decided to launch a full-scale national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. These men represent almost 10 million of the nation’s most eligible bachelors. The report was just released last month.

Among those men, 53% said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon - the marriage delayers. That figure alone is cause for concern.

But this is the statistic that every American who wants to strengthen and protect marriage should be worried about: 22% of the men said they had absolutely no interest in finding their Truly Beloved. The report described these guys as “hardcore marriage avoiders.”

When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years - that’s two million potential husbands - declare a Marriage Strike, we’re facing an unprecedented social crisis.

Why are these men refusing to marry? Some of their reasons are spelled out in the 2002 report:
· “Some men express resentment towards a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy. There is also a mistrust of women who may ‘trap’ men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill.”
· “Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce.They fear that an ex-wife will ‘take you for all you’ve got’ and that ‘men have more to lose financially than women’ from a divorce.”

Men’s fear of financial ruin following divorce is backed by research. In a soon-to-be-released book, Sanford Braver, PhD of Arizona State University notes that noncustodial fathers often spend considerable money when they are with their kids. But the child support guidelines don’t take this into account.

Plus, the custodial mother reaps a number of tax benefits, such as being able to list the kids as exemptions on her IRS return. Likewise, the mother does not pay any taxes on her child support income, while the father cannot list these payments as deductions. As a result, Braver suggests that the “guidelines have already become too generous” to the point that the father experiences a standard of living that is lower than his ex-wife.

Men have other reasons to resist the romantic urge. Domestic violence laws allow vindictive women to kick hubby out of the house based on the flimsiest of pretexts. And if divorce were to result, he would likely lose custody of his own flesh and blood.

Four decades ago, radical feminists, taking their cue from Marxist-Leninist theory, decreed that marriage was nothing more than gender slavery. Claiming to speak on behalf of American women, feminists set out to radically rework - or even do away with — the age-old social contract of marriage. And women, mesmerized by the ephemeral promise of liberation and empowerment, opted to go along for the ride.

Now, feminists are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. And women are left to wonder why their Prince Charming is nowhere to be found.

MGTOW….Men Going Their Own Way.

The Perils of the Unconscious Mind

Peter Forde
October 20, 2004

In a recent essay I offered a proposition that many women will no doubt find challenging:

“…….many women have fallen victim to deep, unconscious ‘feelings’ derived from a deliberate and mostly unrealised brainwashing process they have been subjected to over the past thirty-some years. It’s no secret that feminists have long promoted a broad (no pun, honest!) view of the “evil white maleâ€?, dominating, suppressing and generally being the scourge of womankind.
Some of that ‘mud’ sticks—often deep inside the psyche of women who do not come close to understanding how severely their deepest thoughts and feelings have been affected by the regular and often subtle bombardment of such deceitful and disingenuous messages. Becoming an unconscious victim of relentless visual and auditory barrages is merely another natural consequence of simply being not specifically a woman, but human.
As a result, deep inside the psyche many a modern female is an unconscious desire to destroy ‘the enemy’—men—before ‘the enemy’ (she thinks) can destroy her……..
Feminism has done far more damage to modern women, and therefore to the overall wellness of society, than most can possibly imagine…..â€?

Just this morning I was presented with yet another classic, in-my-face example of this disturbing problem..

ABC Radio presenter Tricia Duffield was having an on-air conversation with colleague Steve Austin. They were discussing this year’s Brisbane Ekka.

Said Steve (more or less), “It was wonderful to see so many fathers, husbands and partners at the show with their kids, having a great time as a family unit.�

Responded Tricia instantly, “Yeah, trying to be heroes.�

I mean instantly. Not a moment’s hesitation.

Trying to be heroes? Actually, many men spend much of their time trying to be ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ to women in general and their wives or partners in particular (This is no ‘wild theory’—a psychiatrist has written a book about it).

Steve Austin, whom I suspect was—perhaps unconsciously—merely doing what comes naturally and being ‘a nice guy’, responded not by fronting Tricia on her observation. Instead he smoothly went on at some length— deliberately considerate, I suspect—to tell how, in his nineteen-seventies generation, fathers were too often missing at family times like Ekka show days.

Smart guy that Steve Austin. The extent of his response gave Tricia Duffield a long moment in which to get her mind around what she had just said.

That she is an intelligent woman is evidenced by the fact that she then came back with something along the lines of, “I didn’t mean to disrespect fathers….�

I know she genuinely didn’t mean to. But the reality is, she did. And did it unconsciously. Which is the exact point of this discussion.

If she is intelligent, you may ask, how, in the first place, could she have possibly made such a gratuitously male-insulting generalisation over the public airwaves.

The answer is that her unconscious mind had spoken. In every human being, it is always a brutally straight talker, often using non-verbalmeans of communicating its view.

Tricia’s ‘accident’ illustrates the essence of a serious problem that we, as a liberated women’s society, do not properly comprehend. Human beings are good at faking it, but our true and deepest attitudes and beliefs—what many simply describe as ‘feelings’—will manifest whenever our conscious, politically-correct guard is down for even an instant. Sometimes, such as when angered, those attitudes will simply explode through all barriers.

We unhappily wonder why there is considerable friction between men and women. You will find one specific answer near, if not at the top, of the list of reasons: the unconscious attitudes embedded inside the minds of a great many ‘modern’ women. Attitudes that most of them may not even realise have been drilled and instilled into them by those with strong feminist ideologies. These attitudes are often unconsciously expressed in words and behaviours.

The problem is worsened by most men reacting just like Steve Austin. Not challenging a woman when she deliberately or inadvertently slurs, insults or degrades the male means she will blunder along throughout her life, endlessly unaware of the damage she inflicts on her personal and business relationships with men.

It helps her not at all that when she scores what she thinks is a particularly superb male-bashing home-run, her sisters—themselves suffering the same syndrome—will cheer her on with girlishly ecstatic high-fives.

They simply do not understand the consequences. There are no winners when the sexes war. The biggest losers–in alphabetical order—are children, men, society and women.

Let’s get this straight: everybody loses, women included.

Many men—of whom I am one, you may have noticed—now choose to resolve these difficulties by simply devising ways of no longer having direct contact with such women. They either physically or emotionally or intellectually distance themselves.

Not only the human male, but also the female will often take the avoidance path to evade direct conflict. Truth is, while this is a great personal self-protection mechanism, it is not at all healthy for us as a society.

Distancing oneself from the problem is, in certain circumstances, known as divorce. Another is bewailed by women desperate for babies as commitment-phobia. How many wives are there not who scream in frustration that their husbands “speak to me but don’t connect or communicate in meaningful ways�.

That increasing numbers of men are taking these alternative routes in preference to maintaining intellectual closeness or even just laying down roots—and take that as you will—is a prime reason why increasing numbers of women now end up alone in their old age.

Could it be that feminism has actually done such women terrible harm in the long term? That while many so-called ‘modern’ women busily bash the ‘bastard’ men, they unknowingly bludgeon themselves even more?

According to a Brisbane psychiatrist, many older women now seek lesbian relationships because they cannot find ‘a good man’. Men are increasingly choosing to make themselves less available to the modern, unconsciously aggressive woman. Many simply go off to fishing or the footy or find other ways to do their own women-free thing. Some literally just give up and die.

Shocked? Don’t be. Men are also human. They too have unconscious behaviours. Dying is in some cases a very effective way of turning one’s back on a society that one may have concluded has gone stark mad.

This essay is actually an appeal to intelligent women to thoughtfully consider these perspectives. Those who have the “I’m God’s gift to mankind and can do just what the hell I like and get away with it� attitude are so far away from both reason and reality that they would likely not even be reading this anyway.

Men like Steve Austin would probably never speak as openly as I do here. I think that—in terms of self-preservation—they are the smart ones. Even as I dumbly write this, I find myself fighting a natural desire to be Mr. Nice Guy and only say pleasing things about the so many lovely ladies in our society.

So why do I risk being inundated with scornful invective from women everywhere?

Only because these unconscious attitudes of many women—otherwise often truly beautiful people who deserve better—unwittingly destroy their own chances of long, loving and deeply intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex. It is just not fair to them. Such women unwittingly sentence themselves to years of loneliness and deep emotional pain and in the process also hurt men.

Men like me. That’s why.

Schoolgirls getting more violent
By Bruce McDougall
feb06

GIRLS are taking knives into class, assaulting teachers and committing brutal robberies in a disturbing upsurge of hardcore violence by female students.

Teenage girls have threatened to stalk and even bomb people, to physically harm school principals and have enlisted gangs to carry out revenge attacks, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The frightening situation emerged as NSW remained in shock after the brutal bashing murder of taxi driver Youbert Hormozi - allegedly by two 14-year-old girls.

Victims of female assault have been hospitalised and police called to schools when violence has surged out of control, Education Department documents obtained under Freedom of Information show.

And in a worrying trend, parents increasingly are becoming involved in their children’s school disputes.

Mr Iemma recognised the problem was as much with girls as boys yesterday, saying: “The need to teach respect to young people is not gender specific … it is no longer a case of needing to focus on angry young males.”

Putting the onus on parents, he added: “We need strong role models and direction for boys and girls and it needs to start in the home.”

Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said one of the most profound motivations for girls trying to “outbloke the blokes” in violence was the desire for male attention.

“If she believes she’s in competition with another chick for a guy’s affections, she’ll resort to violence for male attention by adopting more overtly aggressive behaviour,” he said.

Mr Carr-Gregg said nasty video games, reality TV and rock videos suggested “girl power was sex power” and sent destructive messages to teens.

“Young people, if they don’t have good role models, will allow Hollywood educate them about what it means to be male or female,” he said. “Many of our kids are growing in a psychological wasteland … it’s teaching kids the only way to solve problems is through violence.”

There is little Australian research into the nature and extent of adolescent female violence but international evidence points to a startling rise.

In one incident recorded in school files, four teenage females in Sydney’s southwest assaulted and robbed two female students, taking their money, watches and phones.

No jail for mother who had teen’s baby
March 10, 2006 - 11:29AM

A mother of 10 who had sex with her son’s 14-year-old friend and later had his baby has avoided jail.

Cheryl Whittle, then 31, sexually assaulted the boy while he was sleeping over at her home in Werribee, Victoria, in 1992.

She crept into her son’s room, performed oral sex on his friend and then had intercourse with the boy, who later went outside and vomited.

Whittle gave birth to his child - a boy now aged 12 - on March 11, 1993.
Her victim, now 27, was harassed for child-care payments, the Victorian County Court was told.

He did not report the abuse until December 2004.

“I felt disgusted and betrayed at the time of the sexual assault and shocked, stressed and horrified by the prospect of becoming a father,” he told police.

Whittle pleaded guilty to one count of sexually penetrating a child aged under 16. The maximum sentence for the offence is 10 years’ prison.

Today, Judge Geoffrey Chettle sentenced Whittle to 15 months’ jail, wholly suspended for three years.

“But for the delay in this case, you would be going to prison,” he said.
“You stole his innocence.”

Justice Chettle said that had genders in the case been reversed he would have imposed the same punishment.

GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN!

It’s time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on women, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
“Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the air,” Hyphenated-Lastname says. “This cutting-edge research indicates that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these artifacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held most high offices of power and controlled the television remote.”

“But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent that, too.”

“Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere of the patriarchy’s efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women’s cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete, leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight.”

“Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail.”

“Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates. Obviously, more women are feeling ‘down.’ Gravity is just another way in which women’s health is being shortchanged.”

“This oppression is historical, the product of white, western men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input, the laws of physics would have been kinder, and gravity would have been supportive. Instead, we are shackled with the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men. Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with ‘opposing’ reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been equal.”

“We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would have us believe that gravity really represents the ‘natural’ order of things,” says Hyphenated-Lastname. “It will require spending money on programs to elevate girls’ self esteem so that they are not held down by artificial concepts of patriarchy.”

“This will cost a lot of money,” says Hyphenated-Lastname.

“But I’m up for that.”

- posted by Sir Jessy of Anti @ 11:22 AM

Reading comments about or from women around Australia is a good way of learning what women in this country are all about. Spoilt, selfish, self-interested, vain, inconsiderate and a “take all for granted” attitude is the norm here, the “we want it all and we want it now” mentality reigns supreme.

Sadly, Australian women are like their counterparts in America. They watch the same idiot programs ie. Oprah, Dr Pheel, Pathetic Housewives, read the sme trash magazines etc.They have the same mentality of “we are princesses” and “we deserve everything we get” is rampant.

But ask any one of these self-promoted princesses why they feel so entitled, so self-important, so deserving, so feminised and they will argue that they are not, it would be the same as asking her “why should I have a relationship with you”, what benefit does it have for me besides pain, suffering and financial ruin ? You will receive the same blank stare, vacant , deviod of consideration for others. The “I cannot believe you are asking that about me, just my presence alone should be enough” stare.

The current Affirmative Action laws guarantee Australian Women will be employed before any male, purely on the grounds of sex and not ability. This is another feminists gain for the spoilt sex, they deny it although it’s plain for all to see on the Australian Government Website under “women”, see for yourself. They have their own links and free loans department.

So where is this going ?
If for some masochistic reason you still want to engage in a relationship with one of these, I suggest you read

” The new marriage Contract”.

Feminism has destroyed the relationship that once excisted between the sexes. Now women have come to grips with money, vanity, self-promotion and this process has sent them spiralling into no-man’s land.
Men today are sick to death of the self-serving attitude of women and must now decide whether any relationship with this selfish sex really isn’t what it’s supposed to be.

Here we have a fine image of the ongoing whining, complaining, self-interested womenhood.