Feminised Australian Women suck

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.”

Bob’s Truth…………

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.