The Land Rover Moments..

Cannot say that I have seen anything much funnier than this...

Mom Sings the Non-Custodial Blues

Oh !! look, It's now coming around and biting them in the f.... erm, foot. Wait for the ongoing whining and moaning while mothers now have to face the same injustice Fathers have been staring in the face for decades...

1 Tissue and angst level of only 2..It's early days..

What goes around comes around. Another fine example of feminist judicial manipulation that was originally intended to just screw all Fathers...Ahhh...the irony. Feminism is for the equality of misery of both sexes..

Robert Franklin, Esq.

Mom Sings the Non-Custodial Blues

2009-03-25 at 8:47 am · Filed under blog

Here's a woman writing a letter to a legal advice column (Boston Herald, 3/15/09).

It seems her husband told a divorce court she threatened him and their child. The court gave him temporary custody and required her to pay child support. While the divorce case was still pending, her mother in Brazil got sick, so she quit her job to go care for her. She asked the court for a continuance, but the trial proceeded without her. Her husband got custody and she got cited for contempt for falling behind on her child support. Her child support order was not modified to reflect her lack of employment.

Sound familiar? It should; it happens every day in one way or another, mostly to men, since they're 84% of non-custodial parents. Shouldn't the court at least listen to her argument that she can't pay because she's got a sick mother? It doesn't sound like a strong case for support modification to me, but still, it's a real-world problem for her.

And that's what I'm getting at; non-custodial parents live in the real world. Sometimes it seems that family court judges don't.

Feminist Clark moves to the already sexist UN..

Just in case you are wondering what political persuasion the United Nation may be, consider this..

Clark is a left wing, male-hating feminist, some have even accused her of being a lesbian which would appear to be correct from where I stand..

This is a very senior position in the UN, now watch as feminists feminise Africa in the process and also ensure that the majority of funding is headed to their sex..

Former Kiwi PM Helen Clark gets top UN job

• March 25, 2009 - 8:50AM

Top job ... Helen Clark. Photo: Getty Images

Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark has been appointed the head of the United Nations Development Program.

Highly-placed sources have told the Trans-Tasman political newsletter that UN Secretary-General Ban Ky-Moon will confirm the appointment within the next few hours.

The post, to be taken up in August, is the third most senior UN role and would involve overseeing a $US5 billion ($7.5 billion) budget, which is mostly spent on programs in Africa.

Clark was Labour prime minister from 1999 until 2008 when she lost an election to the conservative National Party.

The new government has strongly supported Clark's nomination for the job, with prime minister John Key lobbying other leaders to offer assistance.

AAP

More Howling against feminism for letting her down..

Another bragging session from followers of feminism again realising how betrayed they have been without out-rightly blaming the root cause of their problem..

Somewhere deep inside lurks a women I cannot control, and she is in the kitchen with a baby on her hip and a ball of dough in her hand, staring me down. She is saying to me: 'This is happiness. You can't deny it, this is what it's all about.' It's an instinct that makes me a woman; an instinct that I can't ignore, even if I've tried to for 15 years.

A two tissue story at least with the angst rating of 4 plus. A somewhat full-on female with the ego of Maureen Dowd, coupled with the appeal of quicksand but the poor dear is suffering...badly..

Dear oh Dear, how feminists have lied to her and how gullible, stupid and ignorant she was for wallowing in it..

Though I never thought I would be saying this, being a free woman isn't all it's cracked up to be. Is that the rustle of taffeta I hear as the suffragettes turn in their grave? Very possibly. My mother - a film-maker - was a hippy who kept a pile of dusty books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bedside. (Like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning.) She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation. As a result, I fought with my older brother and won, and at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.

But, at nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. Now, I want love and children, but they are nowhere to be seen. When I was growing up, I was led to believe by my mother and other women of her generation that women could 'have it all', and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end, I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dream of being a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.

Ten years ago, I wrote a play called Paradise Syndrome. It was based on my girlfriends in the music business. All we did was party, work and drink. The play sold out and I thought: 'This is it! I'm going to have it all - success, power - and men are going to adore me for it.' In reality, it was the beginning of years of hard slog, rejection letters and living on the breadline.

A decade on, I have written the follow-up play Touched For The Very First Time, in which the character of Lesley (played by Sadie Frost) is an ordinary 14-year-old from Manchester who falls in love with Madonna in 1984 after hearing the song Like A Virgin. She religiously follows her icon through the years, as Madonna sells her the ultimate dream - 'You can do anything, be anything, Go girl!'. Lesley discovers, along with Madonna, that trying to 'have it all' is a massive gamble. I wrote the play because so many of my girlfriends were inspired by this independent woman who allowed us to feel we could be strong and feminists and have careers and still be sexy. I still adore Madonna, and always will, but she has turned out not to be able to 'have it all'. The same goes for those of us who idolised her - and it's a huge disappointment.

I may be an extreme case. My views may not represent those of other women of my generation. Perhaps I am just a spoilt middle-class girl who had a career and who has now changed her mind about what she wants from life. But I don't think so. I would argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront of women's lives and, as a result, the traditional role of women was trampled underneath their crusading Doc Martens. I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother hadn't been such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of those formative decades.

Increasing numbers of my strongly feminist contemporaries are giving up their careers and opting for love and children and baking instead. Now, I wish I'd had kids ten years ago, when time was on my side. But the essence of the problem, I can see in retrospect, is not so much time as mentality. It's about understanding what is important in life, and from what I see and feel deep down, loving relationships and children bring more happiness than work ever can.

Natasha Hidvegi, 37, who recently left her job as a surgeon in order to look after her son, told me: 'I don't want to judge other women in similar jobs, but I found it impossible to be both a good surgeon and a good mother. Giving up my career was a terribly hard decision, but I don't regret it.' It's one thing to give up your career and have children before it's too late with the right man, but it's another issue altogether if you haven't yet found that man. Because, as my generation have discovered to their cost, men don't appear to like strong women very much. They are programmed to like their women soft and feminine. It's not their fault - it's in the genes.

Holly Kendrick, 34, who holds a high-status job in theatre, agrees: 'Men tend to be freaked out if you work as hard as them,' she says. 'It's like being the smart kid in the class: no one likes them.' This is why many of my girlfriends are still alone. Perhaps men haven't accepted women's modernity. (By modernity, I mean being the strong alpha woman who never questions her entitlement to the same jobs, fun and sexual gratification as men.) And this is the crux of the problem. Modernity has made women stronger, and that consequently means that we have higher standards; we want more. I am extremely capable, I really don't need a man. Seriously - it scares me how much I don't need a man. But that doesn't mean I don't want one. I am lonely, and terrified of being alone.

I have tried everything to stop the clocks, to stall time and find my ideal partner. I've considered the whole 'Let's adopt a baby from an African orphanage' thing. I have even had my eggs frozen (yes, really!) in the hope that if I do meet the right man, I will be in a position to have the children I now long for.

The problem is this: now I have decided I am ready for a new relationship, I am well prepared and I am totally efficient at running my life. But efficiency is not a very endearing quality; men find me daunting, and I can see that. It's not as if I'm famous or anything. It's just - like other women of my age - I seem to know it all. I do. And that's a massive turn-off for a bloke. This is why I say: do it early, girls - do it before you get cynical and jaded. Do the whole 'falling in love thing' when you honestly can embrace that joie de vivre. And, for goodness' sake, have children when you are young enough to enjoy them and to have more if you want them.

I feel a great pressure from other women of my generation who have husbands and children to join their club. In their eyes, I am not the trailblazer but the failure. My friend Rita Arnold, who's 36, works in marketing, says: 'It's not men who judge me for being a careerist - I find they are more accommodating of "modernity" - it's other women. The claws come out.' This leaves a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. We are letting each other down, but there is a worse betrayal even than that. Apparently, I am a failure in my own eyes. Somewhere deep inside lurks a women I cannot control, and she is in the kitchen with a baby on her hip and a ball of dough in her hand, staring me down. She is saying to me: 'This is happiness. You can't deny it, this is what it's all about.' It's an instinct that makes me a woman; an instinct that I can't ignore, even if I've tried to for 15 years.

Had I had this understanding of my inner psyche in my 20s, I would have mentally demoted my writing (and hedonism) and pursued a relationship with vigour. There were plenty of men and even a marriage offer from someone with whom I would have happily settled down. But no, I wasn't prepared to give up my dreams, the life I had been told was the right and proper one for a modern woman.

Struggling to understand my confusion, I went back and talked to the girls who were the subject of my play Paradise Syndrome in 1999. Sas Taylor, 38, single and childless, runs her own PR company. 'In my 20s, I felt as if I was invincible, unstoppable,' she says. 'Now, I wish I had done it all differently. I seem to scare men off because I am so capable that I just don't appear to need them, but I do. I have business success, but it doesn't make me happy in the core of myself.'

Nicki P, 35, single and also childless, works in the music industry and adds: 'It was all a game back then. Now, it's serious, and I am panicking. No one told me having fun isn't as much fun as I thought.' As I write this, I feel sad, as if the feminist principles my mother brought me up to have are being trashed. Am I betraying womanhood? No, I am revealing a shameful inner truth. Women are often the worst enemies of feminism because of our genetic make-up. We only have a finite time to be mothers, and when that biological clock starts ticking, we receive the most enormous reality check. That's why we suddenly abandon all our strength, forget all talk of deadlines and Powerpoint presentations, and start keeping ovulation diaries.

Of course, not all women want children. But I challenge any woman to say they don't want loving relationships. I wish I had been given the advice that I am now giving to my sister, who is 22. If you find a great guy, don't be afraid to settle down and have kids because there isn't anything to miss out on that you can't go back and do later - apart from having kids.

In the future, I hope there can be a better understanding of women by women. The past 25 years has been confusing for our sex, and I can't help feeling I've been caught in the crossfire. As women, we should accept each other full stop, rather than only appreciating professional 'success'. I have always felt an immense pressure to be successful, to show men I am their equal. What a waste of time that was. The traditional role of wife and mother should be given parity with the careerist role in the minds of feminists as well as men.

My mother has managed to juggle a career as a film-maker and being a great mother. She was part of the generation that overlapped in the sense that they had feminist values, but still had children early. She hasn't had the career opportunities that my generation of women have had because she had to make sacrifices and take lesser jobs so she could be there at parents' evenings. That is not a clash of priorities that I or most of my friends have ever faced.

Before the sisterhood rise up in fury, I would say this: I am not betraying feminism at all. Choice and careers are vital, of course, but they shouldn't be held up as a Holy Grail and pursued relentlessly. I love being a writer, but my career hasn't made me feel as fulfilled as I had imagined it would. So, now I am facing facts. The thing that has made me feel best in life was being in love with my ex-boyfriend - whom I was with for five years from the age of 30 - and the thing that makes me feel the most centred is being in the country with other people's children and dogs, and, yes, maybe in the kitchen.

Of course, I still have time to find a man and have children, but it doesn't often work like that, does it? I don't want to be an old mother whose arthritic knees don't allow her to run in the park with her little ones. It's all about now, now, now. And sod's law says that every day, minute, hour that goes by makes you older and more desperate. It might as well be tattooed on my forehead.

From pcwatch.blogspot.com

This is good enough to repeat until the message gets across..

Is Women's Studies Getting It Right..

It's fascinating what one is ignorant of. Check out the ongoing debate feminists and feminism is looking at to try and justify their lying agenda..

It gladdens me..

“Are we Getting it Right? The State of Women’s Studies Departments”

Debate at the University of Virginia

Amy Richards, debating the affirmative.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. debating the negative.

Sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Co-sponsored by:

Network of Enlightened Women, Feminism is For Everyone, The Virginia Advocate, College Republicans, The Jefferson Debate and Literary Society, the Washington Debate and Literary Society.

March 14, 2007

Prepared Opening Remarks by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

Our topic today is whether Women’s Studies Departments in general are “getting it right.” Is there any legitimate reason why the taxpayers should support an academic department devoted to the study of feminism and women? Has feminism improved the lives of women?

I will argue that there is no legitimate reason why the taxpayers of Virginia should support academic departments devoted solely to women and feminism. The feminist movement has not made people happy, but has contributed to unnecessary and unbelievable conflict between men and women.

A Room of Its Own? Does the study of women require its own academic department?

Should the taxpayers support academic departments devoted solely to the study of women and the promotion of the feminist ideology? As an academic matter, it is completely unnecessary. Serious scholars currently located in Women’s Studies Departments could become parts of other departments such as English, psychology, anthropology or sociology. In fact, many of them already have joint appointments in other departments. The faculty research in the Women’s Studies Departments doing should be able to survive the scrutiny of other scholars in their primary discipline. If it can not, there is certainly no reason to support it within a separate department.

Women students do not need special support in today’s academic world. The fields in which women continue to be under represented are fields in which women are already being heavily recruited and courted. Many schools and companies have outreach programs specifically designed to attract more women into science and engineering.[1] Yet despite these outreach efforts, the fields remain stubbornly male.

Besides, who among us is willing to sacrifice their own natural interests in order to “win one for the girls?” I spent my academic career in economics, a male-dominated field. I found myself attracted to the more humanistic parts of the discipline. I would have had to distort my own intellect and interests to force myself into the extreme male mold that would have been required to succeed in the more mathematical areas of economics. I was unwilling to do that for myself. I can not in good conscience encourage other people to cram themselves into academic slots that don’t really fit them.

Overall, women outnumber men among undergraduates. For undergraduates of the traditional college age, under 25, a clear female majority emerged a decade ago. The male share of undergraduates dropped from 49% in 1995-96 to 46% in 2003-04. Among undergraduates who are aged 25 and older, women outnumber men almost 2 to 1. The largest gender gap is among African-American undergraduates, where males make up a mere 40% of the under 25 aged students.[2] This is hardly evidence of an oppressed minority who needs a continual hand-up from the establishment.

In fact, the gender imbalance in higher education is now a social problem for women themselves. Educated women, particularly African American women, are having a hard time finding suitable marriage partners. There are simply not enough educated men to go around. As a result, some educated women are giving up on marriage completely, and choosing single motherhood, with all its accompanying problems and risks, simply by default.

Do we need a Men’s Studies or Life Studies Department?

Therefore, we do not need Women’s Studies Departments to give women students additional encouragement and support. If anything, we need a Men’s Studies Department that would ask why men are retreating from higher education. We should have a Men’s Center on campus to encourage men to invest in themselves, for their own benefit and the benefit of the wider society.

There are other interesting topics that for the Men’s Studies Department to study. For instance, why do men commit suicide so much more often than women? Men in general commit suicide at four times the rate that women do. [3] Married men are only half as likely as bachelors and about one-third as likely as divorced men to take their own lives. In other words, getting married cuts a man’s suicide risk in half. Getting divorced triples his probability of suicide.[4] And a man whose wife dies is about ten times more likely to commit suicide than a wife whose husband dies.[5]

A Men’s Studies Department might ask why do children do better with single fathers than with single mothers? Even when income is held constant, children who live with their fathers full-time had higher self-esteem and less anxiety, depression and fewer problem behaviors than children who were with their mothers full-time. Children in father custody have the advantage of maintaining a more positive relationship with the mother, than do children in mother custody. The greater income of the father is not the source of the benefit to the children, but an additional benefit. [6]

And while we’re on the subject of divorce, scholars of Mens’ Studies might ask whether it is really true that divorced men have “abandoned” their families, when two-thirds to three-quarters of divorces are initiated by women.[7] The vast majority of these divorces do not involve anything remotely like domestic violence.[8] Students more interested in activism than in scholarship might want to fight the injustice so frequently perpetrated by divorce courts, which enforce non-custodial fathers’ obligations to pay financial support much more strenuously than their rights to visit their children. [9] Governmental agencies take a dim view of fathers who fail to pay. But these same agencies are indifferent when women actively interfere with their children’s rights to have relationships with their father.

Men’s Studies scholars should investigate why little boys are so much more emotionally vulnerable than little girls. For instance, a study examining the impact of maternal depression on the cognitive development of children, found no affect on girls. [10] But the boys of depressed mothers scored a full standard deviation lower on standardized intelligence tests than boys whose mothers were not depressed. Developmental differences between girls and boys are so commonly found that child development experts more or less take them for granted. In this particular study of maternal depression, the researchers suggest, “ because infant boys as a group are already developmentally delayed compared with girls, their abilities to regulate their attention and emotions and find order in the world are particularly in need of help from a sensitive healthy caregiver.”

Why are men over-represented in the “death professions?” Of the deaths that occur in the workplace, 92% occur to men.[11] Jobs like timber cutters and fishers, pilots and navigators, roofers, cab drivers, truck drivers and construction laborers have among the highest risks of death. These have traditionally been male -dominated occupations.

We might also ask ourselves why those women who do work in dangerous occupations are so much less likely to die at work than are men. For instance, of the deaths in Iraq, less than 2.6% have been female, at a time when women comprised 10% of the forces deployed in Iraq. In other words, women who serve in Iraq will get equal pay with men, with only about one-fourth the chance of being killed compared with men.[12]

In addition to a Men’s Studies Department to balance the Women’s Studies Department, we should also have a Department of Life Studies to balance the pro-abortion ideology of Women’s Studies Departments. The interdisciplinary Life Studies department would prepare young women and men for careers of activism and service within the pro-life movement. Women could receive the professional training they need to run a crisis pregnancy center, or raise funds for pro-life foundations, or manage medical clinics that deliver babies free of charge.

The Life Studies program might also have classes crossed-listed in embryology, to explain what the “blob of tissue,” really is. That the “product of conception,” is a human life, not from the time of “quickening” as medieval thinkers believed, not from the time of implantation in the womb, but from the moment of conception.

The Life Studies program could offer courses that explain what pro-life leaders actually believe, as opposed to the caricatures of their views so often presented in other classes. Students might learn about Norma McCorvey, who was the original Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, how she felt exploited by her pro-abortion attorneys, and why she eventually had a change of heart and converted to Catholicism. One has to admit in all candor that students are not likely to hear this kind of information in any other classes on campus.

Has feminism made people happy?

But enough about other academic departments. What about feminism itself? Has feminism made people happy? Feminists disagree amongst themselves on many crucial issues. Instead of trying to unravel those Byzantine threads, I will analyze the form of feminism that has filtered down in the mainstream culture. Feminism means roughly this: women and men are the same, except women are better. So my question is this: has the systematic denial of genuine gender differences made people happy?

On the contrary, this has been a disaster for men and women alike. Differences between the sexes appear at birth. As we mature, everything that has to do with sex or reproduction affects men and women differently. Men and women react to the sex act itself differently. Women frequently are more eager to get married and start families earlier than men are. If a couple has trouble conceiving, the man and woman experience infertility very differently. If they do have a child, they react to the woman’s pregnancy differently, they treat the baby differently, and the baby treats them differently. As their child grows up, mothers and fathers have different approaches to parenting.

If a couple can not admit these most basic differences, they are headed for conflict and grief. They will expect the other person to feel what they feel, see things as they do, and then feel cheated when they don’t. The demand for equal sharing of household chores runs afoul this same problem: men and women are sensitive to different needs within the household.

This is why sociologists have so often found that gender equality ideology is correlated with marital dissatisfaction among wives. Women who cling to the feminist ideology continually feel cheated. By contrast, wives who feel appreciated by their husbands for her contributions, report higher levels of marital satisfaction. This is even true among wives who do the lion’s share of the housework. Recent findings suggest that women are happiest when they feel their husbands are emotionally engaged with them, regardless of the division of household chores. The feminist attempt to overlook or explain away systematic differences between men and women has made people miserable. [13]

Feminism has taken the personal relationship that is the most important to most people, namely marriage, and injected poison into it. As the relationship between mothers and fathers, marriage is also the most basic unit of social cooperation. When marriage breaks down, the substitutes for it are crude and ineffective and intrusive.

No university needs a department devoted solely to the study of women and the promotion of this socially destructive ideology. The intellectual life of the university will go along just fine without a Women’s Studies Department. The taxpayers should stop paying for the promotion of feminism.

Five minute closing statement.

In 1991, I was a tenured professor of economics at George Mason University. I received a phone call from a dear friend of mine, Jonathan R.T. Hughes, who was one of the Great Men of Economic History. He had received our adoption announcement for the arrival of our two and a half year old son from Romania. He had also heard through the grapevine that I was pregnant. And, as I knew, Jonathan Hughes had terminal cancer.

So he called me up to congratulate me on our new arrival and to coo over the photo I had sent him. Then he said, “when you get to be my age, you realize that being a parent was the one thing in life that was really worth doing.” Mind you, Jon had a distinguished teaching and publishing career. But that was how he saw his own life from his death bed. He went on, “Enjoy your kids while they are young. The university will still be there after they have grown up.”

I wanted to take his advice, but I was afraid to quit my job. I’ll never get another tenured position, I told myself. Yet the tug, the pull of the children was unmistakable. And our son had genuine needs. He’d had plenty of institutional care in his orphanage in Romania. He needed a Mommy. That would be me.

My husband had moved to the DC area for the sake of my teaching job at Mason. He is a nuts and bolts engineer. There was nothing really for him in DC. He had worked with the same contracting firm for ten years. By 1996, he deeply wanted to move to California to join a laser company and get in on the high tech boom. I was finally ready to let go.

I took a leap of faith and went with my husband. When we left the DC area, I did not have another job lined up. I made a decision that the family would be my first priority, and I would fit my work in around the edges of my full-time job. As it happened, part time research and writing positions fell into my lap. I had all the work I wanted.

During those years, our family had any number of problems to deal with. Death and dying, mental illness and physical illness, all came into our immediate world. The fact that I had made myself available to my children meant that we had some “slack” in our family system to deal with these problems as they arose. As a bonus, I got the opportunity to do many other wonderful things I didn’t have time for when I was working full-time. I could actually plan vacations and outings for our family. I could help at the kids’ schools, and bring casseroles to sick friends. I got to have friends, dear women friends, really for the first time since high school. We were foster parents for three years, to a total of eight children.

And you know what? Jonathan Hughes was right: the university is still here. Here I am. University life hasn’t changed all that much. It is almost as if I never left.

The women’s movement needs to abandon its old tired Leftist and Radical roots. We need a new women’s movement. We are living long enough that we can “have it all,” just not all at once. Young women today feel they must build their careers before they can start their families. But if we do that, our peak fertility years are behind us. Many of us miss the chance for marriage and family altogether. The new women’s movement would ask employers and universities to accommodate us when we return to the public sphere after decades of nurturing the private sphere. The new women’s movement would seek career paths designed to work for us, instead of trying to compete on career paths designed for men’s needs as husbands and fathers.

The new women’s movement could be based on respect for and appreciation of the distinct strengths men and women each bring to a marriage. Instead of demanding equality between the inherently unequal, we could set a higher standard for cooperation and complementarity. Instead of enshrining the most extreme form of radical individualism into marriage, we could work to make marriage more durable, for the mutual benefit of the spouses, for their children and the wider society. That is my vision for what the women’s movement should have been, and could yet become.

---

[1]Warren Farrell, Why Men Earn More, (New York: Amacon, 2005) pp. 25-27.

[2]American Council on Education, July 11, 2006 report, Gender Equity in Higher Education: 2006.

[3]Http://www.nimh.nih.gov/suicideprevention/suicidefaq.cfm

[4]Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, (NY: Doubleday, 2000) pp. 52.

[5]Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1993) pg 165.

[6]Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion, (NY: Putnam, 2001) pg. 42. K. Alison Clarke-Stewart and Craig Hayward, (1996) “Advantages of Father Custody and Contact for the Psychological Well-Being of School-Age Children,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17: 239-270.

[7] Sanford L. Braver and Diane O’Connell, Divorced Dads, Shattering the Myths, (NY: Putnam Books, 1998), pp. 124-135.

[8]Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen, “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives file for Divorce,” American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 2, (2000) 126, examine the reasons offered for divorce in Virginia, one of the few states that allows people to offer cruelty as a grounds for fault divorce. Only 6% of those filing for divorce cited cruelty as a reason.

Another study asked couples to list problems in their marriage. Violence wasn’t even a category. However, only 20% listed “gets angry easily” as a problem behavior for husbands, only 4% listed “has had sex with someone else,” and only 6% of husbands were described as “drinks or uses drugs.” Of the couples in this study, 12.5% ultimately divorced. This shows that the potential indicators of “high conflict” marriages were not a factor in the vast majority of marriages, and probably not even a factor in most of the marriages that ended in divorce. Paul R. Amato and Stacy J. Rogers, “A Longitudinal Study of Marital Problems and Subsequent Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59 No. 3. (August 1997) 612-624. Another survey of 256 people who had been divorced at one time or another asked “what was the principle reason you got a divorce?” Sixteen percent reported drug or alcohol problems as the principle reason, while only 5% reported abuse as the principle reason. Fully 47% listed “basic personality differences or incompatibility” as the principle reason for their divorce, while 17% listed marital infidelity and 10% reported disputes about money or children. Statistical Handbook on the American Family, Bruce A. Chadwick and Tim B. Heaton, editors (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1992), Table C3-6, pg. 98.

[9]Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D., with Diane O’Connell, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, (New York: Putnam, 1998), pp. 28-34, 168-70. Judith A. Seltzer also finds that compliance with child support awards are higher among men who have regular contact with their children. “Consequences of Marital Dissolution for Children,” Annual Review of Sociology, 20: 235-266, esp. pp. 245-7; and “Father by Law: Effects of Joint Legal Custody on Nonresident Fathers’ Involvement with Children,” Demography, 35, No. 2, (May 1998), 135-146.

[10]“The Impact of Postnatal Depression on Boys’ Intellectual Development,” Deborah Sharp, Dale F. Hay, et.al. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36 No. 8 (1995), pp1315-1336, quote on page1334.

[11]Farrell, Why Men Earn More, (New York: Amacon, 2005) pg. 27, note 20. Citing Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-7.

[12]Farrell, Why Men Earn More, pg. 30. Notes 28-29.

[13] The suggestion that feminist ideology correlates with marital dissatisfaction among women has been in the literature at least since 1993. Diane N. Lye and Timothy J.Biblarz, “The Effect of Attitudes Toward Family Life and Gender Roles on Marital Satisfaction,” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 14, no. 2 (June 1993) 157-188. According to Margaret F. Brinig and Steven L. Nock, “The most stable marriages are those in which the work inequality was recognized by both spouses (both partners agreed that the division of labor was unfair to the wife). This suggests that husband’s appreciation of the gift his wife makes by her disproportionate efforts may be more important than achieving strict equality .” “‘I only want trust:’ Norms, Trust and Autonomy,” Journal of Socio-Economics, 2003, citing also their earlier work, Brinig, M.F., “Divorce and division of labor,” In: Rowthorn, R., Dnes, A.W. (Eds.), Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). Most recently, W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock found that women are happiest with their marriages when they perceive that their husbands are emotionally engaged with them, and they consider the division of household labor to be fair. These wives do the lion’s share of the child care and housework, but their perceptions of fairness include appreciation of their husbands’ financial and physical contributions to the household. “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women’s Marital Quality,” Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 3, March 2006, pp. 1321-1345.

Comedy..

The New Look..at peace with the world..


Funny - Funny Videos

You may not want to be drinking anything to avoid a screen flush..


Funny - Funny Videos

Ever wonder why your photo copier uses so much paper ?

More feminists admit to lying..

This is as you can see is an old story or in the media known as a bleedingly obvious article..

The study below generally states very little that we did not already know so this confession from a feminist must have been galling to make, actually admitting that feminism is not only just political doctrine but it also denies scientific facts of the difference between the sexes..

"I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us.

No it was not politically correct, but lying about it was..

This was the long term interpretation that feminists promoted according to their doctrine..

Other scientists, however, are sceptical about the effects of testosterone on the brain and say many of the differences between the male and female personality can be explained by social conditioning, with a child's upbringing greatly influencing their character.

Absolutely true is some sense but the sexes interpret the world in a different fashion, do they not?

"I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.

And feminists spent so many years distorting those truths to such a degree that it influenced education, judiciary, employment, and insured unlimited government funding..

So those lies have been worth their weight in gold. Quite cynical would you not agree. To promote lies just to influence governments just to ensure you increase your income also seems to be not only the goal of feminists but lately and by those same thinkers in promoting the Global Warming Scams..

http://anonym.to/?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...says-study.html

Women talk three times as much as men, says studyBy FIONA MACRAE
28 November 2006

Women talk almost three times as much as men, according to the research.
It is something one half of the population has long suspected - and the other half always vocally denied. Women really do talk more than men.
In fact, women talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 more than the average man.

Women also speak more quickly, devote more brainpower to chit-chat - and actually get a buzz out of hearing their own voices, a new book suggests.
The book - written by a female psychiatrist - says that inherent differences between the male and female brain explain why women are naturally more talkative than men.

In The Female Mind, Dr Luan Brizendine says women devote more brain cells to talking than men.

And, if that wasn't enough, the simple act of talking triggers a flood of brain chemicals which give women a rush similar to that felt by heroin addicts when they get a high.
Dr Brizendine, a self-proclaimed feminist, says the differences can be traced back to the womb, where the sex hormone testosterone moulds the developing male brain.
The areas responsible for communication, emotion and memory are all pared back the unborn baby boy.

The result is that boys - and men - chat less than their female counterparts and struggle to express their emotions to the same extent.
"Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road," said Dr Brizendine, who runs a female "mood and hormone" clinic in San Francisco.

There are, however, advantages to being the strong, silent type. Dr Brizendine explains that testosterone also reduces the size of the section of the brain involved in hearing - allowing men to become "deaf" to the most logical of arguments put forward by their wives and girlfriends.

But what the male brain may lack in converstation and emotion, they more than make up with in their ability to think about sex.

Dr Brizendine says the brain's "sex processor" - the areas responsible for sexual thoughts - is twice as big as in men than in women, perhaps explaining why men are stereotyped as having sex on the mind.

Or, to put it another way, men have an international airport for dealing with thoughts about sex, "where women have an airfield nearby that lands small and private planes".
Studies have shown that while a man will think about sex every 52 seconds, the subject tends to cross women's minds just once a day, the University of California psychiatrist says.

Dr Brizendine, whose book is based on her own clinical work and analyses of more than 1,000 scientific studies, added: "There is no unisex brain.
"Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality.

"I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us.
"I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.

"If women attend to those differences they can make better decisions about how to manage their lives."

Other scientists, however, are sceptical about the effects of testosterone on the brain and say many of the differences between the male and female personality can be explained by social conditioning, with a child's upbringing greatly influencing their character.

Deborah Cameron, an Oxford University linguistics professor with a special interest in language and gender, said the amount we talk is influenced by who we are with and what we are doing.

She added: "If you aggregate a large number of studies you will find there is little difference between the amount men and women talk."

Maureen Dowd backpeddles on her "Are Men Necassary.".

I really enjoyed taking down Maureen Dowd for being a feminists first, a female supremacist second and just another whiny bitch so invoveld in her own importance that she penned this drivel..

Maureen Dowd..

Are Men Necessary?: When Sexes Collide

This bit of drivel was exposed to the world as Maureen reaches her 50's and find out what it like to be a perpetual princess no one wants to know let alone wants to marry..

So that book was her swan song damning all men while in her opinion she would rise above all of it as the phoenix she imagines herself to be..

One warped female..

But she backpeddalled, she could not wait to write off her book as just being a joke..

Here for all to see.. a bit flippant but it's her demented nature..You would recognise it immediately upon reading any of her articles..

Redbloodedusgirl: Feminism is bad for Women..

This comment ties in very nicely with my podcast and ofcourse just enforces the growing belief that feminism is bad for women..

Here we have a female by the name of redbloodedusgirl, not something I would confess being but she delivers the same concepts and ideas as my Podcast..

Women suffer cash inflow during depression..

This article puts paid to feminists ranting about "women suffer the most in a depression"..

And how oppressed they are, making $ 300,000.00 per year flashing off their skin is really oppressive wouldn't say and where is the "women are only seen as sex objects" raging when women deliberately seek this type of work to increase their income and wealth ?

http://anonym.to/?http://www.jdunderground.com/thread.php?threadId=33591

Author: deminimus
Subject: NYT: More Women Needing Cash Go From Jobless to Topless
Time: March 22, 2009 - 10:22 am

http://anonym.to/?http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/22...ertainment.html


CHICAGO (AP) -- As a bartender and trainer at a national restaurant chain, Rebecca Brown earned a couple thousand dollars in a really good week. Now, as a dancer at Chicago's Pink Monkey gentleman's club, she makes almost that much in one good night.

The tough job market is prompting a growing number of women across the country to dance in strip clubs, appear in adult movies or pose for magazines like Hustler. Employers across the adult entertainment industry say they're seeing an influx of applications from women who, like Brown, are attracted by the promise of flexible schedules and fast cash. Many have college degrees and held white-collar jobs until the economy soured.

''You're seeing a lot more beautiful women who are eligible to do so many other things,'' said Gus Poulos, general manager of New York City's Sin City gentleman's club. He said he got 85 responses in just one day to a recent job posting on Craigslist.

The transition to the nightclub scene isn't always a smooth one -- from learning to dance in five-inch heels to dealing with the jeers of some customers. Some performers said they were initially so nervous that only alcohol could calm their nerves. ''It is like giving a speech, but instead of imagining everyone naked, you're the one who's naked,'' Brown, 29, said.
........................................

In this economy, ''desperate measures are becoming far more acceptable,'' said Jonathan Alpert, a New York City-based psychotherapist who's had clients who worked in adult entertainment. For some, dancing is temporary, a way to pay for college loans or other bills. Others say they've found their niche.

Dancers at the upscale Rick's Caberet clubs in New York City and Miami can make $100,000 to $300,000 a year -- in cash -- even with the economic downturn, club spokesman Allan Priaulx said. Priaulx said 20 to 30 women a week are applying for jobs at the New York club, double the number of a year ago.

Still, analysts say, the industry isn't immune to the economic recession. Business is down an estimated 30 percent across all segments, including adult films, gentleman's clubs, magazines and novelty shops, said Paul Fishbein, president of AVN Media Network, an adult entertainment company that has a widely distributed trade publication and an award show.

''In the past, people have said this industry is recession-proof,'' said Eric Wold, director of research for financial services firm Merriman Curhan Ford. ''I definitely don't see that; maybe recession-resistant.''
...................................

But the economic realities aren't keeping jobseekers away.

Vivid Entertainment's Hirsch said the number of women in his business has doubled in the last couple years, with roughly 800 working as adult actresses. ''It is more competitive than I've seen it in 25 years,'' he said.

That doesn't mean all the newcomers are planning on lengthy careers in the industry. Stone, who has a bachelor's degree in graphic design, took up dancing four years ago to help pay her student loans. She plans to go to graduate school this year to pursue a master's in education.

Brown, meanwhile, has a ready answer for those critical of her career choice. ''I have job security,'' she said.

Thugticians Mothers Day Address..

An International effort indeed. T from England, shooting Obama in the foot over his sexist bias against Fathers on an Australian's Blog..

Spreading the word..

Got Money ?:Be Prepared to treat me like a lady..

Example Number Two..

I ain't no gold digger but..

“I think women who fake it with rich men just to get presents and a nice life aren’t much different to prostitutes — but I can’t fake it.

and this..

“I’ve been on more than 50 dates with men who know that I’m only dating them because they have money.

Errr...refer to one..

“But as well as being loaded, I want a man who is successful, ambitious and generous and prepared to treat me like a lady.

Self delusional women like this end up on the scrap heap of life while they sell their time for money and luxuries..
Ahead will be the cats and rejection when a normal guy will realise that she has been around the block way too often and decides that he will move onto someone without the mileage..

Natalie, 22

GRADUATE Natalie Gohl only dates men who earn over £100,000 a year and thinks money can make a big difference to your sex life.

She says: “The most incredible sex I ever had was in a suite in one of the poshest hotels in London’s Park Lane.

“We drank pink champagne and ate strawberries before retiring to the king-sized bed together.

“Obviously that’s better than being in bed with a guy in a grotty flat. I don’t think money makes a man more knowledgable about how to please a woman between the sheets.

“I admit I’ve also had good sex with men who didn’t have loads of money.

“But when I’m with a wealthy lover I’m not worried or stressed about my bank balance and that’s why the sex is so much better.

“Attraction is what improves your sex life — and I’m attracted to guys with cash.”

These days Natalie rarely dates men who aren’t worth a fortune.

'I never fake it. I'm not a prostitute' ... Natalie Gohl only dates rich men

She says: “The first time I went on a date with a rich man it was like a different world and there was no going back. My friend had a wealthy boyfriend so she set me up with his friend.

“We went to Posh’s favourite restaurant, Nobu, in Park Lane.

“He was a lot older than me so I was a bit shocked when I first saw him but I soon forgot about his age when he started ordering the most expensive things on the menu.

“After dinner he collected his convertible sports car from his £3million flat near Sloane Square and we went to a private members’ club where we drank champagne all night.

“I didn’t fancy him but I quickly realised that unless I had a rich boyfriend I would never have a luxury lifestyle like that — so I decided to make it happen.”

Natalie, from Whitechapel in East London, met men on websites for women wanting wealthy lovers and was quickly overwhelmed with requests for dates from rich guys.

She says: “I never feel exploited. I might date a lot of men with money but I have to be genuinely attracted to them to get involved romantically.

“I think women who fake it with rich men just to get presents and a nice life aren’t much different to prostitutes — but I can’t fake it.

“I’ve been on more than 50 dates with men who know that I’m only dating them because they have money.

“But as well as being loaded, I want a man who is successful, ambitious and generous and prepared to treat me like a lady.

“I’ve been taken for dinner at The Ivy in London, had presents like a Louis Vuitton bag and expensive designer lingerie — and even been flown first class on holidays to Spain and New York.

“And if a guy is willing to fly you across the world just to take you out to dinner and give you great gifts, of course it helps put you in the mood.

“Great sex comes down to chemistry and having a connection with a man and I find wealth and knowledge a huge turn-on.

“At the moment I’m seeing a few different blokes who are all at least 20 years older than me.

“Once I decide who I prefer, I would like to have a more serious relationship with one of them. Love hasn’t come into it yet.

“Years ago, my ex-boyfriend had no money and always expected me to pay, so I have dated normal men in the past.

“But now I’m used to being spoilt it would be impossible to go back to that. I’ll never settle down with a poor man.”

But this is what is being promoted as normal behaviour. Women competing with each other for the 20% of men that fall into that category..

Meanwhile they are feasting on the delights of their wealth..

Lucy 39: I ain't saying I'm no golddigga..

Well, if you want a single mother with 4 kids you have to be a millionaire apparently..

Who is she kidding ?

Not just herself obviously..

And guess the extent of this little lady's position..

HOTEL attendant Lucy Durrans

I have seen many rich guys commenting on the fact that they are surrounded by possible gold diggers fighting for their attention even have females knocking on their doors at night demanding to enter..

I have also heard them say that only if they come with their own wealth will they ever consider them anything more serious them just being a f**k buddy..

But we have delusional comments like this to add to the melodrama of live..

Lucy insists she is not prostituting herself, merely ensuring a better life for herself and her four children, aged between nine and 19.

When are they going to wake up..

Oh look, she has also hit on an MRA's demanding equal opportunity..

“I tried a ‘normal’ date recently but although the bloke was nice, he just took me to a pub for dinner and expected me to go Dutch on the bill.

The nerve of the man..

I ain't saying I'm no golddigga but I ain't messin' with no road sweeper

Lucy, 39

HOTEL attendant Lucy Durrans only dates men she finds on a website for women seeking seriously wealthy men — because she believes loaded blokes make the best lovers.

Lucy says: “Rich men are confident, successful and used to getting exactly what they want — so dating a man with an amazing lifestyle usually means you’re going to have an amazing time in bed.

“The wealthiest guy I’ve ever been out with was a millionaire.

“He treated me like a fairytale princess and I had the best sex of my life with him. On dates he would send a limo from London to Milton Keynes to pick me up.

'It's easier to let yourself go if they're rich' ... Lucy Durrans

“Then his driver would take me to meet him at exclusive restaurants or bars in posh hotels like The Dorchester on Park Lane. He lived in a Mayfair flat worth millions and everything in his house was luxurious.

“The carpets were five inches thick and a TV even came out of the ceiling in the bathroom.

“It was like an exciting fantasy world so of course it put me in the mood to have fantasy sex!”

Lucy insists she is not prostituting herself, merely ensuring a better life for herself and her four children, aged between nine and 19.

“Using dating sites that explicitly deal with rich men means everyone knows where they stand and what they want from the relationship. I’m being upfront about what I want but at the end of the day it’s still my choice who I date.

“Yes, I do want a rich boyfriend but I still have to connect with him and I certainly won’t sleep with just anyone.

“If a man is sleazy or creepy, I ditch him. I want luxury for me and my kids but not at any price.

“In my experience the richer the bloke, the better the sex will be and it’s one of the reasons I won’t go out with men with no money.

“I use dating websites where the men have to tell you their income and I won’t consider anyone who earns less than a £100k a year.

“That way I’m guaranteed a good time in and out of bed.

“I tried a ‘normal’ date recently but although the bloke was nice, he just took me to a pub for dinner and expected me to go Dutch on the bill.

“I’m used to swanky restaurants and being paid for so I need a man who wants to pay for me to be attracted to him in any way. Even my kids ask me ‘how much does he earn?’ before I go on a date.

“I’ve been given presents like a fur coat and diamond watches, been picked up in Aston Martins and drunk Cristal champagne. I’m not embarrassed.

“These men have plenty of spare cash so they should buy me diamonds with it. I wouldn’t say loaded blokes are better lovers but I do have more orgasms with them because it’s easier to let yourself go.

“For me being with a rich man is all about financial security and that’s what makes the sex great.

“I want to live in the lap of luxury and when I’m with a rich bloke I can forget about scrimping and saving and relax.

“Men with cash are confident and sexy so when they’ve chosen to date me when they could have their pick from loads of other girls it’s a huge turn on.

“I do have standards but I’m not into looks and I don’t mind if the men are overweight.

“So long as they shower and dress well. The only men I can’t enjoy sex with are ones with no money.”

Lucy, from Bletchley, Milton Keynes, who dates rich men she finds on golddiggers.uk.com , would like to find her soulmate, but he would need to have plenty of cash.

She says: “I’m waiting for a millionaire before I get married because skint men just don’t turn me on.

“Being with a wealthy man gives me peace of mind and makes the sex mind-blowing. I’ve got nothing on my mind so I’m totally relaxed and that’s what gives it the edge.”

The Farmer doesn't get a wife..

Oh well, it was a lot more interesting while the cameras were whirling and the attention was at it's height..

But, why should a girl lacking all that attention stay with a Man that works so hard and fails to give her the attention she needs..

Those type of "reality" make me puke but obviously they do attract a large audience apparently and once the paparazzi go, so do the attention seekers..

Meanwhile another Farmer has his heart ripped out..

She reminds me of Tina Turner's song "What's love gotta do with it"..

Sarah Walton seeks new love after farmer Ben Honey

Article from:

March 23, 2009 12:00am

SHE went looking for a rural romeo on The Farmer Wants a Wife, but Sarah Walton discovered country life was not the roll in the hay she had expected it to be.

Walton, 28, fell head over heels for Jamberoo dairy farmer Ben Honey on last year's series of the Channel 9 dating show, but their romance hit the rocks when the TV cameras were turned off.

"Country boys are big and strong and know how to handle a woman," Sydney girl Walton has told Zoo magazine.

"(But) he was always tired. He was up at 4am and got home late.

"Let's just say that a roll in the hay isn't all it's cracked up to be."

Not working: Farmer splits with Urban Princess

The nanny packed her bags and left country NSW and headed back to Sydney after a couple of months.

Walton has told Zoo that she is now looking for love again.

Girl screws underage boy: Nine months MAX, Boy screws the same girl: 40 Years..

Here we go, another example on how the "Justice" system protects women and make all men and boys accountable..

Blatant sexism tolls greatly, if it's a women or any female for that matter she is automatically excused for her abhorrent behaviour. But if it's any male, he has to be held accountable..

So why are women treated like children ?

Aren't you sick of this..?

When a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town commited the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?

Alan Jepsen was playing video games at his home in Sheboygan, Wis., when the cops came knocking on his door. He was handcuffed in front of his sister and thrown in jail. In the words of his attorney, Jeffrey Purnell, “This child, this 17-year-old high school kid, had to spend a week in jail—they locked him up and they put him in jail with grown-ups.”

His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. And, perphaps, being a boy.

“These are kids,” said Purnell. “It’s ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it’s frustrating, really.”

The day after Alan's arrest, Sheboygan authorities arrested Norma Guthrie, also 17, for having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend. Norma, however, did not have to spend a single day in jail. She was released immediately, on signature bond, while Alan was held on a $1,000 cash bond, which his family could not afford. Sheboygan County Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch is handling both cases.

The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.

The cases caught the attention of the local press, generating a heated debate over whether Alan is being given harsher treatment simply because he is a boy. “After all,” said Purnell, “this isn’t one district attorney in Tennessee and one in New York deciding how to charge these cases. This wasn’t even one district attorney in one county in Wisconsin and another county in Wisconsin. No, this was the same guy who charged these two cases.”

The district attorney’s office refused to comment, but experts say it would not be far-fetched to assume that Alan has been the victim of bias. According to Dr. Marty Klein, author of America’s War on Sex, “the double standard is not unusual. It is unusual to find such an extraordinarily clear example of it, but the philosophy behind the phenomenon is very common.”
Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a 14-year-old high school freshman accused of statutory rape was the victim of gender discrimination in a case involving him and three girls with whom he had been sexually active. Two of the girls were 12, and one was 11.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall pointed out that even though both the boy and girls involved were under the age of consent, “the boy was the only child charged with statutory rape, or any offense, as a result of the incidents alleged, and he was the only male among the four children.” Furthermore, she added, “the district attorney affirmatively declined to bring charges against the female children where the facts described by the girls could be viewed as contravening those same laws by them.”

While Suzanne Goldberg, who teaches sexuality and gender law at Columbia Law School, acknowledged that “every case has to be dealt with individually,” she said she believes “a state would be inclined to punish young men more harshly than young women because young men are often seen as aggressors in adolescent sexual contact.”

According to Dr. Klein, however, the double standard emerged from the historical treatment of women as the property of men. “Women were not considered to be sexually autonomous beings,” he said. “Their sexuality was never considered to be a weapon. It was never considered that it could damage somebody else’s property. But men have the ability to damage another man’s property with their sexuality by violating their daughter or by violating their wife. So just bring that system of thinking forward into the present day and you get 17-year-old boys that are still considered to have the potential of damaging something with their sexuality, while it’s much harder for people to imagine a 17-year-old girl causing harm with her sexuality.”

That seems to be what District Attorney Haasch had in mind when he charged Alan and Norma. There is nothing in the record to explain why Alan should be treated so severely. The difference in age between Norma and her boyfriend, for example, is actually greater than that between Alan and his girlfriend. Although both perpetrators were 17 and both victims 14 at the time of the alleged abuse, Norma is two years and 11 months older than her boyfriend, whereas Alan is two years and four months older than his girlfriend. Court records also show that Alan admitted to having had sex with his girlfriend “two or three times,” while Norma said she and her boyfriend had sex “somewhere between 10 and 15 times, but she was not exactly sure.”

Alan’s 19 year-old sister, Kathy Jepsen, has a simple explanation for the charges. “It’s bullshit [is] what it really comes to,” she said in an email, adding that “our court system is messed up in Sheboygan.” Asked if she believes young men deserve harsher punishment, she responded: “No, I don’t believe that; we should all take responsibility for what we do, whether you’re a boy or girl. We are all human, but where the law is concerned we are not equal. They should change that.”

According to Kathy, Alan's girlfriend told him she was 16. The criminal complaint against Alan confirms this, and reveals that his girlfriend lied to the police, as well. She was at Alan and Kathy’s apartment at the time of the arrest, and told the officers twice that she was 16. One of them “then advised [his girlfriend] that if she was not truthful with the officer, she possibly would be arrested for obstructing if she lied about her age, at which point [his girlfriend] looked down at her feet, looked back at the officer, and said she was 14. Immediately when the defendant [Alan] learned of this, his body tensed up and he got a scowl on his face.”

At that point, said Kathy, “I was pissed off and wanted to hit her, but there were three cops in my apartment, so I couldn’t.”
Kathy’s anger is understandable. “This issue has embarrassed our family,” she said. “I mean, how can you give somebody your name, or face your co-workers? People look at you different.”

Purnell shares her frustration, and points out that the root of the problem is not the double standard but the fact that Alan or Norma could be prosecuted to begin with. “These are kids,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it’s frustrating, really.”

Dr. Klein agrees. “What is fundamentally not fair,” he said, “is treating consensual sex between teenagers as a crime in the first place. Once you criminalize sex between teenagers, then it’s only a matter of how much harm you’re going to cause; how much destruction you’re going to bring into people’s lives. In the case of the 17-year-old girl, you’re bringing in a small amount of destruction into her life. In the case of the 17-year-old boy, you’re bringing a lot of destruction into his life.”

Alan has not yet been convicted, and his lawyer is negotiating a plea agreement. In the meantime, as Norma and other 17-year-olds look forward to finishing high school, Alan is left wondering if he will be able to come back for his senior year. He might be in prison by then.

The Perfect Husband..

Oprah Winfrey is increasing domestic violence..

We have been stating this for years...

1. Oprah is a male hater and a feminist..
2. Women are more abusive than Men...

So when will we finally see some justice ?

Obviously we cannot count on Obama as he has just installed the Male Haters in the White House..

So where do we go from here ?

Wait for the Justice System to stop their systemic bias ?

So, meanwhile, just sit on our hands and hope it does not happen to you..

Oprah Is Harpo on Violent Women

Posted by Marc H. Rudov on Mar 22, 2009

She’ll Hit Again

Oprah Winfrey is increasing domestic violence in America. By being Harpo — remaining silent — on the truth about violent women, she unwittingly perpetuates the problem.? Repeatedly excusing women’s culpability and unfairly blaming men only serves to foment this pernicious societal scourge.

On March 19, 2009, Oprah aired an anti-male show about domestic violence (DV), to capitalize on the biggest news story: Rihanna. Oprah holds men totally responsible for both causing and ending DV. Outrageous! Nowhere on her show was mention of all-too-common incidents of female violence such as those involving actress Kelly Bensimon and NFL player Geno Hayes.

Instead, Oprah stridently cautioned her female audience: If he hits, he’ll hit again. Fair enough. Missing from her mantra, though, was: Never hit a man — out of anger, revenge, jealousy, hormone imbalance, or any reason whatsoever! Also absent from Oprah’s show was a reciprocal warning to men: If she hits, she’ll hit again.

Acceptable Marginalization of Men

Why is the DV situation so unfair & unbalanced? Americans — especially male citizens, talkshow hosts, journalists, politicians, and judges — not only trivialize female-on-male violence, they laugh at it.

To wit: In a Saturday Night Live skit (from 02.24.01), Katie Holmes repeatedly whacks Will Farrell in the crotch. In the photo below (click to watch videoclip), Chris Parnell, playing the director, instructs Holmes in how best to grab and twist Farrell’s testicles.

SNL’s New Twist on Testicles

Consequences? Acceptable marginalization of men leads children to disrespect them, women to hurt them — with impunity — and courts to unfairly prosecute them.

Report from the Street

I hear frequently from cops all over the country who tell me that my articles don’t begin to cover the truth about widespread and unreported female-on-male violence. One particular officer writes to me almost every week about another incident. His latest:

I recently arrested a gal for hitting her boyfriend (no politically correct woman-is-victim crap). She left the crime scene, and he called my department. Upon my arrival at the scene, this guy approached my patrol car. At a minimum, he was 6′7″ and had a bloody nose. We arrested her at her parents’ apartment across the street, after a short struggle and strong denial of any wrongdoing.

On the way to the police station, I had to restrain her against the inside of the passenger door of my patrol car (I had a cageless car). So, I requested more officers, and we had to walk her the rest of the way to the police department.

She demanded that I call the bar, where they were before the altercation, to ask the bartender about her boyfriend’s abuse … yadda, yadda, yadda. The bartender reported nothing abusive about her boyfriend and only remembered them arguing. The more lies I caught her in, the more she denied culpability — using a foul mouth.

Even though her boyfriend is large in stature, he’s a wimp. No brighter than she, but undeserving of being abused.

Ultimately, the trial was vacated. I kinda wanted to see what angle she would use to defend herself in court, because none of her alibis confirmed her version of the story, as I indicated in my report. That’s probably why she didn’t want to go to court.

A lot of officers don’t put the full details in their reports, which can help convict DV culprits — male or female. But, the details are especially important when the alleged culprit is a female, because she’ll show up on her best behavior, in conservative attire, and easily fool judges and juries.

The Real Cycle of Violence

Problems are fixed only when their root causes are exposed and addressed — not ignored, distorted, or deflected to others. That’s what happens in Washington, and why Washington solves nothing. Domestic violence is a growing problem because people are in denial about its female roots.

Anyone who condones, denies, trivializes, or laughs at female-on-male violence is responsible for encouraging, enabling, and perpetuating it. If you plead guilty to this, Oprah just assuaged your guilt. Worse, she gave mainstream media the green light to continue misreporting DV statistics. This is the real cycle of violence.

Oprah Winfrey, because of her power and passion and influence, is in a unique position to educate millions around the world about the truth: women cause up to 70% of domestic violence and must not be given a pass.

But, instead of empowering women, by exhorting them to become accountable and responsible for their violence, Oprah disempowers and victimizes them by unilaterally blaming men for the entire matter.

Oprah validates people who believe a man never should touch a woman, no matter what she does to him. Implicit in this belief is a woman’s right to assault and hit men, for any reason she chooses, and I don’t hear Oprah protesting that insanity.

We Are Now a Woman’s Nation

What makes women think they’re more important and valuable than men? That’s easy: men, through their words and actions, constantly put women on pedestals. Wait a minute … what about that so-called feminist quest for equality?

Let’s get real. Women never wanted equality; they always wanted superiority and knew that spineless men would deliver it. Men, as they are wont to do, have come through with flying colors, sowing their own demise in the process.

So, America is now a gynocracy, Barack Obama has created the unconstitutional Council on Women and Girls, and Maria Shriver rightly proclaimed that “We are now a woman’s nation.” A symptom of being a “woman’s nation” is blaming men for all female behavior. Duh.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Victimhood mentality is the antithesis of equality — an emotional prison that stunts growth. Women must own up to their violence. Men and women must be equally prosecuted for hitting and hurting each other; that should have been Oprah’s message on March 19th. It wasn’t. Instead, Oprah cemented hidebound — and inaccurate — thinking.

If Oprah really wants to end DV, she’ll tell women to stop it — in the same breath that she tells men to stop it. Moreover, she’ll scold her TV colleagues for putting anything on the air that trashes and injures men for comic relief.

Oprah aims to help women, but acting like Harpo on female violence ultimately hurts them — by persuading them to choose victimhood. Oprah’s success was possible only because she never chose victimhood. It’s time for her to end the double standard.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727) and The Man?s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men?s ?Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,? is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel?s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O?Reilly Factor.

Rudov?s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright ? 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Obama Women’s Council Tells its First Lie

Posted by Carey Roberts on Mar 22, 2009

The Maidens of Mendacity are at it again, only this time they're speaking from the bully pulpit that President Obama himself established. A couple weeks ago President Obama established the White House Council on Women and Girls. During the March 11 ceremony, Obama explained, "It's not enough to only have individual women's offices at different agencies, or only have one office in the White House."

The very next morning the Office's director, Valerie Jarrett, went on NPR Morning Edition. This is what Jarrett had to say: "Domestic violence is still a major issue, not just for women but also for girls"

Within those 15 well-crafted words lurk two shameless lies.

First, domestic violence is a "major issue" only in the minds of feminists who are hell-bent on breaking up families on bogus accusations of abuse, as well as the self-anointed abuse "experts" who plead poverty to donors as they settle in to $100,000 compensation packages.

Each year an estimated 600 Americans are struck by lightning "that's according to the National Weather Service. And each year fewer than 1,500 Americans men and women are murdered by their intimate partners".

Being struck by lightning or wacked off by your partner isn't the most pleasant thought, of course. But the domestic violence industry has created a hysteria that rivals the events that took place following a false claim of rape by three Duke lacrosse players.

Ready for the second lie? I know this riles chivalrous conservatives as much as dyed-in-the-wool liberals. But the fact remains,

Women are more likely than men to instigate partner violence. This is the main finding of a Centers for Disease Control study, which found in cases of one-way violence, women were the aggressors 71% of the time: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

Ironically, female violence is far more likely to be discounted or ignored.

When Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson got into a knock-down, drag-out fight at a London nightspot last November, amused bystanders discounted the incident as two girls "fighting like cats and dogs."

When Kelly Killoren Bensimon, star of "The Real Housewives of New York City" was arrested three weeks ago for cutting her boyfriend's eye with a roundhouse punch, the New York Times wiffed on the story. In fact the arrest wasn't reported until a week later when the Daily News picked up on the incident — and even then ran the story on its Gossip page.

Compounding the irony of the whole affair, President Obama had issued a high level Memorandum on March 9. Headlined Scientific Integrity, Obama explained, "Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration." Obama then instructed the federal workforce, "Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions."

Over 200 scientific studies prove women are equally to blame for partner violence: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm . But three days after her boss's directive was issued, Valerie Jarrett chose to shred the well-established scientific finding.

Domestic violence is an issue that concerns men and women, boys and girls. For President Obama's Office on Women and Girls, that appears to be an inconvenient truth.