Robyn Riley: Stop blaming women for violence; Women are blameless ofcourse..

Akin to "Global Warming" hysteria we have "Women are violent" deniers. Yes, Robyn Riley is another one of those misinformation merchants denying violent women even exist. In their eyes women are everything else but. I have on copious occasions demonstrated on this blog facts, studies, articles stating very clearly that women are violent. You know it, I know it but feminists like Riley wallow in that usual "Women are harmless" in the arena of falsification of reality like most female journalist indulge in.
It's dishonest, it's untruthful, it's downright lies..

Where are the programs, advertising, stickers and handouts for women NOT to be violent ?

NOTHING..Women know they can get away it..

Has Rihanna got the guts, the dignity or honesty to confess that she may have been the instigator or at least endure some accountability ?

No, they avoid any possibility of accepting responsibility as neither courage or honesty avoids them. Their social standing would be affected and someone may think (gasp) that they might actually be an abuser..

Let's wait and see what Woods was involved in. If he was abused by a vindictive and violent partner you will not read that in the paper either..

Let's just blame the male, it's easier..

Meanwhile pertaining to this article we have another one of those "huge"  surveys of at least 200, wow, Robyn must be delving deep to promote her hysteria. How's that for a journalist of irrelevance. Cannot wait to get onto her little male-bashing hobby horse..
Probably unknown or denied by her is the fact that women are the most prominent  responders for those type of surveys and women themselves know what they are like..

Stop blaming women for violence

Robyn Riley – Sunday, November 29, 09 (12:01 am)

SHOCKING as the physical abuse was that US singer Chris Brown inflicted on former girlfriend Rihanna, I find the results of a survey of the teenage perceptions of that sad case even more devastating.

According to a survey of 200 teens after the incident, 46 per cent considered she was at fault and 52 per cent believed both parties were responsible.

That just proves how far we still have to go when it comes to educating about violence against women.

Certainly it suggests that we seriously have to consider anti-violence programs in our schools, as reported this week.

Something needs to be done to give kids, in particular, a reality check when it comes to violence against women and this unhealthy implication so many seem to believe. You know - that somehow the victim, the woman, deserved it.

In the Chris Brown case, remember he pleaded guilty. Police alleged it started as a verbal argument and ended with Brown punching Rihanna repeatedly in the face, biting her left ear, biting her fingers and placing her in a headlock until she began to lose consciousness.

Brown was sentenced in June to six months’ community work and five years’ probation.
Maybe the reaction of fans could have been confused if Rihanna refused to discuss such a private and confronting issue, but she has been open and upfront.

The 21-year-old has spoken of her “embarrassment” at taking Brown back, albeit briefly, after the assault. She told US interviewer Diane Sawyer she realised she was setting a bad example for girls.

“I realised that my selfish decision for love could result in some girl getting killed,” she said.

Her assault was made more public because photographs of her after the attack were leaked to the website TMZ.com.
That battered and bruised face should have sent shock waves among her legion of young fans.
Instead, it seems a huge percentage believed she was somehow to blame.

Let us hope in years to come, Rihanna is not just remembered as an artist, but as someone who helped to turn this ugly issue around.

Top 10 Cruel Things Women Do to Men..

The usual waffle we hear and read from female journalist and unfortunately and as usual they usually miss the whole thing..

But here we have some reality and rightly so..

So to justify the crap that men have to put up with. Forgetting the fact that periods have a major affect on women but that is now ignored, banned and never mentioned (have you noticed ?) as it's not "politically incorrect" and we cannot have those "Brave, You Go Girl, We Are God's Gift To Men" mentality take on any type of reality..

But we have that leading question..

Is the woman in your life driving you crazy?

Like that's going to get a negative response..

No, it's okay. We do love Ya..


Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have this range of questions like it's something new, some justification, GEE !!


Top 10 Cruel Things Women Do to Men

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

By Emily Miller

Is the woman in your life driving you crazy?

Women can be cruel, and they often do cruel things to men. Despite their reputation as the fairer sex, when it comes to relationships, sometimes women can be downright nasty.

It seems like a reverse sexism started to take hold as the feminist movement came about and equality for women began gaining ground. Some women use their girl-power solidarity to come to a consensus on what’s socially acceptable for women to do to men in a relationship. They’ve agreed among themselves that these behaviors are perfectly justifiable regardless of how they play with a guy’s emotions or ego.

With that, we’ve compiled a top 10 list of cruel things women do to men.

10. They don’t pick up the phone

You convinced her to give you her number and you’re feeling good about yourself. Your charm and good looks have obviously made an impression on her. Unfortunately, when you try to call, she doesn’t pick up or, worse yet, she’s given you a fake number. Some women will give you their numbers because it’s easier than trying to tell you why she’s not interested. What’s more, in the age of caller ID, it’s easy for her to avoid your calls. At least the women who give you a made-up number are being more obvious about the fact that they have no intention of talking to you again.


9. Use men for free drinks

Some women go out never planning to spend any of their own money on drinks at the bar or club. Instead, they count on their feminine wiles to convince guys to shell out for their libations. Some of these women will take the opportunity of a guy buying a drink for her to begin to get to know him, but others (the cruel and heartless ones) will take that drink, flirt a little and move on to the next sucker with money to burn.

8. Use men as placeholders

Maybe you’ve been in a relationship for a while and you notice that her eye is starting to wander. She’s starting more fights with you or not bothering to fight at all anymore. Her friends get quiet when you walk into a room. She’s avoiding your phone calls. Her things are disappearing from your place. The AM article Breakup Warning Signs talked about all these hints that she’s thinking about putting an end to your relationship and, well, they’re cruel things.If she is a decent person, she’ll just get it over with and dump you already, but if she’s cruel, she’ll hold on to you for a while until somebody new comes along.

These girls don’t like to be alone and without a relationship, so instead of putting you out of your misery and ending it, she’ll string you along until she meets someone to replace you. If she’s really cruel, she’ll start things up with him before she’s finalized the breakup with you.

7. Emotionally manipulate men

Men don’t like to see women cry and some cruel women will take advantage of this fact and use it to get what they want. In general, women are much more emotional than men and it’s easy for some women to use a man’s complete incomprehension of female feelings to get something out of him. A few well-placed tears or a temper tantrum and most men will do anything to get it to stop.

6. Use physical violence

Men are usually raised with the idea that hitting girls is a major no-no. Unfortunately, there are some cruel women who use this aspect of a man’s personality to gain power over him. In the minds of some women, it’s perfectly acceptable to slap a boyfriend across the face when he says something to piss her off. Knowing that he would never hit her back, this type of woman feels like she can inflict any kind physical pain on him without fear of repercussion. A man is also less likely to tell someone about suffering physical violence at the hands of his girlfriend if he believes he’ll be thought of as weak or pathetic.

5. Criticize their men in public

A growing trend in television shows and commercials is that of depicting men as bumbling idiots, while their wives and girlfriends are intelligent, in control and flawless. This may contribute to the real life practice of cruel women who criticize and humiliate their men in public places. Women can get away with this in ways that men would never be allowed to. When a woman pokes fun at her man or even soundly debases him, the group surrounding them is more likely to laugh than to be appalled.

4. They don’t disclose their relationship status

You’ve pulled out all your best moves and you seem to be making progress with the cute girl you’ve just met. When you finally get to the point when you feel you can safely ask for her number, she smiles and says: "I have a boyfriend." That information would have been nice to have at the beginning of the conversation. It’s certainly not the worst thing a woman could do to a man, but it is annoying when she lets you assume that she’s available so that she can enjoy your flirtation and flattery.

3. They withhold sex

This is a time-tested, and frequently used, cruel thing for women to do to men. For most men, sex is as important as breathing, so withholding it in order to get something she wants or simply to punish her man for his transgressions is a pretty awful thing to do, even if it is effective.

2. They test their men

You’re all ready to go for a night out with your friends, when your girlfriend calls and asks you to change your plans to be with her instead. She doesn’t have any particular reason; she just wants to see you. She knows that you had plans to meet up with the guys, but if you really loved her, you’d come over to her place instead. If her request comes with an "if you really loved me," then it’s a test. If you choose anything other than immediately rushing to her side, you’re going to fail. This kind of testing in a relationship is indeed cruel and petty.

1. They flirt to inspire jealousy

Maybe she’s feeling underappreciated, maybe you’ve just had a big fight or maybe she just enjoys the tortured look on your face. For whatever reason, girls who flirt obviously with other guys in front of their boyfriends are immature and manipulative.

Heretical: Quelle domage, feministes!

There are a number of great writers in the MRA arena and Heretical Sex has to be one of the best..

I have shamelessly copied this article from his site purely because it is so good..

How else can we demonstrate, explain, expound and articulate precisely how corrupt and selfish feminism is. Demonstrate beyond doubt it's hate filled aim and it's male hating end goals..

Quelle domage, feministes!

The outing of the notorious blogger Belle de Jour as scientist Brooke Magnanti, is another severe blow for the Labour-wimin's moral crusade against prostitution. Following so quickly after the revelation that sex trafficking was a pack of lies designed to demonise all prostitution in the eyes of the public, the news that an intelligent, articulate woman chooses prostitution of her own volition and makes a handsome living from it, is yet more evidence that the feminist victim culture is as wrong-headed and deceitful as it is sordid and pathetic.

It took me a long time to understand why it is that feminists do not support prostitutes. Surely prostitutes are independent, self-employed women, expressing their sexuality and making their way in the world, showing courage and entrepreneurship? Surely a women's movement would applaud them just for that alone? But no. The fact is, prostitutes are letting the side down.

As I have argued elsewhere, the feminist movement is essentially a protectionist trade organisation, like a union. It seeks monopoly control over the price of sex. Prostitutes are, in effect, blackleg labour, strike breakers. They undercut middle-class women. If men can go and pay for sex with someone like Brooke Magnanti, why on earth would they bother to put up with the endless screaming demands, the controlling behaviour, the constant low-level mental abuse, the endless tears and hissy fits of the average middle-class princess? They wouldn't. That is why feminists want to make sure that men have got nowhere else to go. They exercise monopoly control over the price of sex, and the deal is, take it or leave it. The sex industry in all its forms threatens this monopoly control.

How ironic it seems at first sight that the women's movement should have such apparent disregard for the welfare of female sex workers, whom it claims to champion. In fact, feminists care nothing for the interests of female sex workers. This is obvious from the fact that they are forever in conflict with prostitutes' representative organisations, and the fact that time and again, they advocate increasingly draconian laws which will make life ever more dangerous for these very women they claim to be protecting. If prostitutes are driven ever further towards the margins of society, beyond the protection of the law, beyond help, further and further into danger, that is absolutely fine by the feminist movement. If a few working class women have to die every year pour encourager les autres, so be it.

There is nothing new in this kind of hypocrisy and cavalier disregard for people's lives - it has always been a feature of Leftist thinking. The Communist parties of the 20th century claimed to champion the interests of the working class, and yet thought nothing of causing the deaths of millions of them, and holding the survivors in abject servitude. How exactly this served their interests, it is difficult to see. In fact it served the interests of the Communist Party, not the people.

The feminist movement is on a moral crusade against prostitution, again. It has a habit of going on moral crusades against this, that or the other, and most of these turn out to be utterly disastrous. Feminists were largely responsible for the introduction of the Volstead Act, which gave rise to alcohol prohibition in the USA.



Many of the same characteristics can be seen between that disastrous effort, and the current anti-prostitution hysteria.

Rather than ceasing to exist, the illegal industry was simply taken over by gangsters.
The products did not become any more difficult to obtain, perhaps even easier.
The whole industry became a lot more more dangerous for everyone involved.
Feminists took this harmful social fallout as evidence that they had been correct all along in trying to ban this nasty business, instead of realising that they themselves had caused the harm, by the very act of making it illegal in the first place.

The feminist failure to learn lessons is all the more unforgivable when one considers the fact that they got the logic correct on the topic of abortion. They saw clearly that making it illegal would not stop it happening, it would simply drive it underground, etc, etc. We have all heard the argument, and it does have some merit to it. The difference is of course, abortion is something that feminists want; prostitution is something they don't want. They cannot even be honest enough to tell the truth. Prostitutes will continue to exist and die on the margins of society, so that dishonest and ideologically-driven organisations such as the Poppy Project (whose website apparently states, in the turgid prose of a 1970s Sociology Department, that prostitution "helps to construct and maintain gender inequality") can continue to enjoy their generous sinecures at taxpayers' expense, under the pretext of 'rescuing fallen women'. In fact, their agenda is essentially a Marxist one.

The mask is beginning to slip though. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. La Harman and La Smith's moral crusade against the sex industry is sinking fast, along with the rest of the Labour ship. Quelle domage! Aux bateaux! Les dames et les enfants avant!

I take my hat off to you, Miss Magnanti.

The Great Global Warming Scam exposed for what it really was..

I would like to say that I am shocked and appalled but that would just not be the case. Scientists have already come out as well as the leader of Greenpeace and admitted they inflated the figures and felt justified in their own minds that it was the overwhelming thing to do as politicians will only respond to hysterics and amplified claims before they take action..

A bit like feminists have been doing for the last forty years..

Meanwhile and just like feminists have, they destroyed their credibility for short term gain and profit..

To those of you wallowing in that "religion", how do you feel now ?

Hackers 'expose global warming con': Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data
By Fiona Macrae

Last updated at 1:45 PM on 21st November 2009

One of the world’s leading climate change research centres has been accused of manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were leaked.

Hackers targeted the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and published the files, including some personal messages, on the internet.

Among the most damaging is one which appears to suggest using a ‘trick’ to massage years of temperature data to ‘hide the decline’.

Hackers targeted the University of East Anglia¿s Climatic Research Unit, pictured, and published sensitive emails on the internet

The CRU, which plays a leading role in compiling UN reports and tracks long-term changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying the temperature records.

It is thought that this could have triggered the theft. Climate change sceptics claim that some of the leaked messages discuss ways of manipulating data that fails to comply with the establishment view that climate change is real and is being driven by man.

The email suggesting ‘hiding the decline’ is purported to be from Phil Jones, the unit’s director.
He denied trying to mislead, telling the TGIF digital newspaper he had no idea what he meant by the phrase.

‘That was an email from ten years ago,’ he said. ‘Can you remember the exact context of an email you wrote ten years ago?’

Another message has been interpreted as an attempt to control the publication of research carried out by sceptical scientists.

One way of doing this would be by loading the panel of researchers who review papers ahead of publication with experts who are ‘on-message’.

Talk of a figure being ‘shoehorned’ into a report from the UN’s International Panel of Climate Change appears in another of the documents.

Although the data was stored on the university’s computer system, the email exchanges also involve experts from other institutions around the world.

A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said: ‘We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.

‘Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of
this material is genuine.

‘This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.

‘We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry.’

The Met Office collaborates with the East Anglia unit on a variety of research projects, including global temperature records.

Spokesman Dave Britton said the two organisations had to turn down numerous Freedom of Information requests because they did not hold the copyright to the data.

‘There is a feeling we are hiding something,’ he said. ‘But we are not, we just can’t release the data.’

He said that is was unclear whether some of the documents had been tampered
with, adding: ‘We are not concerned about the robustness of the science we are pushing but we are worried about it being interpreted out of context.’

Cathy Young: Men's Rights..

Cathy's response to feminists trying to smear the Men's Movement. This is great on two sides..

1. Feminists can no longer ignore the Men's Movement, trying to write it off as some apperition..
2. Feminists know their end is coming and their "movement" is failing and the cleaning up process is in session..

Personally, I am looking forward to that Hate Crime Tribunal where feminists will be held to account for the deaths, suffering and chaos they have instigated and caused to the general population..

Stripping them of their bounty and freedom would benefit all..

I can hear that verdict NOW..

Guilty as charged, life in prison..

Men's Rights
Cathy Young, 11.19.09, 10:30 AM EST
Feminism should be about equality--for males too.

Earlier this month DoubleX, Slate's short-lived female-oriented publication (launched six months ago and about to be folded back into the parent site as a women's section), ran an article ringing the alarm about the dire threat posed by the power of the men's rights movement. But the article, written by New York-based freelance writer Kathryn Joyce and titled "Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective," says more about the state of feminism--and journalistic bias--than it does about men's groups.

Joyce's indictment is directed at a loose network of activists seeking to raise awareness and change policy on such issues as false accusations of domestic violence, the plight of divorced fathers denied access to children and domestic abuse of men. In her view, groups such as RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) and individuals like columnist and radio talk show host Glenn Sacks are merely "respectable" and "savvy" faces for what is actually an anti-female backlash from "angry white men."

As proof of this underlying misogyny, Joyce asserts that men who commit "acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo" are routinely lionized in the men's movement. This claim is purportedly backed up with a reference that, in fact, does not in any way support it: an article in Foreign Policy about the decline of male dominance around the globe. Joyce's one specific example is that the diary of George Sodini, a Pittsburgh man who opened fire on women in a gym in retaliation for feeling rejected by women, was reposted online by the blogger "Angry Harry" as a wake-up call to the Western world that "it cannot continue to treat men so appallingly and get away with it." But does this have anything to do with more mainstream men's rights groups? The original version of the article claimed that Sacks, who called "Harry" an "idiot" in his interview with Joyce, nonetheless "cautiously defends" the blogger; DoubleX later ran a correction on this point.

Sacks himself admits to Joyce that the men's movement has a "not-insubstantial lunatic fringe." Yet in her eyes, even the mainstream men's groups are promoting a dangerous agenda, above all infiltrating mainstream opinion with the view that reports of domestic violence are exaggerated and that a lot of spousal abuse is female-perpetrated. The latter claim, Joyce asserts, comes from "a small group of social scientists" led by "sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, who has written extensively on female violence." (In fact, Straus, founder of the renowned Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, is a pre-eminent scholar on family violence in general and was the first to conduct national surveys on the prevalence of wife-beating.)

Joyce repeats common critiques of Straus' research: For instance, he equates "a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs" or "a single act of female violence with years of male abuse." Yet these charges have been long refuted: Straus' studies measure the frequency of violence and specifically inquire about which partner initiated the physical violence. Furthermore, Joyce fails to mention that virtually all social scientists studying domestic violence, including self-identified feminists such as University of Pittsburgh psychologist Irene Frieze, find high rates of mutual aggression.

Reviews of hundreds of existing studies, such as one conducted by University of Central Lancashire psychologist John Archer in a 2000 article in Psychological Bulletin, have found that at least in Western countries, women are as likely to initiate partner violence as men. While the consequences to women are more severe--they are twice as likely to report injuries and about three times more likely to fear an abusive spouse--these findings also show that men hardly escape unscathed. Joyce claims that "Straus' research is starting to move public opinion," but in fact, some of the strongest recent challenges to the conventional feminist view of domestic violence--as almost invariably involving female victims and male batterers--come from female scholars like New York University psychologist Linda Mills.

Contrary to Joyce's claims, these challenges, so far, have made very limited inroads into public opinion. One of her examples of the scary power of men's rights groups is that "a Los Angeles conference this July dedicated to discussing male victims of domestic violence, 'From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention,' received positive mainstream press for its 'inclusive' efforts.'" In fact, the conference--which featured leading researchers on domestic violence from several countries, half of them women, and focused on much more than just male victims--received virtually no mainstream press coverage. One of the very few exceptions was a column I wrote for The Boston Globe, also reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Whatever minor successes men's groups may have achieved, the reality is that public policy on domestic violence in the U.S. is heavily dominated by feminist advocacy groups. For the most part, these groups embrace a rigid orthodoxy that treats domestic violence as male terrorism against women, rooted in patriarchal power and intended to enforce it. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women--for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings and cancer combined.

These advocacy groups practically designed the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and they dominate the state coalitions against domestic violence to which local domestic violence programs must belong in order to qualify for federal funds. As a result of the advocates' influence, federal assistance is denied to programs that offer joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence, and court-mandated treatment for violent men downplays drug and alcohol abuse (since it's all about the patriarchy).

Against the backdrop of this enforced party line, Joyce is alarmed by the smallest signs that men's rights groups may be gaining even a modest voice in framing domestic violence policy. She points out that in a few states, men's rights activists have succeeded in "criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases" (this is apparently meant to be a bad thing) and "winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory" (in fact, the California Court of Appeals ruled last year that state-funded domestic violence programs that refuse to provide service to abused men violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but also emphasized that the services need not be identical and coed shelters are not required).

To bolster her case, Joyce consistently quotes advocates--or scholars explicitly allied with the advocacy movement, such as Edward Gondolf of the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute--to discredit the claims of the men's movement. She also repeats uncorroborated allegations that many leaders of the movement are themselves abusers, but offers only one specific example: eccentric British activist Jason Hatch, who once scaled Buckingham Palace in a Batman costume to protest injustices against fathers, and who was taken to court for allegedly threatening one of his ex-wives during a custody dispute.

The article is laced with the presumption that, with regard to both general data and individual cases, any charge of domestic violence made by a woman against a man must be true.

One case Joyce uses to illustrate her thesis is that of Genia Shockome, who claimed to have been severely battered by her ex-husband Tim and lost custody of her two children after being accused of intentionally alienating them from their father. Yet Joyce never mentions that Shockome's claims of violent abuse were unsupported by any evidence, that she herself did not mention any abuse in her initial divorce complaint, or that three custody evaluators--including a feminist psychologist who had worked with the Battered Women's Justice Center at Pace University--sided with the father.

More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women." Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth.

Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine and columnist for RealClearPolitics.com, is the author ofCeasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality.
She blogs at www.cathyyoung.wordpress.com.

Domestic Violence is NOT a gender Issue, it's a Societal Issue..

Again, another great article from Cathy Young as well as an intro by Omnidox..

Obama installing the male-haters may have seemed to be a great idea to him and deluded himself into thinking that he may have done at least one thing right. But, installing male-haters in the White House demonstrates exactly how long democrates and feminists feel the need to continue the sex wars and continue on their path of friction, denial, anti-male attitude and it's ongoing promotion..

Obama has already laid the blame on Black Fathers and ensured ongoing preference to the privileged black females while that other sex is just ignored..

Sexism ?

Yes..

It will all change as the Men's Movement ramps up it credibility and professionalism. We are succeeding and there is nothing that will stop this action as Men are just to fed up and tired of the blatant sexism that politicians like Obama as well as others from both sides clearly demonstrate..

It will not be long before we start registering politicans on their attitudes towards men and also their blatant and obvious promotion of feminism at the detriment of all men..

Quote #1: Challenges to feminist orthodoxy on domestic violence are often seen as anti-feminist backlash from angry men. But this conference, "From
Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research
and Intervention" (sponsored by the California Alliance for Families and
Children), could not be so easily dismissed. The speakers included
scholars, social workers, and counselors; about half were women.

Quote #2: No one at the conference argued for complete equivalency in
partner abuse. Women are two to three times more likely to be injured due
to disparities in strength. Still, Straus and other presenters such as
social scientist Deborah Capaldi, a researcher for the National Institutes
of Health, insisted that female aggression must be taken seriously, and
they emphasized three facts.

- First, if the message is that hitting your partner is wrong, it should
include everyone.

- Second, "harmless" slaps may lead to an escalation that endangers the woman.

- Third, if "only" one in three or one in four people injured due to
partner violence are men, that's hardly trivial.

Quote #3: Another dogma of the battered women's movement is that violence
is the batterer's strategy of "power and control." This ignores not only
mutual violence but such factors as substance abuse and psychiatric disorders.

Quote #4: Kenneth Corvo, associate professor of social work at Syracuse
University, delivered a scathing analysis of the "Duluth model" of batterer
treatment, devised by advocates for battered women and relying on a rigid
view of abuse as "male privilege." In much of the country, this is the only
type of court-mandated batterer treatment - despite evidence that it is
largely useless, he said. Among other things, the system fails women who
want their abusive partner to get anger management or drug and alcohol
counseling, not feminist indoctrination.

Quote #5: [The system] also fails violent women, who often struggle with a
host of mental and emotional problems. Michelle Carney, associate professor
at the School of Social Work of the University of Georgia, deplores a
"don't talk to me about it" attitude toward the issue of female
perpetrators. Two therapists who counsel violent women agreed that the
problem is persistently minimized. An abusive woman may end up being taken
to a battered women's shelter. Male victims, meanwhile, often have nowhere
to turn.

The Boston Globe
16 July 2009

Battered women - and men
By Cathy Young

Lynn Rosenthal, a veteran of the battered women's advocacy movement, was
named to the new post of White House counsel on violence against women on
June 26. On the same day, a conference opened in Los Angeles disputing the
basic tenets of the movement Rosenthal represents - such as the view that
domestic violence is overwhelmingly a male crime against women rooted in
patriarchal power. Speakers argued for new policies based on a fuller
understanding of the problem. Is there a way to bridge the gaps between
these competing paradigms?

Challenges to feminist orthodoxy on domestic violence are often seen as
anti-feminist backlash from angry men. But this conference, "From Ideology
to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and
Intervention" (sponsored by the California Alliance for Families and
Children), could not be so easily dismissed. The speakers included
scholars, social workers, and counselors; about half were women.

Among the stars was sociologist Murray Straus, co-founder of the Family
Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire who helped pioneer
domestic violence research in the 1970s. His findings shed light on the
plight of battered women, and he became a hero to feminists - until he
began to study female violence.

Straus's finding, corroborated by dozens of studies, is that women assault
their partners about as often as men. Moreover, they do not act only in
self-defense but are as likely as men to hit first, and with similar
motives: anger, insecurity, controlling one's partner.

No one at the conference argued for complete equivalency in partner abuse.
Women are two to three times more likely to be injured due to disparities
in strength. Still, Straus and other presenters such as social scientist
Deborah Capaldi, a researcher for the National Institutes of Health,
insisted that female aggression must be taken seriously, and they
emphasized three facts. First, if the message is that hitting your partner
is wrong, it should include everyone. Second, "harmless" slaps may lead to
an escalation that endangers the woman. Third, if "only" one in three or
one in four people injured due to partner violence are men, that's hardly
trivial.

Another dogma of the battered women's movement is that violence is the
batterer's strategy of "power and control." This ignores not only mutual
violence but such factors as substance abuse and psychiatric disorders.

Kenneth Corvo, associate professor of social work at Syracuse University,
delivered a scathing analysis of the "Duluth model" of batterer treatment,
devised by advocates for battered women and relying on a rigid view of
abuse as "male privilege." In much of the country, this is the only type of
court-mandated batterer treatment - despite evidence that it is largely
useless, he said. Among other things, the system fails women who want their
abusive partner to get anger management or drug and alcohol counseling, not
feminist indoctrination.

It also fails violent women, who often struggle with a host of mental and
emotional problems.

Michelle Carney, associate professor at the School of Social Work of the
University of Georgia, deplores a "don't talk to me about it" attitude
toward the issue of female perpetrators. Two therapists who counsel violent
women agreed that the problem is persistently minimized. An abusive woman
may end up being taken to a battered women's shelter.

Male victims, meanwhile, often have nowhere to turn. Jan Brown, a Maine
resident, realized this 14 years ago when a male friend was leaving an
abusive marriage. In 2000, Brown founded the Battered Men's Helpline, now
the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women; it provides counseling,
support, and financial assistance when possible. Brown says she often
encounters suspicious attitudes; the Helpline has been refused membership
in the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, making it tough to get grants.

How can we move toward inclusion when ideology dominates the domestic
violence field? One step forward would be for Rosenthal to open up an
ongoing, truly inclusive dialogue on the issues. The conference materials
included a quotation from President Barack Obama about "ensuring that
scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political
agenda." Presumably, even a feminist one.

---

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine.

Why Women’s Shelters Are Hotbeds of Misandry..

On the odd occassion an article exposing those money making feminist strongholds are exposed for what they really are..

Guaranteed income and bugger the real reason why those services exist as long as they ensure their ongoing income and benefits. Lie as feminists will on any occassion, here they have determined that women who are suffering are to be re-indoctrinated into their male-hating cause and ofcourse the public purse will make compensation for their efforts in full..

And how affective are these shelters and we must include the world-wide list ?
Read for yourself..

Just another example of feminists pretending they care when all along all they really care about is their end goal and bugger the real victims..

This oppressive atmosphere surely accounts for the high rate of employee turnover at women’s shelters and the dissension within work teams. It enables one to understand recent research conducted in the USA which found that women are increasingly steering clear of shelters despite the severity of their conflicts. They do not want to be forced into a world that despises men.

Obviously just a waste of public money as they help no one but only increase the suffering on those that really need assistance as well as help..

Why Women’s Shelters Are Hotbeds of Misandry
Von Gerhard Amendt
10. August 2009.


According to Gerhard Amendt, Professor of Gender and Generation Research at the University of Bremen, representatives of the supposedly weaker sex are every bit as violent as their partners. The researcher concludes that women's shelters foster a devaluation of masculinity and should therefore be replaced by familiy counseling centers.


At the very moment when the operation of women's shelters in Germany has been subjected to scientific study for the first time, the German Bundestag’s Family Affairs Committee has decided to review the question of whether women's shelters should receive funding guarantees through the German federal government. Given the political ideology of women's shelters and the ramifications of such a step, this proposal should be taken under serious review. The answers to a number of questions are still outstanding. Have the services performed in women's shelters stood the test of time? Are the shelters operated in a professional manner, and have they moved on from an ideology that views men as the perpetrators of violence and women as nonviolent? Have women’s shelters developed a professional understanding of family conflicts that enables them to extend their efforts and include all members of a violent family?


As usual, the slated funding guarantees are based on no more than the convenient statistic that "every fourth woman will become the victim of relationship violence at some time in her life." Since there is no comparable data that would apply to men, the number is poorly suited as legitimization for women's shelters. Up until now, reference was made to the role of women as victims, and funding for such institutions was automatically renewed. The effectiveness of the shelters was not monitored. At the same time, the statistic was used to popularize their work. In the pre-Christmas season of 2007, a media campaign was launched in Austria under the slogan “Verliebt. Verlobt. Verprügelt” (In Love. Engaged. Battered). The German lottery also runs public service spots pertaining to the matter. While all this has little bearing on the circumstances under which men and women actually conduct their lives, it couldn’t document more clearly a bias against men.

When women's shelters were first being opened more than 20 years ago, the object was to focus public attention on the experience of violence from a woman’s perspective. The founding of the Bremen women's shelter can be traced to just such an intention on the part of the author, who at the time endorsed the risky attempt to provide political lay self-help. This coincided with the spirit of the times and its sensitivity to violence as an aspect of women’s lives – although it did not extend to men. In those days, the author, too, was unwilling to imagine that women's shelters would make a substantial contribution to a hostile polarization of society into violent men as opposed to irenic women, thereby creating many years of stagnation in gender discourse.

Ignorant Family Policies


Today, we know more than we did 25 years ago about the partnership dynamics that trigger violence. More than two hundred studies in the USA and Canada have produced findings that have added to public knowledge and increased understanding in political circles. But it is precisely the field of family policies that offers stubborn resistance to the very essence of this research, namely, that women behave just as aggressively and violently as men, and even slightly more often. This also applies to their behavior toward their children. It is particularly conspicuous during phases of a divorce that are high in violence. All counseling agencies should be expected to help limit violence so that children, above all, do not become actively or passively involved in the violent episodes between their parents.

A major survey of divorced fathers conducted by the author in Bremen showed that violence occurs in 30 percent of all divorces, with 1,800 men reporting physical or psychological abuse by their partners. This represents a significantly higher rate of incidence than the approximately ten percent seen in relationships under everyday conditions. Within the 30 percent of divorces where violence occurred, sixty percent was initiated by the men’s ex-wives or ex-partners. Our survey findings revealed that within the most conflict laden context of an adult life, women, too, initiate violence. Only from the perspective of women’s shelters does violence emanate exclusively from men. Instead of making divorce conflicts more tractable, women’s shelters actually exacerbate them. The »every-fourth-woman« statistic is therefore being used to document the necessity of changing the Domestic Relations Law of 1998, because allegedly the sole source of danger for children during a divorce is violence stemming from their fathers. By pursuing this approach to family policy, the advocates of women’s shelters are attempting to use prejudice as a means to rescind the right of children to both of their parents.

The 60 percent of divorce-related violent incidents that are initiated by women inflict great suffering on the fathers involved. Their statements are genuine. Yet there is a difference between science and the ideologically based enemy image adopted in women’s shelters, and it lies in the evaluation of the numbers. Whereas science attempts to resolve conflict, the proponents of women’s shelters book hostility toward men as political success. Accordingly, we do not claim that women experience episodes of violence in exactly the same way that men do. To make that assertion, we would have to survey them, which we have not as yet done – and neither have the »every-fourth-woman« agitators.

We have, however, arrived at an entirely different set of conclusions. We assume that women experienced the abuse in a similar way as their partners, namely, as stemming from the man. American studies confirm this. But if both parties are mutually accusing each other of starting the violence, then what is actually true? Both statements represent subjective truths. Generally, neither of the parties is lying. Unlike during their happier times, however, both of them now feel aggrieved and are no longer able to communicate with each other verbally. They lapse into lethal silence, scream at each other, or resort to physical blows. In such cases, marriage and family counselors can help to restore the couple’s destroyed ability to communicate. Once the partners reestablish a common language, they have the option of entering into a process of reconciliation or choosing to separate with respect. They and, above all, their children do not lose their positive experiences from the past.

Women’s shelters are incapable of providing this kind of professional intervention because of their ideology: they view a man as every woman’s enemy. For them, it is a foregone conclusion that women do not engage in violent acts. According to the ideology espoused in women’s shelters, this is always a given, and mutual talks between a woman and her partner are therefore superfluous. To this end, women are politically manipulated into a victim role and men are collectively denigrated. Consequently, the residents of women’s shelters are allowed to experience themselves only as victims and not as participants in a relationship that has turned violent.

Women’s shelters represent a world where the joy of life is missing, and efforts to resolve relationship conflicts have been replaced by existential despondency or even self-hatred. Misandry appears to offer a way out. This oppressive atmosphere surely accounts for the high rate of employee turnover at women’s shelters and the dissension within work teams. It enables one to understand recent research conducted in the USA which found that women are increasingly steering clear of shelters despite the severity of their conflicts. They do not want to be forced into a world that despises men. Their own problems are burden enough.

The advocates of women’s shelters are unfazed by objections that they are compromising the ethics of the helping professions, for professionalism is not their goal. On the contrary, they self-confidently label themselves as “partisan,” which is synonymous with viewing women as victims who face sinister male powers and an indifferent public. Professional ethics have been deliberately replaced by political motives. And that is by no means selfless. It gives them a narcissistic high and a sense of moral superiority over the rest of the world. It is a mixture of elitism and pretended self-sacrifice.

In the founding years of women’s shelters, this elitism functioned as a gateway for the disparagement of existing professional organizations that were sponsored, for example, by Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, or the German state governments.

In that respect, little has changed. The proponents of women’s shelters believe that their combative, anti-patriarchal rhetoric will have a greater impact than professionally trained counselors and therapists. Most of them seem unimpressed that they are not genuinely helping those who seek counseling, because they attribute their failure to a lack of political insight on the part of the women. Their sense of mission appears to provide greater narcissistic gratification than the tough, daunting task of working with violent families who have elevated physical expression to the language of everyday life and otherwise no longer have much to say about each other.

The Feminist Ideology: A Hotbed of Misandry

Granted, there may be shelters that have jettisoned their ideological ballast, but even the term “women’s shelter” itself always implies the disastrous ideology of radical feminism, whereby relationships between men and women are characterized by their respective status as victim and perpetrator. According to that, women can do nothing and men are completely in charge. Thus, women's shelters perpetuate the destruction of communication within partnerships as a political project within the gender discussion.

The conclusions are obvious. The concept of ideologically based women’s shelters is no longer needed. What families with violence problems urgently need is a network of counseling centers that can provide unbiased and nondiscriminatory assistance to all of the parties involved. For family violence is systemic and psychodynamic in nature. If a woman strikes her husband, and the husband strikes his wife, then there is a high probability that they are also abusing their children. And children who have been struck, boys and girls alike, are in turn more likely as adults to strike their own children or partners. This sets the course for the reemergence of intra-family violence in the following generation. Society continuously accumulates a growing potential for violence. And mothers who do not strike their children, but instead leave the task to the children's father, are no less integral parts of the scheme of violence – as is the parent who simply remains silent in response to the entire situation.

Family Counseling Centers against Domestic Violence


Instead of women's shelters, what we need in the future are specialized counseling centers for families with unresolved violent conflicts. These would be staffed by well-trained men and women who cooperate based on professional ethical standards. They would intervene directly during violent family crises and, in extreme cases, provide a temporary safe haven for men and children and women, to the extent this has not already become unnecessary due to a personal protection order. We need family counseling centers that can step in and have an impact at the very source of the ongoing intergenerational cycle of violence. A public that is dumbfounded by the apathy of youth welfare offices and horrified by school murders and the corpses of children should approve government funding only if those who seek counseling are assured to receive effective assistance. Counseling and therapy simply must be kept free of political ideologies. The only place where this does not apply is in undemocratic societies.

Likewise, we need to initiate a new discussion at colleges and universities. Politcal correctness has given rise to a prohibition on thinking about women in terms of aggression and violence, and this must be confronted with the findings of international research.

About the Author

Gerhard Amendt is Professor of Gender and Generation Research. His most recent book, "I did not divorce my kids!" How Fathers Deal with Family Break-Ups was published in 2008. His forthcoming publication is a text book on intra-family violence. The author can be reached at amendt@uni-bremen.de or through his homepage: http://www.igg.uni-bremen.de

Hysteria at West-Mont Christian Academy..

How is this for lunacy as well as being totally sexist. Fascinating how the "Education" system not only enhances and creates false alarms but it is always only against men, Fathers, while female teachers are quite free to bonk any "child" within reach..

Makes you wonder where this hysteria comes from and why those incompetents over react. It would be fair to assume that something is seriously wrong in that system and some type of doctrine is at work ensuring those hysterical reaction continue..

Feminism by any chance ?

Red Alert! Dad on Campus! Release the Hounds!
November 20th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

There aren't many invariable rules in life, but I'm pretty sure this is one: if you hear someone say "his lack of presence" when he means "his absence," you're dealing with a bureaucratic mentality, possibly in its terminal stages. Look out for trouble.

Not long ago, according to this article, in North Coventry, Pennsylvania, a father arrived at the West-Mont Christian Academy intending to talk to a kindergarten teacher about his child who is a student there (Daily Local, 11/18/09). He talked to a teacher who walked with him to a public lobby where he was to wait to talk to his child's teacher. While waiting, the man went upstairs and looked at some student artwork that was displayed in a hallway. The kindergarten teacher arrived, they talked and the man left.

Now, if I were the school administrator, I wouldn't be too concerned about any of that. But the administrator was Dr. James Smock and Dr. James Smock is a man who says "his lack of presence" when he means "his absence." And that, if my rule holds true, means trouble. Judge for yourself.

When confronted with the threat of a father talking to a teacher about his kindergarten-age child, and moreover a father who might have seemed agitated and who had left the premises, Dr. Smock took action. He "locked down" the school, took the children out of classes and placed them all in the gymnasium. He called the police, the K-9 Korps and the fire department. The police called the Emergency Response Team. They in turn blocked off the streets immediately surrounding the school. Residents huddled in their houses afraid to set foot outdoors, as police officers swarmed over the buildings, grounds and rooftops, pistols unholstered and held aloft.

The man, of course, was never found, having left the premises long before. In any case, he is known to school staff and "not considered a threat."

The "incident" began at 7:55 a.m. and ended almost three and a half hours later. In other words, an entire morning was wasted. How many police and fire department personnel were involved, we don't know.

Would a mother's presence (lack of absence?) at her child's school occasion such hysterics? If a mother came to her child's school, spoke with a teacher briefly about little Johnny and then left, would the administration call the police and fire department, lock down the school and terrorize the neighbors? Don't we all know the answer?

Students ourselves, we've learned our lesson well: men are dangerous to children. Never mind that year after year, statistics show more children to be hurt or killed by women than by men. The misandric part of our public discourse teaches us otherwise and there's essentially nothing that tells us the truth.

So after the whoop-di-do died down, Dr. Smock issued a press release that read in part,

Because of our cooperation with the police department here and our safety team that was in place, no children were at risk.

The truth of course is that the police, the dogs and the fire department had nothing to do with it. No children were ever at risk. Period.

But Dr. Smock would never say that.

Maybe you would like to send that Smock a note and asking him why the misandry and why the hysterics..
Would he do the same thing to a woman ?

Dr Smock email address..

Bernard Chapin: Radical Feminists try on the Master MRA..

The usual cliche applies here when that Hate Group that is Feminism stop ignoring you and make you the epicentre of their hate and smear campaign..

They have tried it here as well by loading comments with their drivel (which I constantly just erase) or use other methods to vilify or denigrate you via other sites..

So I say, great. The more attention I receive from that male hating enigma the more I enjoy posting, ensuring the greater population is exposed to their poison..

Congratulations Bernard, by the way. You are now too affective to ignore..

Well Done..




A second effort by Bernard once again stating the bleeding obvious as well as pointing out those blatant anti-male hate sites like Salon dot com and others. Time to hold them to account for their misandry and their ongoing effort ensuring the war between the sexes is constantly fueled only for their own monetary benefit..

Feminists are not only the worst nightmare imaginable but they only persist for their own monetary gain..

More Women Suffering, GEE !!

‘Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution, dangerous work’

How's that for a headline promoting the imaginary climate change argument and how insulting is that bit of drivel..

It's gets better..

“Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing possibly driving some women into sex work...”

Link..

Now one must note the word "Possibly" as it is really relevant. Relevant because making this type of baseless insinuation should be beyond any journalist even though he ( JOSEPH HOLANDES UBALDE)is a hysteric and bases his irrelevance on heresay plus based entirely on doctrine and not fact. The sad thing about the global warming hysterics is that all apponents are shouted done or designated as hysterics while normal discussion and debate is denied by declaring anyone against a heritic, denier or even worse an "Earth Hater" by those that have chosen this false religion..

For further truth on global warming see here..

Oprah: Finally GONE..HOORAY..

Finally, the worlds greatest feminist and male hater is finally removing it's toxic arse off the networks...

Like it's going to be missed..

Never before has such a virul, obnoxious, feminist, self-serving, hypocritical female ever faced the planet. Never before has any program ever concerntrated on creating the "women as victim" meglomania..

I will be as glad as seeing this program finish as I would the end of Obama the feminised wimp..

A total waste of time and energy and didn't the women love that hypocrisy..

Surprise..

Oprah Winfrey will be calling it quits on her hugely successful talk show in 2011 after 25 seasons on air.

Harpo Productions Inc says the talk show queen will explain the reasons behind her decision live on The Oprah Winfrey Show on Friday (US time).

Chemical Babes: it's all Men's Fault..

I had the opportunity to discuss the difference between men and women a few years ago when one of those male-haters posted an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, content of which I forgot. Responding to me when I derided her for her obnoxious and male bashing attitude, (bearing in mind that this woman had four different coloured streaks in her hair according to her photo and several layers of chemicals smeared over her face) had the termerity to suggest that I had a fragile ego..

What !!..

I don't spend one and half hours in front of the mirror every morning, spend thousands a years on goo that has yet to be scientifically verified as beneficial, and, and do not spend three hours of torture while they change my hair colour to something it was never destined to be..

" MY EGO ?", one does wonder where they receive the lessons for their disguise. DNA maybe ?

Check out the amount of "Hormone Disrupters" and wonder why women are becoming so unstable..
Even their urine is polluting our water ways with hormones as if that's an issue !!

Link..

Update..

The cosmetic industry apparently will go to any length to "enhance" their products by any means necessary just so you can look better. There is a lot of money to be made in the cosmetics industry and as the demand increases so does it's aim for different enhancing products regardless of where it comes from..

Four people arrested on suspicion of killing people and selling their fat to make cosmetics
AFP November 20, 2009

FOUR people have been arrested in Peru on suspicion of killing some 60 people to sell their fat and other human tissue to Italian co-conspirators for cosmetic use in Europe, authorities say.

The suspects were arrested in central Peru this month and a search is underway for seven others - including two Italian citizens whose names were not revealed - lead prosecutor Jorge Sans Quiroz said today.

The fat was purchased "to be commercialised in European (cosmetology) laboratories", he said.

The prosecutor's indictment said the gang allegedly targeted farmers and indigenous people on remote Andean roads, tricking them by offering jobs before killing them.

One reported killing took place in mid-September to remove human tissue for trafficking.

The trafficking network could be linked to 60 individual disappearances in the central Andean region, although the ties could not be confirmed.

Police began arrests after discovering early this month a container with human fat that was being shipped to Lima from the Andean city of Huanuco, some 400 kilometres northeast of Lima.

Signs of "an international network trafficking human fat" first surfaced about two months ago, according to General Felix Burga, head of the police criminal division.

Peruvian press cited him as saying the fat can be sold for $US15,000 ($16,000) per gallon (3.8 litres) in European countries.

The alleged plot revived the Andean legend of the "Pishtacos", white foreigners who were said to suck the fat out of people travelling on lonely roads at night, making fine soaps, lubricants, healing salves and beauty creams out of the tissue.

I was abused by a woman and it haunts me every day..132 per cent rise in complaints of female sexual assaults..

We have always known how abusive women really are. If in doubt just go to the nearest pub, there you will witness a small amount of physical and verbal abuse abuse women are capable of but in a controlled manner ofcourse. Being devious as well as well aware of the fact that abuse should be hidden behing closed doors they save it for just that occassion but whoa and behold should any man defend himself..

It's off to jail with you..

Finally, and as I have so often mentioned "women are abusers" and no one wants to recognise that or even acknowledge it..

Really states a lot about all those "DV and Violence" experts does it not. What a sham and a joke they really are. Professing to stop violence but only if it's wearing a vagina..

Those people should stop pretending to be what they have professed to be..

I was abused by a woman and it haunts me every day

By Barbara Davies
17th November 2009

It seems unthinkable, but ChildLine says calls from boys abused by women have doubled in a year. This deeply disturbing investigation reveals the terrible impact of a crime that society has never dared to confront.

Victim: Bill Jenkins, now 55, was abused when he was a six-year-old

Bill Jenkins's memories of the childhood abuse he suffered are as sharp as the pain that accompanies them.

He remembers the diamond pattern on the linoleum bathroom floor tiles, the Moby Dick mural on the wall, the door handle which seemed so high up next to his six-year-old frame.

He vividly remembers, too, how he was expected to bath and touch his naked abuser, an ordeal which left him confused and ashamed, and changed the course of his life. 'The vision in my head is crystal clear,' he says.

What took place in the bathroom of that house in Sussex 50 years ago is shocking enough, but what makes it even harder to comprehend is that Bill's abuser was his foster mother - a woman entrusted with caring for him when his own parents couldn't.

The case of nursery worker Vanessa George and Angela Allen, who admitted a string of child sex offences, shocked the nation

'My lasting feelings about my childhood are feelings of fear,' says the 55-year-old from Thorpe in Surrey.

'I was always frightened of her and what she forced me to endure affected the rest of my life, but as a society we have a mental block about female abusers. We are shocked when we see it happens. We can't believe that women are capable of such things.'

But the stereotypical belief that sex abuse is a male crime was shattered last week by an astonishing report from ChildLine which revealed that the number of children reporting sexual abuse by women has doubled over the past year.

The latest figures from the children's telephone helpline show a 132 per cent rise in complaints of female sexual assaults. Where the children specified the gender of their abuser, nearly a quarter of all calls involved women assailants and the majority of those involved the callers' own mothers.

Link..

"Female" Teacher jailed for sex with students..

This is a good indication how female judges are a lot more apt to jail women for their crimes than Male judges which is a shame as it once again demonstrates how protective and selective those judges are when sentencing women. I have always said that if you want a leaner sentence, go to the court dressed as a woman and give some half-arsed irrelevant excuse and you will see sunshine after the trial unlike men ofcourse, similar crimes committed by women will in 19-1times jail the man and let the woman walk free..

Hypocrisy much ?

"Female" Teacher jailed for sex with students
AAP
November 20, 2009, 11:50 am

A Victorian school teacher who had sex with two of her students has been sentenced to more than four years' jail.

Ballarat teacher Michelle Lynn Dennis, 33, sent the students hundreds of text messages.

She also sent one of the boys nude pictures of herself and invited one of his friends to have a threesome with them.

The Victorian County Court heard one of the boys was aged just 14.

Judge Susan Cohen said teachers had a special responsibility because of the position of trust they hold.

"All adults have responsibility not to lead children into such behaviour," she said.

Judge Cohen ordered Dennis to serve a minimum of two years and 10 months before being eligible for parole.

Dennis, who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual penetration of a child under 17 and one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16, wept as the sentence was delivered.

Dennis will be required to report as a serious sexual offender for life.

Intellectual Rapists..

A very good article by Mike Adams explaining how morally and intellectually corrupt you have to be, to be a feminist..
As I and many have always stated, you do not need to be intelligent to be a feminist as they will tell you what is required and it's obviously not a thinking and inquiring mind, just a brain numbing, robotic mindset, mentally blind as well as ignorance are both advantageous as well as being (as we can read in the article), preferential..

Intellectual Rapists
by Mike Adams

During his first year at Humboldt State University (HSU) - as a tenure-track professor in the Psychology Department - faculty and students tried to silence Mark Harwood on a number of occasions. He was hired primarily to teach Human Sexuality—a class he had taught in a variety of settings including a doctoral program in the UC-system, a psychology program in the second highest ranked City College in the nation, and at a private university.

Mark Harwood received excellent reviews from most students; however, with a class as personal as human sexuality, some found a way to be offended. His teaching evaluations were well above average and, in some instances, stellar. His first experience teaching human sexuality at HSU proved to be different. The students in the Master’s program simply couldn’t wrap their minds around the idea that males and females are different. They objected to his emphasis on techniques for treating sexual dysfunction – although this was the primary purpose of the class.

Professor Harwood’s second semester was even more distressing and he almost left HSU to take a position elsewhere. During the spring semester, he taught the undergraduate course in human sexuality. The course was cross-listed with Women’s Studies. Before the semester began, a student from the Women’s Studies department asked if he would allow her to be the T/A for the course. He agreed.

About four weeks into the course, the T/A indicated that she would like Dr. Harwood to cover domestic violence. He replied that because domestic violence isn’t directly related to human sexuality, he had not included it on the syllabus; however, he said that if they covered all the material in the syllabus and had time at the end of class, he would be happy to address this issue. As it turned out, he had the time.

Dr. Harwood sees domestic violence as a complex problem. Overall, he sees it as a relationship problem with both partners contributing to the dysfunctional relationship and one or both of them playing a role in the initiation and maintenance of the violence. This is recognized by virtually all experts in the field of family therapy. But to the Women’s Studies students, domestic violence is always entirely the fault of the male.

During class one day, Dr. Harwood handed out two peer-reviewed articles. The major findings of the articles were:

1. Women are more likely than men to initiate domestic violence.

2. Women are more likely than men to maintain domestic violence.

3. Women are more likely than men to report that they were victims of domestic violence.

4. Women suffer more serious physical injury than men when involved in domestic violence.

5. Women do not fear retaliation for physically abusing their male partner.

Before all the empirically supported findings had been presented, the class erupted with outbursts, primarily from the Women’s Studies students. One actually yelled that Dr. Harwood was a “privileged, rich, white male.”

The Women’s Studies students continued to disrupt class so it was generally unproductive—they simply didn’t want to hear what the researchers had discovered. What angered them the most was the applause Dr. Harwood received at the end of class by a large number of students who appreciated that he presented material most professors would shy away from.

A day or two after the class, Dr. Harwood received a call from the Chair of the Women’s Studies department, Kim Berry. She wanted to meet with him and the department Chair to discuss the complaints she received from some of her students.

Based on the complaints from some students, she decided that the way Harwood presented the research was improper. Berry did not bother to get feedback from the students who applauded after the lecture. Mark Harwood replied to Kim Berry saying that his time was limited. A meeting never took place. Instead, she called his department chair and insisted that he never be allowed to teach the class again. She threatened that she would not allow her Women’s Studies students to take the class if he taught it.

Dr. Harwood’s department capitulated to her demands.

I wish I could say that the story ends here. But HSU is a relatively small institution and rumors can be spread quickly, especially among the radical feminist students who constitute a large percentage of the student body. It was soon evident that a concerted effort to have Harwood dismissed was underway.

Near the end of his time at HSU, before he received tenure, Dr. Harwood was asked to attend a thesis proposal meeting for a student who was doing research on domestic violence. He had been asked to be on her committee almost two years earlier and, upon accepting, gave her copies of the aforementioned articles and instructed her to make sure these seminal studies were included in her literature review.

He was appalled to find that they were not mentioned anywhere in the literature review or thesis. Instead, junk research, “studies” from non-scientific organizations, and propaganda permeated the literature review.

Dr. Harwood was confident that the Chair for the thesis committee, Bettye Elmore, a full professor, would recognize the importance of including an unbiased treatment of the literature; however, he was wrong. The student and the professor became angry when he stated that these studies must be included in the literature review and the non-peer reviewed garbage that comprised the bulk of the review should be removed.

Elmore refused to read the research articles Harwood handed to her, and denied that they could be true. She went on to state that her ex-husband had depleted her savings and run off.

An hour later, the third committee member, a sociology professor arrived. The Chair then announced that Dr. Harwood had said women are more physically violent than men in domestic relationships. Harwood was surprised when he said, “Of course they are—we have known this for years”.

In Seattle, domestic violence calls were so frequent that a policy was instituted that stated when an officer arrives on the scene of a domestic violence call, someone must be arrested. It turned out, that in the very first year that the policy was in place, women were arrested for domestic violence 51% of the time. Upon hearing this, Elmore was visibly embarrassed and the student was angry. Harwood was later asked to relinquish his position as part of the thesis committee.

Once, when teaching a graduate class, Dr. Harwood used the symbol for male and female to designate the two groups and provide information under the categories. A female student became angered at the male symbol and erased the “arrow” that had an upward trajectory. She replaced it with an arrow that pointed down. Dr. Harwood asked if she was intimidated by male genitalia. He also asked if the Penis Monologues would offend her. Finally, he asked whether it would matter to her if all the males in the class began chanting “penis.” She filed a complaint with her department Chair.

Mark Harwood eventually left HSU because he realized he was in a dysfunctional intellectual relationship. And he knows feminists don’t fear retaliation for abusing their intellectual superiors. He now teaches at Wheaton College.

Woman who falsely cried rape EIGHT times is spared jail..

Here we go again. How many times does she have to lie and how many lives does she have to destroy before justice is done ?

Ever wonder why the justice system is so biased..

Woman who falsely cried rape EIGHT times is spared jail

By False Rape Society | Fri, Nov 13 2009, 12:11 PM

EIGHT false rape accusations over a period of six years.

Did you get that? EIGHT. And yet the court still determined -- she shouldn't be put in prison.

Say what?! Police didn't even think that an action was warranted at an earlier stage, which means they gave tacit approval for this woman to accuse again and again and again. That, along with the court refusal to sentence her to a prison term, should be considered public misconduct of the highest order, and all involved should be investigated. And those who have been falsely accused, due to the inaction of law enforcement, should have the right to bring civil suits for violation of civil rights filed against them.

Gemma Gregory, who has made 8 separate false rape claims, spared jail

A woman who made eight separate false claims of rape or sexual assault has been spared jail.
Gemma Gregory, 28, accused seven different men over a six-year period.

Former boyfriends were subjected to police questioning and DNA testing to clear their names.
Her fantasy stories also wasted huge amounts of police time.

Gemma Gregory, seen at court today, made frequent claims that she had been raped.

As long ago as 2002, she admitted in a statement to police that she was ' seeking attention' from them. But it was not until last year, after recording several hundred calls either from her or about her, that they took action.

She was given a one-year jail term suspended for two years at Plymouth Crown Court for perverting the course of justice. Judge Francis Gilbert said she must receive mental treatment.

Her latest offence was in May when she rang police to say she had been raped at her home. She stuck to her story in a video interview three days later despite being warned she would be prosecuted if it was another lie.

A 34-year-old man was interviewed by police and for the next five months Gregory regularly contacted officers to ask how the case was progressing.

Yesterday, the victim spoke of his ordeal.

'We were going out for five to six months. I ended the relationship with her, but she got back in touch with me a couple of months later.

'We met up at a pub and saw each other for about two or three nights after that. I stayed at her flat one of those nights and we had sex just the once.'

He continued: 'She then left a message on my phone saying come round tonight but I was doing other things.

'The next thing I knew the police rang me up and asked me to come to see them. I was not arrested but attended the police station voluntarily. It wasn't very nice to be accused of rape.

'The police told me they thought the accusation against me was a load of rubbish.

'But I didn't know about the previous incidents, I had heard rumours but nothing more than that.'

Plymouth Crown Court heard that Gregory suffers from a personality disorder as well as other disorders.

Detective Constable Paul Weymouth, of Plymouth CID, said yesterday: 'We conducted a thorough rape inquiry.

'Because of previous allegations she had made it was strenuously explained to her about the implications of making a false claim.

'She was medically examined and video-interviewed.

Forensic evidence was taken from her. She rang us every two or three days to keep it going and claimed that her exboyfriend had made silent calls.

'She wanted him put in prison. She kept this going for a long time.' He said that some of the earlier 'suspects' had been arrested and had intimate samples taken as part of the inquiries.

The judge warned Gregory that if she did not comply with the terms of his order over the next two years, she would be jailed. 'False allegations of rape not only cause a great deal of wasted police time but also serious anguish to the person against who the complaint is made,' he said.

At a previous hearing he had told her: 'There are two possible outcomes - a lengthy period of imprisonment or treatment at an institution which will help you in the long run.'

It is understood that Gregory was not prosecuted earlier because of her apparent mental health problems and previous efforts to admit her difficulties.

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said: 'These types of allegations are of a particularly sensitive nature.

'We have to treat each case individually and on its own merits and investigate any such claims thoroughly.

'It was not thought appropriate to take action at an earlier stage.'

Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493352/Woman-falsely-cried-rape-EIGHT-times-spared-jail.html

Woman comes in 70th Place and declared winner over first placed Man..

It's not often that you are declared a winner of a marathon when you come in at 70th place but guess which biased sex managed it and guess which sexist newspaper happily reported those lies..