Emergency Room Visits by Women: Another DV Myth Bites the Dust

As feminists have learnt from the great dictator himself..A.H.

" If you are going to tell a lie make sure it is so ridiculous and obvious"..

Feminists false and lying claim about the "1 in 4" women will be raped was based on a so-called study (on 13 women by the way) those liars did way back when they were supposed to be "real" still echoes through the corridors of higher learning and the biased gubmint departments who are supposed to know better..

But why tell the truth about something so emotive when a lie works a lot better..

Emergency Room Visits by Women: Another DV Myth Bites the Dust
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
By Abusegate Bob

Have you ever heard the myth that 22% of all visits by women to emergency rooms (ERs) are for injuries from domestic assaults?

The claim, of course, is ludicrous. The true percentage is less than 1%. But how can you prove it? Here’s how:

1. Total number of adult (15+ years old) women in US (2000): 115.1 million women (US Census Bureau)

2. Total number of ER visits by adult (18+ years old) women (1997): 23.2 million visits (Health, United States, 2009, Table 89)

3. Total number of ER visits by adult women for violence-related injuries committed by a husband, ex-husband, or boyfriend/girlfriend (1994): 204,400 visits (BJS: Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments, August 1997, Table 7)

4. Percentage of ER visits by adult women for intimate partner aggression (3 divided by 2): 0.88% (in other words, less than 1%)

In his book Abused Men, Phil Cook states the same conclusion on page 129.

Women have got what they want and now don't like it..

Fred as usual explains it quite succinctly..

Women got what they want and are now screaming because they don't like it..

That old saying applies right there.. "be careful what you ask for" and all it's implications..

Women were never clever grasping irony were they ?

The Hook-Up is in Flower: An Unbiased Study of Feminism
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
By Fred Reed

I see where women, or college girls anyway, are honking and blowing most fierce about how they don’t like the way sex works nowadays. Yeah. It seems that the hook-up is in flower. This means when a girl meets some guy on a bus or in a remedial-reading class in college or finds herself in the same elevator, and he says, “Let’s screw,” and she does, maybe right there in the elevator, she gets all mad because she did, and because he did. Men, the bastards.

I was born too soon.

What seems to get their panties in an uproar is that they offer their favors to passersby like soap companies handing out shampoo samples, but without the intimacy, and then grouse because the guy doesn’t call them back. Why would he? Give me one reason.

What I don’t get is, why are gals bitching? This is the world they wanted. They clawed and scratched and burned their bras and had court cases and threw fits to get exactly what they have. They hated men because, they said, men weren’t letting them copulate frantically like men had always wanted them to. Men, or more likely their mothers, didn’t let them make themselves unattractive by dressing like hod-carriers and swearing like sailors. Finally men gave in and now women hate them for that. Whatever happened to gratitude?

When I was a young stud—well, young anyway—in high school, girls were still oppressed, which meant that a guy knew he probably wasn’t going to get laid, so he might as well find a girl he really enjoyed being with. The idea slowly leaked into his hormonally disabled psyche that girls were kind of special. You could actually like one. Sure, a guy made pawing motions because he was expected to, and she went along to a minor extent. But that was it.

So she didn’t feel used or hooked up with because she hadn’t been, and he thought he was damned lucky to have her. It was a concept of sorts.

But then came fem-lib. A torrent of really nasty fems with politically-significant hairy armpits started yowling about how it wasn’t fair that men could cat around and women couldn’t. Then the Pill shifted the paradigm into high gear. Girls could now Do It in relative security, and abortion, also championed by feminists, provided sure-fire back-up. There was now no reason why a woman shouldn’t say Yes.

Which meant—Oh bliss!—that she had little excuse for saying No. Sally Sue might have teeth like pearls and brains and perky tits and a wacky sense of humor and actually be quite a prize, but sex trumps art. If Sally didn’t say Yes, she knew that Greta would. Women had commoditized themselves. It was a marvelous thing for the testosterone wads we think of as college boys.

It quickly came to the old country saw with fangs: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Guys learned that they could say, “Check your oil, lady?” and it worked. Praise de Lawd! Gloria Steinem and Andrea Fire-Plug-with-Leprosy Dworkin had done what men had failed to do in millennia: produce a race of obligately loose women.

Women, never happy, discovered that they didn’t like this either. They wanted the right to rut, but not the duty. Unfortunately the two were a package. What they really wanted was to…get married. Being less adept than men at getting outside of their own heads, they didn’t understand why a lot of men were happy single. For a guy, serial monogamy was fine. So was hooking up. Soap flakes are soap flakes.

But it was what women had deliberately brought about.

Not being too good at abstraction, they didn’t understand that a man can be perfectly happy with casual sex, scuba gear, and a Harley Sportster. Left to himself, he would never think of having a Volvo station wagon, a boring McMansion with a backbreaking mortgage, or a wedded termagant who wouldn’t let him go out with his friends. He doesn’t see himself as exploiting his one-nights. He didn’t tell them he was looking for a soul mate, and may well have told them he wasn’t. (Fortunately they never believe it.) He probably isn’t contemptuous of them. He just wants a shot of leg, and figures she must have been taken by the idea, since she did it.

Certain dialogs become common:

“All you want is sex!”

“Uh…what else have you got?” or “So what?”

Or, “Marriage? Why? Would sex be better? Would food taste better? I don’t get it.”

Or, “Marriage doesn’t make sense. Do you want to eat in the same restaurant all your life?”

Marriage of course has only the function of getting the woman’s legal hooks into the guy. It’s a set-up aimed at child support and nothing else.

Anyway, it was the world women crafted, but somehow it didn’t suit them. Nothing does. They relapsed to their default position: Furious.

To make matters worse, women decided that they wanted to be men, or like men, or one of the guys, or some equally awful thing. Enter Anti-Viagra: the little blue blazer with shoulder pads, and the floppy pants-suit suitable for a trailer park outside of Las Vegas. These had the appeal of truss ads and alone would have dropped the birth rate below ZPG, but then came the Chip. As women entered what had been a male workplace, they found that they didn’t much like it, precisely because it was male. Angry as always, they set about neutering all things male, with wild success.

The Chip was the view that they weren’t going to take any crap, accompanied by a constant search for crap not to take. Hating men gave them a horsepower unavailable to males, who didn’t hate women but just wanted to get away from them.

Here again, women got what they wanted. Much favored them. Though they knew less about politics than do men, they voted in larger numbers and, since they did the shopping and liked buying things, they discovered that they had tremendous economic clout. They couldn’t compete well with men, but didn’t have to: Affirmative action worked just fine.

Except somehow it didn’t. One triumph after another somehow didn’t make them happy. They chased boys out of college, providing the satisfactions of vengeance for a crime never committed, but it engendered the hook-up culture, and they hate men for it. They pressured the divorce courts to rape men, and now hate men—the beasts—for not marrying them.

I dunno, Brothels and Cisterns. It seems to me that the feminists got just what they wanted. They made their bed. Now let them lie in it. But quietly. Oh please, quietly.

More Fred up hair.

Lying about Rape appears to be only practise..

More tedious false rape claims as Police finally demonstrate that they are fed up to the back teeth..
Have no moral or ethical issues to deal with as she destroys more lives..

Lying mother jailed after making up nightclub rape claim
By Daily Mail Reporter..

It never ceases to amaze me how good actors these women are. Practiced perfect..
And obviously it not only false rapes they are lying about..

Beauty queen stripped of her crown after she is caught lying about her age and where she lives..

single women who say they are happy are lying

Yes women ARE better at lying about their love affairs

Think men are the unfaithful sex? A study shows WOMEN are the biggest cheats - they're just better at lying about it

Women 'lie about sexual past'

Secrets and shopping lies: women often hide the true cost

In the age of promiscuity, women have more sexual partners than men

And all this from just one site..

Feminists have found a new Oppressor: Motherhood..

How typical is this and how laughable and desperate are they getting to once again attack mothers..

As usual, feminists love finding alternative variation to their victim-hood messages. That list would now fill a legal size promoted from just an oppressed A4..

What can I say, I am having problems keeping my laughter under control as I write.

Well here it is...

Today, the baby has become “the best ally of masculine domination,” argues Elisabeth Badinter, a controversial French feminist.

Whoa.. haha !!!

It gets better..

“Women’s lives have grown more difficult in the last 20 years,” she told The New York Times. “Professional life is ever harder, ever more stressful and unattractive, and on the other hand, there is an accumulation of new moral duties weighing on women.”

Hahahaha!!!!

new moral duties..

Whoa.. haha....Hahahaha!!!!


It's feminism that's created this "harder, stressful" situation as they encourage, nay, demand that we are all wage slaves while ensuring everyone is way to frigging buggered to notice their manipulation of society, their ongoing effort to change all and sundry (not because it's warranted or required but just for the hell of it) but we are awake to this one..

Must not forget the following standardised feminist handle whenever mentioning the princesses even while taking the mickey, to try and keep them onside..

Highly educated, progressive and enlightened mothers

I think to counter that misnomer one only has to re-read the article. But feminists just cannot help themselves. My Dad had a saying that was similar to the " add some honey with the vinegar", meaning whenever there is bad news to tell (slipping the knife in) always sweeten it with something good/positive..

By all means, read on, I should file this one under comedy..

Motherhood: the new oppression
Link..

Motherhood came easily to my mom. She popped out the three of us, as reliably as toast, every other year. But by modern standards she was a mediocre parent. She smoked. She drank. She drove us around without seat belts, while she smoked.

After I turned 10, she often left the three of us at home, unsupervised, for hours at a time. (She figured I was smart enough to call a neighbour if the house burned down.) We raced around without bike helmets, and made our way to school on our own. We never wore sunscreen except at the beach.

Apart from the violin (which, to everyone’s relief, I quickly abandoned), we had little in the way of extracurricular enrichment. In summer, we hung around and did nothing. During the long summer evenings, my parents would sit around in the backyard with their friends, smoking and drinking to excess, while we ran wild through wooded vacant lots and hazardous construction sites. One time, when I was around 8, my mom allowed me to go to a Cubs game in the company of the friendly school bus driver (!!!). It’s amazing we lived to adulthood.

Times were simpler then. Nobody had heard of child abuse or BPA. Mothers used cloth diapers, not because they were environmentally responsible, but because Pampers hadn’t been invented yet. Peanut allergies were virtually unknown, and breastfeeding was regarded as faintly backward.

Now we know better. The obligations of responsible mothering have been ratcheted way up. They start before conception, when you must swear off alcohol and tobacco so as not to harm your hypothetical embryo. Abstinence from all things, including ice cream (you can’t gain too much weight!) extends through pregnancy. Natural childbirth? Of course, preferably at home. Epidurals are for losers.

And then the real work starts. The modern world is full of invisible threats, from toxic plastic to UVA. Vaccines and cellphones are supposed to be safe, but who knows? Last fall, vigilant mothers I know spent hours on the Internet, researching the ins and outs of the H1N1 vaccine, and quarantining their kids from contact with anyone who’d had contact with someone who might have had the flu. They don’t trust experts and they take these matters seriously.

As The Globe and Mail’s Siri Agrell wrote recently in Toronto Life (Totally Freaked Out, March), “A generation of moms and dads has taken a purity pledge for their kids. You can’t throw an organic terry cloth teething ring today without hitting a parent obsessing over pesticides on apples and phthalates in soothers.”

Every generation of mothers is buffeted by different waves of social panic.

Ten years ago, it was child abuse – the fear that dangerous pedophiles lurked in every bush. Consequently, middle-class kids now live in a world where no child is left alone, not even for a moment. Now, we are afraid of anything that isn’t chemical-free. Conscientious moms scrub down the kitchen with green cleaners (which aren’t nearly as effective as the hard-core stuff), and hang their washing out to dry to save the planet. I see some of them at Whole Foods, filling up at the quinoa bin, towing tots armoured in hats, sunglasses, and SPF 100 sunscreen.

Once upon a time, the conveniences of modern life (processed foods, Lysol spray, disposable diapers, clothes dryers, polyester sheets) liberated women like my mother from their chains. But now, their granddaughters are clamouring to clap the shackles on again. Someone’s got to mash the organic applesauce, hang the diapers out to dry, and breastfeed the kid. No matter how enlightened the parental units, that someone will generally be Mom.

It seems to me that if you had deliberately devised a plot to oppress women, it couldn’t get more diabolical than this. Highly educated, progressive and enlightened mothers don’t need men to oppress them. They’re perfectly capable of oppressing themselves!

Today, the baby has become “the best ally of masculine domination,” argues Elisabeth Badinter, a controversial French feminist. Her new book (Le Conflit: La Femme et La Mère, translated as Conflict: The Woman and the Mother) argues that the moral requirements of modern motherhood – especially the back-to-nature, eco-mommy trend – have struck a blow to women’s freedom. “Women’s lives have grown more difficult in the last 20 years,” she told The New York Times. “Professional life is ever harder, ever more stressful and unattractive, and on the other hand, there is an accumulation of new moral duties weighing on women.”

The new ethic of mothering promises that you will find wisdom, happiness, and connectedness, not only with your children but with the earth itself. Instead, what you mostly get is guilt. So you fed your kids fast food last week? Bad mommy!

Ms. Badinter contends that there is nothing wrong with being a mediocre mother. She was one herself. Natural childbirth, she says, is highly overrated, as is breastfeeding, which doesn’t always produce that mystical bond that it’s supposed to. She has even argued that the maternal instinct does not exist, citing long periods of French history during which women were generally indifferent to their children.

I’m not sure about that (although I am sure it’s not nearly as common or intense as we suppose.) But it occurs to me that the high moral bar we’ve set for modern motherhood is a tremendous deterrent to motherhood itself. Any thoughtful woman would have to think twice, thrice, or three times thrice before committing to a task with such demanding standards. Can you blame them for deciding not to? If we want to raise the birth rate, perhaps we need to lower the bar. So long as you keep the kids from running out into the traffic, they’ll probably be fine. It seemed to work for Mom.

Feminists at the University of Sydney, Aus..

Apparently these days if you are not either a feminist, sympathise with or engage in this hate-movement that chance of being appointed to any position in any University in Australia or elsewhere in the western society is ZERO..
Universities claim to promote "Critical Thinking", unfortunately daring to critisize feminism is not part of that methodology which is explained as follows..

Critical thinking involves determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true.

One does not have to travel far into the dogma or doctrine of feminism to witness it being contradictory, confusing, sexist, controlling, hate-mongering or just being downright malicious; embarrassingly and demonstratively so. The "critical thinkers" of feminist persuasion prefer it if you do not question their "thinking" at all. For a more persuasive argument try some of the feminist sites or forums and question their ethics, principles and honesty and watch that comment erased before your very eyes..

 Here are some of those individuals who have no problems whatsoever belonging to a HATE-movement..

This forum included leading international political scientists along with Australian academics and researchers in a robust discussion on the state of contemporary feminism. 

The University of Sydney.. 

 Rebecca Huntley is a writer and social researcher and Alumni of the University of Sydney. She is the director of the Ipsos Mackay Report, Australia's longest-running social trends report. The author of Eating Between the Lines: Food & equality in Australia and The World According to Y: Inside the New Adult Generation, she also writes regularly for Australian Vogue.

Karen Beckwith is the Flora Stone Mather Professor in the Department of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University. Former president of the American Political Science Association Women and Politics Research Section

Mary Fainsod Katzenstein is the Stephen and Evalyn Milman Professor of American Studies and is Professor of Government at Cornell University. She has written about political activism and social movements in the context of U.S., European and South Asian. Her study of feminist activism in the Catholic Church and U.S. military, Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest Inside the Church and Military, won the American Political Science Association’s Victoria Schuck award for the best book on gender in political science in l999. 

Fiona Mackay is Senior Lecturer in Politics, and Director of the Graduate School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Sue Goodwin is Senior Lecturer in Policy Studies in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. 

Forum MC: Lisa Forrest is a TV and radio broadcaster, actor and writer. An ex-Olympic swimmer.  

Response to Jessamine79..

I received this comment today from Jessamine79 and thought I just may make a few necessary comments as they do carry some of the typical misandry that feminism promotes and now has become mainstay in typical thinking and attitudes of women who have wandered through the hypocrisy that is feminism..

Hi. I'll give you some context before continuing so you know who I am: raised in a single parent family, 30 y/o, female, in a 7 yr committed relationship with a man, childless, professional (comm. services), used to call myself feminist now see myself as egalitarian. (Ed- egalitarian –adjective asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.).

I agree with a great deal of your analysis, particularly the issue of work-life balance. I feel if I wanted to have kids now I would be unable to raise them in a satisfactory manner. My partner doesn't work much at the moment due to illness and even if he was making a good amount of money and happy to make the sacrifice I would feel guilty being supported by him. I also do not want to be a working mother, dropping my child off at day care to be raised by someone else. And on a less selfish level I agree that Family Law and CSA policies are very discriminatory against men and need to be looked at and revised immediately.

However, I think no fault divorce is a good thing. Why would you want to force people to live in an unhappy marriage? If people marry young by the time they are middle aged they are likely to have grown into different people, people they may not be able to live with any more. Young people also make stupid choices, I know I did. My grandfather when married to my grandmother was a drinker and a womaniser, after they divorced and he fell in love with her he completely reformed and is the sweetest man I've ever known. He was just miserable.

I do really get annoyed whenever women (fairly common) make any comment concerning relationships they never or so rarely comment on whether the "mother" was in the wrong or what she did to destroy that relationship. To me it is just another example of the "Girls Club" sticking together as we witness endlessly. It would appear that whenever anyone reads any article or commentary on that issue it is always the male who is blamed. Sadly today's media echoes that ad infinitum..
The point is that women never miss any opportunity to downplay the part of the female but have no issue condemning the other..

I think Germaine Greer was right when she spoke about 10 years ago about how aiming for the *same* rights as men was a mistake. Women and men have different experiences throughout life for biological and cultural reasons and have different needs. But from my perspective there is no "good old days". What about the fact there were laws permitting men to physically discipline their wives, no laws against rape in marriage etc? Women were also expected to be meek and not approach men so they had to wait to be approached and could only chose between those men with the confidence to approach them.

Personally I have absolutely no respect for Greer in any way, shape or form. I think she is just another empty sounding drum wallowing in a shallow, self-induced narcissism that she confirms every time she open it's
shrieking mouth. Incapable of normal behavior, desperate seeking attention for a movement that is on the way out and she is so desperate to keep it alive. Even now she wallows in regret at not having children. I hope you do not fall into that category and like Greer, spend post-menopause regretting it..

What about the fact there were laws permitting..

Men were jailed whenever women committed crimes, they were held responsible and not the woman.
What about the laws that sent men off to war to die in their millions or men forced to labour in conditions that was not only life threatening but did actually kill a lot of men. ?
How about those incidents where a female got herself pregnant (it does take two) and the Man had to step up to the plate and was forced to marry the women. Become a lifetime ATM and wage slave ?
You speak like nothing happened to those men back then and all was sweet and comfortable (try living in a saturated, germ ridden, bombed out foxhole, being shot at for a year and tell me how you would have enjoyed that) those men never had any other options, either go to war or jail.!

What about horribly restrictive gender stereotypes which where very much present in my childhood but becoming less so now. Good riddance to them!

You also obviously fail to witness or aware of the current situation concerning my sex. Men are stereotyped daily, promoted as losers, no-hoper, incapable of doing anything correct in today's media including newspapers, movies, serials, advertising (both in print and video) and tell me there is no hypocrisy from feminists who deny it exists or even suggest that it's just too bad, it's payback..

In summary I think you win some and you lose some. Yes, it will be harder for me to reproduce, but I feel I'm probably doing more good for more people in my work than I would produce just focusing it on my one or two children. And I am so glad for some other freedoms I have I would not have gained had it not been for the feminist movement. I agree though there are some ways in which men have been left out and I think it is great to hear men like yourselves making your voices heard.

And I am so glad for some other freedoms I have I would not have gained had it not been for the feminist movement 

Feminism did not do anyone any favours as all it has done is turned both sexes into wage slaves and demanded adherence to PC. They just hopped onto the already rolling bandwagon that started during the first world war and escalated in the second world war when women were forced to fend for themsleves due to a male shortage (2 Million were killed), I suggest you have a listen to a few more of my MP3 entries found here.. on the affects of feminism and the maelstrom of lies they created and still promote..

 Apart from all that I thank you for your comment and hope it has straightened out some erroneous elements that has drifted into the public psyche concerning stereotyping men in general and the "men have it all" falsehoods..

Greer-Gillard: Kindred Spirits in the Feminist Hate-Movement..

You may think my condemnation of Gillard is unjustified, but I have news for you. Gillard is a feminist and a member of a hate-movement. If you are still unsure what type of hate movement feminism really is, just have a look on the web..

Andrew Bolt..

No wonder Gillard is doing well. Ask Germaine Greer and she’ll tell you she’s solved almost everything already:

Gillard isn’t just news, she’s good news.

It was probably a mistake for Rudd to have left her in charge while he was in Bali, in what turned out to be a vain bid to become a global player in climate change politics.

When poorly implemented policies ended in disaster, it fell to Gillard to steady the ship, which she did with such charm and ease of manner, we almost forgot that she was implicated in most of them.. The nation got used to the way she disentangled the most disastrous snarl-ups with patience and good humour, heading off orchestrated media hysteria with her own kind of deadpan common sense and the fewest possible words

Um, which “disastrous snarl-ups” did Gillard solve, Germaine?

Andrew Bolt has a few comments to make on the "irrational" reactions doted on Gillard, hysterical would be a better term..

Women of Australia, as Gough Whitlam now might say, in Julia Gillard you’ve made a wise choice of the first female to lead our country.

Small correction, Dennis: Gillard was chosen not by the “women of Australia” but the faction bosses of Labor, every one of them a man.

False Rape Claims have Reached Plague Proportions, so now what ?

Another example and how many does it take to encourage feminists to come forward and admit the lie they told the world that "women do not lie about rape"..

Feminists have neither the conscience or honesty to come forward and admit they were blatantly lying..

Now you know why we call feminists, liars, what else would the outcome be..

So how boring are these false rape claims becoming ?

It has now become an epidemic of "swine flu" proportions and where do we see the answer. Obviously the law have their hands tied behind their backs to begin (refer feminist lie) with. Even worse is the fact that they are loathed to throw those blatant wrongdoers in jail even though they have been found guilty of perverting the cause of justice. Needless for me to say that if that was a member of my sex.........

False claim of Port Melbourne rape
Sunday Herald Sun

A WOMAN is facing charges of making a false complaint to police after claiming she was raped in Port Melbourne last month.

The 22-year-old's story prompted a man-hunt for the alleged offender and a significant police investigation, costing thousands of dollars in time and
On May 28, Victoria Police contacted the Sunday Herald Sun with the story in a bid to alert the public and appeal for help to find the alleged offender. When contacted on Friday by the Sunday Herald Sun, the woman, who is receiving counselling, said she was sorry for lying.

"I haven't meant to upset anyone," she said.

The woman claimed she was still the victim of a sexual assault, which occurred "somewhere else".

Police from the Moorabbin sexual offences unit said the woman had made "full admissions" on Thursday night that she had lied to police.

Detective Sgt Paul Toogood said a brief of evidence was being compiled to determine whether the woman would be charged with making a false report.
Sgt Toogood said the Port Melbourne community needed to be informed the rapist did not exist.
"The offence reported on that date did not occur. There is no reason for the people of Port Melbourne to be apprehensive going about their business," he said.
The woman claimed she had been grabbed by the throat from behind and dragged into an alcove on the St Joseph's Church grounds on Rouse St, where she was raped between 8pm and 8.30pm on May 25.
Police said they hoped the false report would not discourage victims from coming forward for help.
Detective Sen-Constable Mark Feehan said: "Victoria Police encourages all victims of sexual assault to come forward so police can provide support, investigate and prosecute offenders."
Centre Against Sexual Assault spokeswoman Carolyn Worth said false reports, while rare, were a "tricky issue".
"It makes everybody slightly wary when there is a similar allegation, which we cannot afford," she said.
"We've spent a long time trying to get people to take sexual assault seriously."

Dangerous Women..

I found this little gem at the Spearhead Forum. Sound advice for anyone contemplating a little romantic liaison. The misery and suffering they can inflict would be beyond your comprehension right now but there are plenty of examples floating around on forums for all to see..

Dangerous Women
by Hestia on June 22, 2010

All of us who spend time at The Spearhead are well aware of the news stories of dangerous women that are featured in the headlines everywhere. We all know that evil women exist and that many laws presently enable their violence and destruction. We often read and discuss the aftermath of their dastardly deeds. As educational as all of this is, it does not adequately equip men or even women to protect themselves from the dark females who may seek to them harm. Evil women come in many forms and suffer with a wide variety of disorders that make them the way they are. Some have experienced trauma that has left them forever damaged. A large group suffers from personality disorders that harm all of the sane people with whom they cross paths. Some are emotional vampires, sucking away all of the life and love from their chosen victims. And some are dangerous, potentially violent sociopaths. No matter what the case may be, these women are dangerous and should be avoided at any cost lest you become their next victim.

Anybody can become the victim of a dangerous women, but men who are empathetic, giving, and compassionate are most at risk. These evil creatures target genuinely kind people as they know their goodness will make them an easy target. A nice person does not want to think ill of another person and will be more likely to ignore their gut instincts that a person with a bit more knowledge about the darkness that lurks in the soul of dangerous women. They may feel guilty for thinking this way and feel themselves to be the bad person when this couldn’t be further from the truth. Your naivete and trust will be exploited until you have nothing left to give.

The signs of a dangerous woman are many and may vary depending on what causes her evilness, but most of the below mentioned traits are good ones to be aware of.

The dangerous woman is:

*emotionally immature and a bully
*a drama queen who turns the most minor of life experiences into a Big Deal but cares little about your struggles, trails, and joys
*uses guilt and shame to manipulate, oftentimes using this to guilt a person when their gut is saying “run run run!”
*makes you feel emotionally drained after spending any amount of time with her
*easily provoked and malicious
*may tell stories about having been raped, sexually abused, or a victim of domestic violence in an attempt to gain sympathy
*controlling but outraged if you “check up” on her or ask too many questions about herself
*uses mimicry to cleverly masquerade as a human with a conscience and empathy
*lives in a fantasy world of ideal everything and cannot tell truth from fiction
*is exploitative, always asking for favors but does nothing in return; a taker in relationships of all kinds
*possess a tremendous amount of entitlement and treats others as if they are lesser than her
*envious of others and vindictive towards those who better their lot in life or are better looking, more talented, more successful than her

This list is by no means exhaustive but is a start of warning signs to look out for when you cross paths with a suspicious woman in your life, somebody seems “off”.

If you do run into a woman like this there are some beginner steps to remove yourself as her prey:

*Get away as quickly as possible.
*Accept that some people truly have no empathy and conscience, do not operate like the rest of us, and can never be understood. You have done nothing to cause this and cannot control the behavior of this sick woman. Do not redeem the unredeemable.
*Do not engage this woman, try to rationalize with her, or allow her to bully you into feeling badly about yourself. Instead get yourself out of their clutches and to safety.
*If you are already involved with her, share with those closest to you what is going on so that they may help with potential damage control.
*Document everything the dangerous woman does to attack you. Keep emails, voicemail messages, and other contact. Advise friends and family to do the same.
*Refuse any further contact with the evil woman, even if she is attempting to provoke you. Her attack may be vile, but remember nothing she says is true. Do not back down from your “ignore her” campaign and enlist people to help you keep up your resolve during moments of anger and weakness.

Female predators not only lurk in the real world, but online as well. The cyberbully and troll are two very common forms of dangerous women who target men online. While these varieties of dangerous women are typically less lethal than their offline sisters, they can still rob you of emotional energy and steal away bits of you. Avoiding these women and refusing to engage with them is your best means of defense. They derive pleasure from your anger and upset and will be ruthless in trying to make their fun at your expense.

I sincerely hope that none of you ever run across a dangerous woman, but just in case take the time to prepare yourself so you can be protected should such knowledge ever be needed. Better to know your enemy and never come across her than to experience the opposite!

Gillard: Feminist, Liar, Male-hater and Hypocrite..

The male bashing continues as Feminist Gillard (Aus. New Prime Minister) and her fembots gloat and wallow in their sense of self-importance using language they themselves have been trying to eliminate about women but here they are at their best..

We can now witness the absolute hypocrisy of these male-haters as they stereotype and belittle all  and sundry..
The offending male-hater is Kathy Lette (photo), from The english Mail online..  Just another typical feminist..

Australia has its first ever woman Prime Minister — and the average Aussie male is quaking in his Ugg boots.

Why? Because Julia Gillard is not just a woman, she’s an unmarried, childless, proudly undomesticated feminist agnostic — who also happens to be shacked up with a hairdresser.

In the land of cold beer and untrammelled misogyny, this is about the worst kind of human being possible.

One Right-wing senator has even described her as ‘deliberately barren’, implying that a woman is little more than a life support system to an ovary and somehow not fit for political office.

Gillard’s response was to accuse him of insulting all Australian women and force him to make a grovelling apology.

Even worse, in the eyes of Australian manhood the new premier — who replaced Kevin Rudd after she challenged his leadership this week — is not even a proper Aussie.

(Her family, they will tell you, weren’t even in the country when Don Bradman was in his pomp.)

Born in 1961 in the Vale of Glamorgan, Gillard is the daughter of a Welsh miner.

Her family moved from Barry to Australia as £10 Poms in 1966 — they paid that amount for their ship’s passage — when Julia was four.

That firebrand Leftie Nye Bevan is said to be one of her heroes.

How to have Four Innocent Men Arrested: Falsely Claim You Were Raped..

Feminists continuously deny their part in the destruction and dissembling decency, good behavior or attitudes. They also refuse to accept any responsibility for this type of behavior or any actions similar..

They believe that their "equality" efforts do ensure special treatment for all women without any consequences. Unfortunately what they fails to come to grips with is that when they tinker with laws and specifically jurisprudence the outcome will not be what they assumed or expected it to be..

Granting carte blanch to females to perform in anyway and every way possible without responsibility or accountability than we end up with this type of childish petulant behavior..

Here is probably one of the most glaring example of a privileged princess actually refusing to comprehend that the action/reaction principal always applies.

She did this because she was convinced she could get away with and that attitude is solely promoted by feminists and their tinkering with the law and their manipulation of the farcical rape and abuse laws..

‘Wicked’ woman saw four innocent men arrested after slashing her own face and crying rape
19.06.2010 | Author: James Tozer

A woman who sparked a £150,000 police investigation by ripping her clothes and giving herself a black eye, then lying about a violent sex attack, has been told she will be jailed.

Four students spent nearly three days behind bars as a result of the convincing injuries Leyla Ibrahim inflicted on herself, with one of the suspects attempting to kill himself.

But detectives became suspicious of the 22-year-old’s story and the men were released without charge.

It emerged Ibrahim invented the attack after a row with a male friend when he refused to lend her the money for a taxi home after a night out.

Facing jail: Leyla Ibrahim cut her hair and clothes to look as if she had been attacked.

Deciding she ‘wanted to teach people a lesson’, a court heard she cut and tore the blue frilly dress she was wearing as well as her black leggings and bra, leaving her breasts partially exposed.

She also hacked off clumps of her own hair, gave herself a black eye and a suspected broken cheekbone, scratched her breasts and legs and finally left one of her shoes at the scene of the supposed attack.

Last night, however, the former children’s holiday rep was behind bars after being convicted of perverting the course of justice.

She wept as the judge denied her bail, telling her a prison term ‘of some length’ was inevitable for ‘wickedly fabricating a grave crime’ which had caused ‘countless anguish’.

Ibrahim’s elaborate plot began following a night out in her home town of Carlisle in January last year, a court heard.

After being taken for X-rays on her injuries, she told police two youths had knocked her to the ground as she walked home along a footpath, subjecting her to a violent sexual assault.

She told detectives she grabbed a pair of scissors from a sewing kit in her handbag, only for one of the pair to snatch them from her and cut off a clump of her hair.

More than 40 officers were assigned to the case, and four local students were arrested and questioned for a total of 64 hours, during which time one attempted to kill himself.

But police became suspicious when it emerged Ibrahim’s injuries were inconsistent with being attacked and they began investigating her behaviour.

Tim Evans, prosecuting, told Carlisle Crown Court the trigger for the allegations was that Ibrahim had been ‘angry and upset’ at being forced to walk home after a male friend refused to lend her money for a taxi or let her share his.

She put her head in her hands after a jury took just two and a half hours to come to a unanimous guilty verdict, and her distraught mother Sandra and sister Samira ran from the court in tears.

Ibrahim, who came to Britain from Libya with her family when she was nine and worked at a petrol station at the time of the alleged attack, was told by Judge Paul Batty QC she would be jailed.

‘Not only did these false allegations have an effect on four young men, but also a considerable effect on your own family,’ he said.

‘You were convicted on clear and compelling evidence of wickedly fabricating a grave crime, causing countless anguish to all involved.’
He added: ‘A custodial sentence is inevitable because this crime strikes to the heart of the criminal justice system.’
Afterwards district crown prosecutor Linda Vance said such cases were rare and that Ibrahim had only been charged after ‘careful consideration.

‘False allegations undermine genuine victims of rape and the continuing efforts of the criminal justice system to improve the confidence of those victims,’ she said.
Ibrahim is due to be sentenced next month.

One In Three in Intimate Partner Violence are Men..

Just spotted this blog site called " One In Three", stating that one in three victims of intimate partner violence are men.
Although the explanations are somewhat excusing of female on men violence and an attempt is to excuse it as being retaliative, at least it's getting some response and now the facts have surfaced we can at least approach gubmint departments and shove it down their sexist little agenda..
Anyway, I will at least give that another go..

ONE IN THREE

The One in Three Campaign produces a podcast featuring interviews with leading researchers and practitioners in the family violence field.

Interview with Dr. Greg Dear
Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Dr. Greg Dear is Senior Lecturer in Psychology in the School of Psychology and Social Science at Edith Cowan University (ECU) in Western Australia. Greg is the co-author, along with Professor Alfred Allan and Emily Tilbrook, of Intimate Partner Abuse of Men, a research project commissioned by the Men’s Advisory Network and released on 26th May 2010.

In this in-depth interview with Greg Dear, Greg Andresen discusses the findings and implications of the ECU research.
Listen to MP3.. 

Because the common belief is that men are rarely victims of family violence and abuse, when confronted with the evidence that males make up a significant percentage of victims, questions often arise as to the nature of male violence compared to female violence. Here we answer some of these questions, such as whether male violence is more severe or controlling, and whether female violence is more likely to be in self-defence.

Cape Cod School: Promotes Legal Child Abuse..

It would appear that the lunatic left have not only invaded and destroyed Universities by removing "Critical Thinking" and imposing their own version of intolerance but it would appear that even the early forms of education have not been spared from their negative intrusion..

Can you remember being 6 years of age and was sex a major part of that memory ?
I doubt those kids could even rip open a condom, let along use it.
Do they make child size condoms now ?

Cape Cod school committee approves policy to give out condoms for kids as young as six


DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, June 25th 2010, 1:21 PM
BY Rosemary Black
Link..
When a Cape Cod school committee approved a policy making free condoms available to all its pupils, a Massachusetts Family Institute representative called it “absurd,” according to Jezebel.com.


Birth control for 6-year-olds? When a Cape Cod school committee approved a policy making free condoms available to all its pupils, a Massachusetts Family Institute representative called it “absurd,” according to Jezebel.com.

The policy would mean that even first-graders could get condoms from the school nurse, once they received counseling. The counseling would include information on abstinence, but the policy does not stipulate that the school get in touch with the parents, according to CBS News.

Peter Grosso, chairman of the Provincetown School Board, said there is no set age when kids start being sexually active.

“The thing is, sexual activity starts younger and younger,” he told Jezebel.com. We don't know what that age is. So we just said, ‘We’ll make it available to all of them.’”

Now the school system may rethink its controversial policy, revising it to exclude the youngest students, according to Boston.com. That move came after Provincetown’s school superintendent, Beth Singer, was contacted by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, for clarification on the new policy. Singer then told Grosso the policy would need some modification.

But Grosso said he would not give the go-ahead with any plan that limited condom distribution to the high school.

The policy would “have to go lower than that, because we all know kids are sexually active before high school,” he told Boston.com. Grosso said he’d be comfortable
with a policy that would permit distribution of condoms to kids in fifth grade and up.

False Domestic Violence Allegations Routinely Ignored..

Some interesting information from the "rent seeking scum" involved with false domestic violence accusations, I refer to them by this term for this reason..

Casey Gwinn, a San Diego prosecutor and national authority on domestic violence, admits, “If we prosecuted everybody for perjury that gets on a witness stand and changes their story, everybody would go to jail,” adding that he never had any desire to have false accusers prosecuted

And now can you already guess the reason why, by any chance ?

many women file charges against boyfriends/spouses on a routine basis,

See, it always surfaces eventually. Those gutless, useless wonders are supposed to be upholding the law and what is their response ?

Not if a woman is breaking it..

They should be fired and replaced with competent people that may even take their job seriously and actually do what they are paid to do..

The link below is to a pdf file that estimates the cost to America every year for false allegations costs about 20 Billion dollars if it's all inclusive. Check out the data and information.

SAVE..

1
False allegations of domestic violence have become so commonplace that they now
threaten the integrity of the American legal system.

As a former domestic violence prosecutor in Georgia revealed:
“As politically incorrect as it is to say, many women file charges against boyfriends/spouses on a routine basis, and then recant the charges when the cases come to trial.

Some of the alleged perpetrators are really guilty, and [a] very large percentage (though not majority) are not guilty of anything except making the woman in their life angry.”1
Indeed, legal observers note that in four out of five cases, the person who calls for police assistance later recants or drops the charges.2

In addition, 2–3 million restraining orders for partner abuse are issued each year in the United States,3 many of which are false or unnecessary. One study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court found that less than half of restraining orders involved even an allegation of violence.4

Legal experts now acknowledge that non-meritorious claims are often made during a
divorce proceeding to gain a legal edge:

• In California, the State Bar admits that protective orders are “almost routinely
issued by the court in family law proceedings, even when there is relatively
meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person…it is
troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation
and litigation purposes.”5

• An article in the Illinois Bar Journal notes that allegations of abuse and
restraining orders are often used as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”6 

• Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, revealed,
“Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to
virtually all who apply….In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for
tactical advantage.”7

This report considers a claim or statement that is untrue or unnecessary to be a false allegation. Persons who knowingly make such accusations are almost never subject to legal sanctions. Casey Gwinn, a San Diego prosecutor and national authority on domestic violence, admits, “If we prosecuted everybody for perjury that gets on a witness stand and changes their story, everybody would go to jail,” adding that he never had any desire to have false accusers prosecuted.8

The White House Answer on "How to be a good Dad"..

I have obviously too much spare time but here is another one..

One wonders why this sexist administration has no equivalent "How to be a good mom" but that's way too obvious..

This link is for PJTV where three speakers discuss the "White House" Fatherhood promotion and videos. You have to see this drivel otherwise you will never believe what they are trying to do against Dads..

After the windup and then the video..

Families and Etiquette: Feminist's Worst Nighmare..

Feminists must be feeling extremely frustrated and unsure of themselves right now. How dare those women destroy everything they have been lying and raging about for years. Meanwhile, women generally, I think, prefer a part-time position while being involved with their families and I doubt that has changed even though they were forced, coerced by feminists, demanding they work the forty hours or more (like them men do) and give the tribe (siblings) a flick..

Feminists hated the idea that others could enjoy themselves and have a normal life while they were out there thriving on hatred, condemnation and screaming their way to their new self-imposed, delusional utopia. A dream that was incapable of ever materialising as it's foundation was based on lies, distortions and mistrust and don't forget abuse of both sexes..

If you look back to just after the second world war (1947 onwards), women were forced to work in factories and doing laborious mundane tasks on their own and it pissed them off back then as well as now. No only that, but 2 million men had died (the bastards) during that war so finding a mate and future ATM was out of the question as the competition was fierce. Never stand between a girl and her credit donor.

Same thing is happening right here and now. I cannot say that I have ever met a female that did not want a family or at least a hubby to blame..

So we have two different issues from the olden days, when women were treated like princesses and yes, we did use to stand when a "lady" entered the room and yes, they (ladies) actually existed..

So it's turning the clock back if they can, but I fear it may be too little, too late, if they expect the men to just buckle under as the laws today do not treat us as kindly as it did back then especially when it comes to being within shouting distance of a member of the opposite sex..

But they live in hope..

Teacher Emphasizes Old-Fashioned Etiquette
Link..

(Feb. 21) – In addition to the three R's, boys at one Arizona public high school have spent the past year learning to open doors for girls, pull out chairs for their female classmates and stand when a girl enters a room.

Incorporating etiquette lessons into the classroom was the brainchild of Cord Ivanyi, a Latin teacher at Gilbert Classical Academy, a public college prep school 30 miles east of Phoenix.

Behavior that was once utterly foreign has become routine. "Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it," Ivanyi said.

As a result of the emphasis on politeness, the overall mood in the classroom has changed markedly.

"There's a different tenor in the class, a gravity attached to the girls. They've been more feminized in the boys' eyes," Ivanyi said. "These girls are reading Jane Austen novels in class. For them, chivalry hasn't gone out of style."

Behavior that was once utterly foreign has become routine. "Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it," Ivanyi said.

As a result of the emphasis on politeness, the overall mood in the classroom has changed markedly.

I can hear them beating their lesbian/part-time/indeterminate partners right now. The angst of it all..

What women want in 2010: A husband who'll be the main breadwinner
Link..

Young mothers are turning their backs on high-powered careers to raise their children, a study has found.
Their mothers, or even grandmothers, lived through a time when women fought for full-time work and better pay.
But today's generation is returning to the traditional values of home and family - and looking to men to be the breadwinners.

The top 10 most common passwords..

Got to love it..

After previewing over tens of millions of passwords have a guess what stands out and how delusional that sex really is..

Obviously haven't heard of the laddettes program or maybe they have..

It did bring a smile..

The Top 10 Most Common Internet Passwords


Published January 26, 2010 | NewsCorp Australian Papers

The 10 most commonly used passwords on the Web have been revealed as part of an analysis of tens of millions of Internet accounts.

Imperva, a data security firm, said it had analyzed around 32 million passwords that had been exposed in a recent hack of the RockYou Web site.

In December last year, a hacker breached the site's company database and gained access to the unencrypted usernames and passwords of all its 32 million users. After studying the security breach, Imperva has come up with a list of the most commonly used passwords.

"Everyone needs to understand what the combination of poor passwords means in today's world of automated cyber attacks: with only minimal effort, a hacker can gain access to one new account every second," said Amichai Shulman, Imperva's chief technical officer.

The top 10 most common passwords

1. 123456
2. 12345
3. 123456789
4. Password
5. iloveyou
6. princess
7. rockyou *
8. 1234567
9. 12345678
10. abc123

Australian Mining Tax: The Labor Party Explains...erm !

Blonde have more what ?..

In response to a blog I posted some time ago ( Here ) which by the way must have offended quite a few as the comments are now over 80 which is rather surprising. Anyway, I got another comment ..

American men are all losers. The only reason why they go after Turd (oops I mean Third) World women is because they can't attract a beautiful blonde model like myself.
Men all over the world desire blonde white women from oil sheiks, billionaires and royalty. A blonde woman walks down the streets of Latin America and the men drool over her and are willing to jump over their short greasy women to get at the American blonde gringa.
Even within the US blondes are in high demand by all races of men with high incomes. Other women get our leftovers and they all wish they could be blonde like us that is why they hate us.
Blondes have all the fun. We don't have settle. Foreign women simply get our leftovers because everyone wants to "go with the gold."

And such clever "oops" inclusions trying it for comedic effect probably..

The problem with blonde hair these days is that it's indistinguishable from real to bottled. How many blondes have you met or know that are genuine blondes, there is only one way to check as far as I am aware..
The only problem with blondie's comment is that she is clearly demonstrating that she will score well on the 1-10 point system on that blog entry..

As follows..

2) Deluded - into thinking they "deserve" a rich, model-handsome husband who will "take them away from all of this"--whatever the "this" might be--and leading to resentment when they discover that the universe does NOT revolve around them 

3) Angry - ALL the damn time about things which are so far out of their control as to be nonsensical--and constantly wanting to "discuss" this mind numbing drivel ad nauseam

6) Lazy - drilled into their head that they "deserve" a maid, nanny and personal slave to take care of every detail - and that their husband/boyfriend is REQUIRED to cater to their each and every mindless whim

and this last one..

10) Vain - believing that they are irresistible to everything in pants and therefore are allowed to behave sluttish and without any honor

Thanks for the entertainment..

Australia: Women’s Minister Admits She Lied..

Now one would have been aghast had this been done 40 years ago, but today this is business as usual for feminists and their ongoing anti-male attitude where all's fair as far as that hate-movement goes..
Feminist fibbing is so entrenched that they even believe most of it themselves, they even deny lying about lying..

Australia: Women’s Minister Admits She Lied
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
By Abusegate Bob

MEDIA RELEASE – WED 23rd JUNE 2010 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Minister Admits Misleading Public on Domestic Violence


The Minister for the Status of Women, Hon Gail Gago MLC, yesterday admitted in a Ministerial Statement that statistics on the Don’t Cross the Line respectful relationships website were incorrect and had been removed.
The incorrect and misleading material was brought to the attention of the Minister by leading men’s health organisation Men’s Health Australia and is still under investigation by the SA Ombudsman.
Spokesman Greg Andresen said, “We are pleased that the Minister now acknowledges that her campaign misled the public and the media for nine months about the reality of relationship abuse in Australia. However, her claim that the errors have been rectified couldn’t be further from the truth.”
“The original errors have been replaced by a page of statistics about violence against women. As the Minister notes, the underlying aim of the campaign is to educate young men and women about respectful relationships and about the difference between acceptable and abusive behaviour. To equate abusive relationship behaviour with violence against women is simply mind-boggling.”
“Firstly, at least one in three victims of family violence and abuse are male. Why has the minister deliberately misled the public in an attempt to deny that one third of victims – men and their children – exist? Secondly, most violence against women takes place outside of relationships – in the workplace, on the street, at the pub, etc. Why is the minister inflating statistics on relationship abuse by including these types of violence on the website?”
Men’s Health Australia is supportive of all efforts to reduce interpersonal violence in the community but is concerned that the regular use of incorrect or misleading ‘statistics’ by Governments unfairly stigmatises men and boys as violent and abusive, while simultaneously denying services to male victims of violence.
They are also concerned that the Government’s approach is not in the interests of all children in families where there is abuse or violence, but selectively favours those children in families where violence is perpetrated by the father. The other one-third to half of children have to fend for themselves without support.
Men’s Health Australia is hopeful that the Ombudsman’s investigation will lead to the Don’t Cross the Line website presenting a balanced, accurate picture of relationship abuse, including statistics such as:
• Over one in three victims of domestic homicide in Australia are male
• At least one in three victims of family violence in Australia are male
• As many young people have witnessed physical domestic violence by their mother against their father, as have witnessed it by their father against their mother
• Equal numbers of young males and females have experienced domestic violence or have been forced to have sex by their boyfriend/girlfriend.
The recently released report, Intimate Partner Abuse of Men, by researchers at Edith Cowan University found that “Male victims of intimate partner abuse and their children suffer a range of consequences, such as psychological distress (including disorders such as depression and anxiety disorders), suicidal ideation, impaired self concept and loss of work.”
It found that male victims are often reluctant to disclose their experience of abuse or seek help because of their sometimes justified fears that they will not be believed, that they will not be assisted or will instead be blamed for the abuse.
“Understating the prevalence of relationship violence against men and their children makes it less likely that a man will be believed when he finally summons up the courage to disclose his partner’s abuse of him. It also allows Government to continue to develop family violence policies and campaigns that ignore male victims,” said Mr Andresen.

The Truth About Diversity..

I have stated often that no woman anywhere in the western world can make the claim they were promoted or achieved their position due to their ability, education or experience as Mike Adams demonstrates below. Here is the number one reason for the elevation of women to positions of power which is enhanced by one's genitals, apparently it has zero to do with ability etc..

You may want to ponder this every time you see a woman as a government department head or even on the boards of major corporations as even they are forced to promote and include women regardless of ability and experience..

Some are more equal than others apparently..

Rosemary DePaolo has never told the truth about diversity, nor taken much of an interest in the truth on any given issue. Despite her incompetence, she remains as UNC-Wilmington chancellor because she is a woman. And Kelly Mehrtens remains as her athletic director because she is black. 

So here is an example of feminists actually admitting that "feels good" approach to employing women in any position even if it clearly demonstrates that that person is not only totally unsuitable for the position but is obviously incompetent as well as incapable of doing the job...

Regardless how often feminists yell and scream about " women can do anything a man can do" is not only a total lie but demonstrates their total inability to engage the brain before opening their mouths..

Mike Adams
The Truth About Diversity

In the past, I have been critical of radical leftist university president Rosemary DePaolo. I’ve directed specific criticism towards her for valuing diversity over competence. Thankfully, she has finally seen the light. In a letter written to the entire UNC-Wilmington community on Wednesday, April 8, 2010, she admitted that much of what I’ve said about diversity (for at least seven years' worth of columns!) is true. I am taking the time today to thank Rosemary for her honesty and humility. For those who are interested, I have reprinted her entire letter below:

Dear Colleagues,

While the core mission of UNCW focuses on academics and providing the most powerful learning experience for our students, athletics also plays an important part in the lives not only of our students but of the entire, broad university community, as well. I know that the search for a new head coach for men’s basketball is on the minds of many people, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide you a brief update.

Since the end of the basketball season, the search committee has been identifying and reviewing potential candidates. We believed we had a firm commitment, but yesterday we learned that was not the case. To be certain, searches are complicated and complex processes, especially where contracts are involved. You might recall in the early 1990s that head basketball coach Bobby Cremins left Georgia Tech where he was extremely successful to go to the University of South Carolina. Three days later, he returned to Georgia Tech after indicating that he had a change of heart. Similarly, Greg Marshall, head coach at Winthrop, was recruited to go to the College of Charleston. He even held a press conference to announce that move, only to return the next day as coach at Winthrop. Ironically, the person who replaced him at College of Charleston was Bobby Cremins.

Why am I telling you this? We all may know of numerous other situations where an individual was recruited by multiple institutions, only to take the one with the best financial package or change decisions for personal reasons. I am providing these examples to remind all of us that, despite rumors and speculation to the contrary, people routinely change their minds during negotiations for a variety of reasons. As disappointing as that may be at times, I have been in this business long enough to know that such situations are common; I also know that in the end, we will be successful.

I am working closely with our athletic director Kelly Mehrtens and our search committee to continue the process of identifying the right coach. I am forced to do so because it has become apparent that Kelly Mehrtens is over her head in this position. That is because her selection for this position was not made on the basis of qualifications. She was selected on the basis of her status as a black female.

Some have made much of the argument that Kelly Mehrtens is incompetent. As evidence, they have cited the following: 1) Her decision to fire our last basketball coach during homecoming week. 2) Her decision to give the last coach a two-year contract extension after only one year of coaching his predecessor’s recruits. 3) Waiting six weeks to form a committee to look for a new coach. 4) The drastic reduction in donations to support the athletic department, etc, etc, etc.

But these criticisms miss the truth about diversity, which I have highlighted in bold letters so all of you can understand: An institution’s commitment to diversity is inversely related to its commitment to competence. Those who are calling for the firing of Kelly Mehrtens miss this fundamental point.
Put simply, if Kelly Mehrtens was hired by considering race (and gender) over competence then it makes no sense to fire her – in effect, saying her incompetence is suddenly more important than her race. After all, she is still black. And there is no evidence that she plans to change her gender.

I know it hurts to lose basketball games. And I know it hurts to see an entire athletic program in shambles. But diversity feels good. And it reminds us we are all really good people at heart.

Go Seahawks!

For those not Swift enough to understand, you have just read a social satire on affirmative action and diversity. Rosemary DePaolo has never told the truth about diversity, nor taken much of an interest in the truth on any given issue. Despite her incompetence, she remains as UNC-Wilmington chancellor because she is a woman. And Kelly Mehrtens remains as her athletic director because she is black.

Mike Adams: How to Make a Sex Tape at Duke

Mike is one of, if not the only University professors in America that has the courage to attack feminists and demonstrate how ludicrous, ridiculous and insane that hate movement really is. They are powerless against this guy as he knows the law and will fight tooth and nail should they try and silence him. Meanwhile University feminised soothsayers shelter behind their self-induced denial system allowing their cowardice to be rewarded and even promoted..
Mike explores the hypocrisy promoted at Duke University as well as the intolerance of their pathetic lecturers and staff..

Mike Adams
How to Make a Sex Tape at Duke

Since 2003, I have written 632 columns – most of which deal with rampant political correctness (read: cultural Marxism) on our college campuses. In response to one of my recent columns, a member of the American Association of University Professors wrote to chastise me for writing about “isolated incidents” that are not representative of the state of higher education.

Maybe I should have named this column “Isolated Incident 633” to remind readers that I haven't yet accumulated sufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusions about the current political climate on our college campuses. So, for the time being, committed leftists can still question whether the ivory tower leans as much as, say, the leaning tower of Pisa.

This week, another isolated incident – this one from Duke University - came across my desk. It takes the form of a new sexual misconduct policy, which is being promoted by the Duke Women’s Center. Remember, these are the folks who recently prevented a woman from speaking about her experiences as a student and mother. The message that you don’t have to have an abortion to finish your studies at Duke seemed to offend numerous students. This, in turn, led to the cancellation of the event.

At Duke, it seems there is more shame associated with carrying a child to term than getting gang raped at a lacrosse party. This is especially sad because, unlike the latter, the former actually sometimes happens at Duke University.

Thankfully, administrators at Duke have posted online a set of policies regarding sexual misconduct, which, among other things, emphasize the importance of consent in sexual relations. Specifically, the policy reminds us that “Sexual intimacy requires mutual engagement in an environment of mutual consent.”

I guess “mutual consent” was lacking when (now former) Duke administrator/professor Frank Lombard was engaged in “sexual intimacy” with his five year old adopted son. My guess is based on the fact that Lombard was just sentenced to 27 years in federal prison. That’s exactly 27 years more than the Duke lacrosse players received after being accused of rape by one crazy stripper and 88 crazy Duke faculty members – none of whom could muster the courage to accuse Lombard of sexual misconduct after he was actually convicted.

Duke’s sexual misconduct policy also lets us know that rape can sometimes be unintentional. That’s because “yes” can sometimes mean “no.” That is, maybe. It all depends on “real or perceived power differentials between individuals” which “may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.

So what have Duke administrators been doing lately (while they aren’t shoving pacifiers into the mouths of mothers to prevent them from speaking or performing sex acts on their adopted children?). They’ve been coming up with policies that make it sound like what happened to the Duke lacrosse players really might not have been so bad. I mean, a black stripper could, after all, perceive a “power differential” while in the presence of a rich white Duke lacrosse player. And that could make her feel like she’s been coerced into something, right?

Duke elaborates on the notion of consent by adding that “The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains and gives consent in each instance of sexual activity.” It isn’t clear whether this means a man must hear the word “yes” every five seconds during "sexual activity".

Things can get confusing, especially when the basketball team is winning. Thankfully, Duke has something to say about such possible confusion: “It is important not to make assumptions; if confusion or ambiguity on the issue arises during the sexual interaction, it is essential that each participant stops and clarifies, verbally, willingness to continue.”
But, of course, people who are in the throes of passion are the least suited to give an objective opinion. That would be like asking Perez Hilton to judge a beauty contest in which he is competing for the title of queen.

For awhile, I thought I had the perfect solution. My solution involved a mandate that all sexual encounters at Duke be recorded and broadcast simultaneously to the Women’s Center. That way, the feminists could serve as sexual referees and contact authorities in the event that a sexual encounter failed to conform to the rules of the student handbook.

But I had to change my mind about my solution after reading the following official Duke University vignette: “Liz and Tom have been together for six months. She often tells her friends stories of Tom’s sexual prowess, and decided to prove it to them. One night, she and Tom engage in consensual sexual intercourse. Without Tom’s knowledge, Liz sets up her digital camera to videotape them having sex. The next evening, she uploads the video to an online video sharing site and discusses it with her friends online. This is a violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy.”

Of course, almost everyone knows that it’s wrong to videotape someone during a sex act without first getting their consent to the filming. One exception would be now former Duke administrator Frank Lombard who did not get the consent of his five year old before he performed sexual acts upon him live on the internet via webcam. Duke administrators are such experts at making sex tapes that I think it’s time for a new major at Duke called “Sexual Film Studies.” A course called “Sexual Film Ethics” could be taught by Frank Lombard from his prison cell and beamed to the Duke campus via webcam. (Warning: Some scenes not suitable for viewing by small children!).

Duke, to its credit, does inform students that hearings regarding sexual misconduct are not conducted without certain privacy safeguards. The online policy states that “The university will make all reasonable efforts to ensure the preservation of confidentiality, restricting information to those who legitimately need it.”

They also affirm the importance of the presumption of innocence, which was so lacking when the Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape before being gang raped by 88 Duke professors. The policy now says “Accused students can expect a presumption of innocence throughout the disciplinary process unless found responsible through an impartial and fair hearing, and will be treated with respect throughout the process.”

I’m glad Duke has rediscovered the value of the presumption of innocence. Not everyone accused of sexual misconduct at Duke is a gay administrator who performs sex acts on small children. Some are actually upstanding citizens.

And that's what a Feminist Looks Like..

Here we have that feminised wimp exposing himself for what he really is, a feminised sycophant..

 Sickening as it is, Hussien Obama is not the only male to pay homage to a movement that is out to destroy their very existence. So one must really question the intelligence level as well as sincerity of these individuals. One must wonder what on earth these men are thinking by supporting a hate movement that has clearly demonstrated beyond any doubt that feminism is out to destroy every aspect of man. Their ongoing and relentless attack on all men can be witnessed by even the most ignorant denialist imaginable which ofcourse could be allocated as another segment of the feminist hate movement.

Hanna Rosin: This is What a Feminist Looks Like
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
By Carey Roberts

A couple years ago the National Organization for Women came up with a new PR campaign. The program duped unsuspecting college students into wearing a T-shirt carrying the gratuitous slogan, “This is what a feminist looks like.”

The campaign was designed to dispel the popular notion that all women's libbers are Helen Thomas look-alikes with a hooked nose, deep-set eyes, serpentine lips, and rhinoceros-hide skin.

For a while, the program seemed to working, mostly because the persons wearing the T-shirts were 20-something college drop-outs – men and women alike — who were more than happy to don free apparel that appeared to be advancing a worthy social cause.

But all the social redemption garnered by the N.O.W. campaign has now been undone in the single stroke by a disaffected journalist by the name of Hanna Rosin. If Ms. Rosin has not yet appeared on your loony-left radar screen, here’s a quick run-down.

In 2007 she unveiled her book, God’s Harvard, written as a satirical expose of Patrick Henry College, a Virginia-based institution that seeks to promote conservative religious ideals.

A couple years later she penned an expose in The Atlantic titled, “The Case Against Breastfeeding.” As we know, millions of American women are to this day being oppressed by breastfeeding. In response to the article, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted simply, “the author skims the literature and has omitted many recent statements.”

And earlier this year, Rosin was nominated for a National Magazine Award for her story about transgendered children. Thank goodness someone had the courage to take on that long-neglected topic.

Having solved the problems of evangelism, breastfeeding, and transgender, earlier this month feminist Rosin decided to try her hand at social commentary. Titled “The End of Men,” Hanna Rosin’s article in the current issue of The Atlantic could just as easily been called, “Feminists Dancing on the Grave of Western Civilization.”

For starters, Rosin sings hosannas to the growing tide of women who are “forgoing marriage altogether.” As a result, out-of-wedlock births have spread out of the barrios and trailer parks and are “creeping up the class ladder.”

W. Bradford Wilcox, head of the National Marriage Project, is quoted as making the astute observation that these changes have been “bad for kids.” The sequelae of female-headed households is the well-documented litany of “crime, drugs, sex, teen pregnancies, suicides, runaways and school dropouts,” Rosin acknowledges in a flash of lucidity.

But Hanna is not troubled by indicators of galloping social disintegration, just so long as they carry the patina of ever-expanding female empowerment.

The main focus of Rosin’s soliloquy is not the nuclear family, children, or the fate of civil society, however. The brunt of her venom is directed squarely and unapologetically at men. To erect her dystopian mythology, Rosin indulges in a noxious mixture of historical revisionism, gynocentric narcissism, and shameless stereotyping.

Reflecting on African-American social mobility, Rosin asserts that “Typically, women’s income has been the main factor in determining whether a family moves up the class ladder or stays stagnant.”

Of course that’s a preposterous example of Ms.-Information.

The reason why so many African-American families remain mired in the cycle of poverty is the marginalization of the male breadwinner by policies that demand the woman be single and have child custody before she can qualify for welfare benefits. And getting men re-involved in the family holds the key to upward social mobility.

For years, feminists abhorred gender stereotypes as an ideological anathema. But when stereotypes are applied men, Rosin revels in them, like a female mud wrestler poised to take the plunge. And many would look askance at the seeming illogic of a self-proclaimed New Age woman who indulges in rabid anti-male stereotypes.

I’ve read accounts of Jim Crow, that dark era in American history when African-Americans were systematically deprived of their civil liberties by Democratic carpetbaggers. And I have trouble distinguishing the racist musings of White Citizens Councils from the chauvinistic prescriptions of Ms. Rosin.

Men are the “new ball and chain,” men are “fixed in cultural aspic,” and men “spur each other to make reckless decisions,” she writes. In contrast, women are “making all the decisions,” women are a “maternal rescue team,” and women “do it a whole lot better.”

Then Rosin approvingly recounts the video Telephone, in which two women go on a homicidal spree targeting men, then flee in a yellow pickup truck, with one woman bragging, “We did it, Honey B.”

Most women I know express genuine compassion and concern when they learn of lagging male enrollments in higher education, shorter lifespans, and the 6 million unemployed men caught in the eddies and backwaters of the current economic recession.

But to Hanna Rosin, we live in a bipolar, zero-sum world in which everything is viewed through the prism of gender and power. For her, all that matters is women on top.

And that’s what a feminist looks like.

Duke University Does It Again: Only interested in the Feminist POV..

This article on the hypocritical action Duke University goes far to explain the attitude of feminists and their illusive and transparent denial of free speech and discussion on any topic that they (feminists) do not or will not debate or discuss for the fear of being actually accountable. Universities are like that now. They claim to be the epicentre on "Critical Thinking" as long as you keep your opinions to yourself if it does not cow-tow to feminist doctrine (Some Universities have feminism as a "philosophy, it's true) It smacks of those good old Marxism rules applied to communism (you can say whatever you like but don't say it in public)

Your Mom Goes to Duke
by Mike Adams

Lately, Duke University has been doing more withdrawing than Marion Barry without a crack pipe. Readers will remember that they had to echo Gilda Radner with a giant “Never mind” after they jumped the gun and punished several lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. Now, they’ve decided to withdraw a promise to provide space for Duke Students for Life to hold an event at the Duke Women's Center.

The planned "Discussion with a Duke Mother" event has now been aborted. This late-term abortion of free speech is entirely unjustifiable according to the stated mission of the Duke Women's Center. It is also at odds with the promises of free expression made by Duke University to all prospective students. Sadly, students at Duke are fraudulently induced to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase an education at Duke under the false promise of tolerance of diversity of thought. It now seems that Duke has taken an official position on abortion with no interest in hearing other perspectives.

As part of their "Week for Life" event held on campus during the week of March 15-19, Duke Students for Life (DSFL), which is an officially recognized student group, planned to feature a Duke student who is a mother. She was to speak about motherhood generally and the challenges of being both a mother and a Duke undergraduate.

Duke Women's Center Gender Violence Prevention Specialist Martin Liccardo was the one who informed the group that the event was canceled because they had “a problem" with it. That problem was, of course, Duke’s own ideological intolerance. Liccardo informed the group – via email the very next day - that the event was canceled "due to a conflict." He elaborated later that day telling the students that the "conflict" was ideological. He even said, "We had a very strong reaction” to the proposed events. Translation: He and the feminists had a hissy fit in response to the mere prospect of hearing a different point of view.

Liccardo went even further saying that some Duke students were “uncomfortable” with DSFL using the Women's Center. Why? Because they were "traumatized" by the ultrasound fetal development pictures that the group had displayed previously on the campus. There was no indication as to whether this trauma met or exceeded the trauma associated with water-boarding (opposed by liberals) or partial-birth abortion (approved by liberals).

The 2009-2010 version of The Duke Community Standard in Practice: A Guide for Undergraduates states that "Freedom of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas are essential for the fulfillment of the university's mission." Duke's Harassment Policy, promulgated by the Office for Institutional Equity, likewise notes that "Duke University is committed to the free and vigorous discussion of ideas and issues..." But not for those who oppose abortion.

The website of the Women's Center says its mission is to promote “a campus culture that ensures the full participation and agency of women students at Duke." The section entitled "A Feminist Framework" elaborates: “The Women's Center strives to inculcate feminist attributes and goals in every aspect of its programs and administration…We ascribe to a broadly defined, fluctuating and inclusive feminist ideology that welcomes discordant viewpoints from varied experiences.” Also, under the heading of "Strategies," the Center lists, "Offering Support - We believe supportive and inclusive communities enable individuals to do more than they can do alone; the collective action of a community can leverage resources, make positive change and give life meaning."

Given all of these beliefs, it would seem that a discussion on motherhood would be acceptable at the Duke Women's Center. But it isn’t. A discussion of motherhood is too traumatic for campus feminists. Who says women are emotionally incapable of rational debate? Feminists at Duke seem to think so.

A conversation between members of DSFL and Liccardo made it clear that the Duke Women's Center is not open or welcoming to students with pro-life views on the question of abortion rights, as Liccardo suggested in these lines quoted by DSFL: “A mothering discussion during Week for Life that to me, well, I should not even say to me, but to the students we actually encounter, had a smack of political agenda.”

It was not the presence of a political agenda that was Liccardo's problem. It was the prospect of a political opinion different than his opinion.

Atop the Duke Women’s Center's homepage is an announcement of an upcoming speech by Jessica Valenti, a well-known pro-choice speaker. Furthermore, the Duke Women's Center advertises that it advises the student organization Students for Choice, which is "committed to reproductive and gender justice, and we plan actions designed to alter anti-choice culture, while promoting understanding of pro-choice ideas to the general public and to anti-choice individuals."

Duke is a private university and is therefore not bound by the First Amendment. But they are bound, morally speaking, to honor their stated commitment to diversity – especially given the high cost of attending Duke University. Students can ill afford to throw away even a single semester learning that the promise to respect divergent views was simply a false promise meant to lure students into an environment where only ideas which produce “comfort” are given support and encouragement.

If Duke intends to officially declare itself a pro-choice university it should do so now. If it intends to recommit itself to “Freedom of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas” it should do so now. It cannot do both.