Rebuking Feminism: End Of Men Author Has Her Say Again….

There is nothing more repulsive than the bigoted rantings of a male hating feminist to really get those coals ignited is there?
Another rant from another male-hating feminist from another biased source is just like waiting for the frost to settle after a cold night. Hoping it won't happen but you know it's inevitable..

A bit like getting a cold knowing the annoyance it will inevitably bring..

Ofcourse another response from the epicenter of male hate, the New York Times. Who else would actually pay Maureen Dowd, money..

Actually, after reading the article I do wonder if this double Pulitzer prize holder is not just another apologist as the Times requires their impotent males to be ?

End Of Men Author Has Her Say Again…..

By Rebuking Feminism | Fri, Jul 23 2010, 05:20 AM

As men have been speaking out about her article The End Of Men in the Atlantic, Hanna Rosin has her say about a New York Times article by Nicholas Kristof.

She States "But in some cases, this historic gender shift does look like a war, or at least a stand-off. The major change in the working class is that women are not getting married at all, judging men to be unsuitable partners."

So here is my take on it.....


I have no problem that women are hypergamous and therefore see males that produce less than them as inadequate mates.

See: Hypergamy ( CJ..  hyper·gamy (hī pʉr′gə mē)

noun

marriage with a person of a higher social class or position)

Example 1
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-zeTFNLSI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/BvqthT1B_M...

Example 2
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-1qJp5z-I/AAAAAAAAAXY/6GsoruFAUo...

What I do have a problem with is that women expect men to contribute to their welfare and that of their offspring in this new order. What is ubiquitous to all matriarchal social structures is the lack of male paternal investment in offspring i.e. females are on their own.

So it should be expected that as women are now a separate socio-political and socio-economic class, they are now in direct competition with men and our adversary. I don't mind competing against women for resources either, I just wish women didn't do so unfairly with Affirmative Action, Title IX, devoting the Stimulus Package to themselves (See Article: No Country For Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers) and every other "women first" legislation.

I wish women were independent and self supporting. Even when women date they need men to provide to them because they don't seem to feel the need to support themselves. This holds true for divorce.

I look forward to the day when women can support themselves. Like I said I rather enjoy being single. I was born at just the right time because when I was a little younger I banged all the cougars and M.I.L.Fs and now that I'm older I bang all the young women with no obligation to them or any prospective children that could be produced what so ever (I have no right to paternal investment in my offspring by law anyway)

It needs to be made clear to women that the family and marriage is dead and that women should support themselves and their own children.

Furthermore don't be so myopic lady, males AT ALL LEVELS OF EDUCTION AND RESOURCE ACQUISITION are turning away from marriage to women as well.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SphrkC7NshI/AAAAAAAAAQE/AXY7pW84h7s/s1600-h/ScreenShot024.jpg

The situation is dually compounding. We are in diametric opposition, women have made that perfectly clear. I hate to interrupt your victory dance ladies but this is a long dark road we are heading down.

As such, you should know that historically matriarchies do not survive very long and are quite stagnant. They have always been out produced in birth rates and population wise as well as technologically.

I expect that China and Muslim cultures will overrun western female matriarchal societies in no time at all. One need only view the demographic information on Muslim culture alone to recognize the trend very clearly.

The factors in play that have lead women to dominate the workforce are not by some sort of divine providence but in fact is a result of governmental policy, globalization and outright gender secular laws and legislation against men. This is how we arrived at an unsound service sector based economy where 72% of GDP is derived from consumer consumption. An economy that has been propped up by debt I might add. So I do understand that women see our new reality as a victory but the social, political and economic consequences are only just beginning.

cOMIC rELIEF..

Teen (female) in care at time of arson and murder

Another example of the "women do no wrong" department. Unfortunately the courts, the justice system and the Police force all agree but here they are murdering as if there was nothing wrong with that..

Well it's not like it's a crime or anything..

Here is the confession of the incompetent and incapable cretins not carrying out their well paid duties of care and their pathetic excuse..

After the hearing, CYF deputy chief executive Ray Smith said Bennett, then aged 16, was under no legal orders that required her to be constantly watched.

"We and a team of experienced professionals had put every resource available into trying to help Tonya lead a normal life. We tried to give her guidance, allow her some freedoms and equip her with the skills she needed to live successfully in the community.

 "We and a team of experienced professionals had put every resource available into trying to help Tonya lead a normal life

So how incompetent are they ? 

Teen in care at time of arson and murder

A teenage girl was in state care when she crept into a former boyfriend's home, doused his clothes in absinthe and started a fire which burned his mother to death.

Police were alerted when her Child, Youth and Family-appointed supervisor heard her accomplice talking about their crimes, a court was told.

Tonia Bennett, whose name is also spelled Tonya, pleaded guilty to two counts of arson and the murder of Lynette Chapman, 49, in March this year.

Yesterday, in the High Court at Auckland, Justice Geoffrey Venning sentenced Bennett, 17, to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 11 1/2 years.

Ms Chapman's father, Bob Hunkin, said his life had been shattered forever by his daughter's murder.

"What had she done to deserve this? What was your motive? Why did you stoop to such a cowardly act to set her home on fire knowing full well she was asleep upstairs?"

The court was told that Bennett had been drinking and taking drugs at her CYF-supervised home in Pukekohe on January 20 last year.

She was angry with her ex-boyfriend, Brad Chapman, and decided to take some of his clothes to his home across the road and set them on fire.

Crown prosecutor Kevin Glubb said Brad, 18, and his two brothers, Todd, 20, and Cole, 13, were staying at their father's that night.

About 1am Bennett soaked a T-shirt in absinthe and tried to set it on fire on Ms Chapman's doorstep. When it did not fully alight, she used a spare key to enter the home.

She soaked a sweatshirt in absinthe and ignited it in the stairwell of the house.

Bennett later told police she could hear a television going and knew someone was home.

Ms Chapman was overcome by smoke and died in her second-storey bedroom.

Ms Chapman's son Brad, who introduced Bennett to his mother, looked Bennett in the eye as he read his victim impact statement in court.

"Without warning you did this cruel and evil act ... you took our mother's life.

"I keep asking myself, why? How could you do this? It still doesn't make sense to me."

His brother Todd said he would never forgive her.

"Why did you do it? You ruined everything. You have taken something that cannot be replaced. Now you have to pay the consequences."

Their younger brother Cole wiped away tears as the court heard how he missed his mum every day. "I could never explain in words just how my life has changed as a result of what you did."

A 19-year-old man who was with Bennett on the night of the fire was also charged over the death. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and arson in March and was jailed for two years.

After the hearing, CYF deputy chief executive Ray Smith said Bennett, then aged 16, was under no legal orders that required her to be constantly watched.

"We and a team of experienced professionals had put every resource available into trying to help Tonya lead a normal life. We tried to give her guidance, allow her some freedoms and equip her with the skills she needed to live successfully in the community.

"Tonya turned her back on that and, with a friend, committed a terrible crime."

Gillard: male hating feminist and "victimhood" specialist..

It is not often that I get the inside view on the feminazy process or their future aims and goals..

But here it is..

Feminists should vote for Ms Gillard so that we can pay men back for years of oppression?
Ms Gillard is a confirmed feminist as she attends our meetings occasionally. Ms Gillard has already stated that she will start up Equal Opportunity in many areas, e.g. demand that the board of directors of publicly listed companies is at least 50% female, require companies to demonstrate what they have done each year to get more women into management and to set up special female only free apprenticeships, to break the male dominance of the trades.

We have at last an opportunity to turn Australia into country of which women can be proud.

Julia Gillard: a sexist wolf in sheep’s clothing..

What a surprise that Gillard is just another member of the male-hating doctrine named Feminism..

Surprised ?

Not really..

Labor Australia has been promoting, instigating and installing Feminism from the get-go..
Those male-haters have had access to the Australian Unions, Labor Party largess for the last 40 years and still Men vote for them. How impressive is that ?

Voting for a party that is determined to drive you into serfdom without even an apology..

I am appalled..

But am I surprised ?

Our new Prime Minister is not the mainstream, centrist leader that the media want us to think she is. Julia Gillard comes with a lot of ideological baggage from her radical-left past.

For several years she has played down her past political affiliations, attempted to mainstream herself and altogether presented an agreeable image to the public.

So appealing is she that she has won plaudits from across the political spectrum, even from conservatives such as Christopher Pearson and Janet Albrechtsen.

The left-dominated media, no doubt with an eye on the forthcoming federal election, have bent over backwards to depict Julia Gillard as, if anything, a conservative. They have reminded us that she was brought to power with the help of Labor’s right-wing factions. Thus, so the story goes, she will be beholden to Labor’s right and not stray far from moderate policies.

In the past week, Julia Gillard herself has tried to connect with conservative voters, even going so far as to hint that she would be prepared to take a harder line on asylum-seekers.

This is all for public consumption before the election. What she will be like after an election victory, when she has her own mandate to govern and is no longer so beholden to Labor power-brokers, is another question altogether.

Then we will see just how much of her radicalism she has shed and whether she really is the centrist Labor figure she would like us to think she is.

Ms Gillard has long been a prominent figure of Labor’s powerful left-wing feminist caucus, Emily’s List, which was founded by two former Labor premiers, Joan Kirner (Victoria) and Carmen Lawrence (Western Australia).

The stated aim of Emily’s List is to raise money to help “progressive”, i.e., pro-abortion, women get elected to parliament.

“Emily” stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast. (News Weekly, September 1, 2007).

Joan Kirner, whom Ms Gillard has described as a mentor and friend, was one of the driving forces behind the passage of Victoria’s notorious 2008 abortion laws, which not only decriminalised abortion, but legalised late-term abortions right through nine months of pregnancy.

Ms Gillard has been unswervingly faithful to radical feminist orthodoxy. In 2000, as a member of a House of Representatives standing committee on education, she adopted a very hostile tone towards two members of the public who presented scientific data about the biological and psychological differences between the sexes and the specific educational needs of boys. (News Weekly, February 17, 2007).

Julia Gillard’s first foray into politics was in the early 1980s, when, as a university law student, she became active in the now-defunct Australian Union of Students (AUS).

The AUS was then totally dominated by the extreme left. In 1983 — the year she was elected AUS president — an AUS annual council defeated heavily a call to oppose “all acts of terrorism and political violence” (AUS Annual Council 1983: motion N28).

Furthermore, the AUS annual council declined to recognise the rights of religious clubs and societies at universities to “express their views on campus” or to have access to campus facilities (AUS Annual Council 1983: motion N34).

The AUS declared 1983 to be the International Year of the Lesbian.

It also adopted a policy on prostitution which said, in part: “Prostitution takes many forms and is not only the exchange of money for sex. … Prostitution in marriage is the transaction of sex in return for love, security and house-keeping.” (Quoted by Helen Trinca, The Australian, April 6, 1984, p.7).

This bizarre statement made headlines across Australia. Anti-AUS student activists produced posters with the slogan: “AUS says your mother is a prostitute!”

By early 1984, not only Liberals, but moderate Labor and Jewish students, were campaigning vigorously to abolish the AUS. While Julia Gillard and her left-wing colleagues were defending the union, campus after campus was seceding from it, depriving it of funds and bringing about its rapid collapse.

From 1984 until 1993, Ms Gillard became a prominent figure in the militant left Socialist Forum, which had recently been formed by disaffected members of the Communist Party of Australia and Labor’s left-wing. It sought, among other things, to remove Australia from the ANZUS alliance and to twin Melbourne with Leningrad (re-named St Petersburg since the fall of communism).

Julia Gillard has made light of her youthful radicalism, and has been painstakingly careful to present herself as a moderate.

It is worth remembering, however, what she once wrote for the Socialist Forum on how the extreme Left could advance its agenda by giving “strategic support for Labor governments”.

She said: “We need to recognise the only possibility for major social change is under a long period of Labor administration. Within that administration the Left needs to be willing to participate to shape political outcomes, recognising the need to except (sic) often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance.” (Quoted by Andrew Bolt, “Gillard’s plan for power”, Herald Sun, October 29, 2007).

Don’t say we haven’t been warned.

REFERENCES:

Helen Trinca, “New right now in vogue on the campus”, The Australian, April 6, 1984, page 7.

Babette Francis, “My unhappy memories of Julia”, News Weekly, February 17, 2007.
URL: www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007feb17_o.html

Babette Francis, “Emily’s List — who and what are they?”, News Weekly, September 1, 2007.
URL: www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007sep01_alp.html

Andrew Bolt blog, “More than just red hair”, Herald Sun (Melbourne), October 19, 2007.
URL: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_more_than_just_red_hair/

Andrew Bolt blog, “Gillard’s plan for power”, Herald Sun (Melbourne), October 29, 2007.
URL: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_plan_for_power/

Now I understand why Women's Prisons are overcrowded, they break the Law..

Ahh yes, as the crime wave increases and women are going down in more ways than one, what will happen to all those jails they failed to build ?

Feminists wanted them banned, emptied (Deputy male hater Harman, England), it was not suitable for women to be incarcerated. It upset them.. 

Feminists have been trying to convince everyone and the gubmints, they are harmless and their behaviour should always be blamed on someone else and they are really only ever the victim..

So where next, put them up in hotel rooms ?
That has already been done..

Michigan woman sentenced to nine years' jail for sex with son

• By staff writers
• July 13, 2010

Aimee Sword has been jailed for having sex with her biological son / File   Source: AP

• Mother gives up boy for adoption
• Finds him on net, has sex with him
• Jailed for between nine and 30 years

A MICHIGAN woman was today sentenced to nine years jail for having sex with her 14-year-old son.

The Detroit Free Press said Aimee Louise Sword, 36, from Waterford Township, gave the boy up for adoption when he was a few days old.
She received an update from his adoptive family, including a photograph, each year.
But when she failed to receive a new photo after the boy turned 14 in 2008 she tracked him down on a social networking site, the Oakland County Circuit Court heard.
"When she saw this boy, something just touched off in her - and it wasn't a mother-son relationship, it was a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship," her lawyer Mitchell Ribitwer said.
"Aimee's searching for a reason why this happened. She can't understand it. She's going to get some counselling."

Sword was originally charged with four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but pleaded guilty to having sex with the boy once.
Investigators told the court they believed the pair had sex once in a hotel and also at homes in Waterford.
"It's a very tragic case, and I'm concerned for the welfare of this young boy and what it may have done to his psyche and his future," Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper said.
"It's the first time I've really seen something like that between a mother-son. But I have seen it unfortunately many times between a father-daughter."
Judge Daniel O'Brien sentenced Sword to between nine and 30

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/michigan-woman-sentenced-to-nine-years-jail-for-sex-with-son/story-e6frfkyi-1225891245043#ixzz0teZhR6Ls

There's more..

# Mum dipped baby's dummy in methadone Perth Now, 8 Jun 2010

A CHILDCARE worker said she bit an eight-month-old baby on the forehead because the child "liked it rough", a court has been told.

A FEMALE Queensland high school teacher who, according to court documents, sent sexually explicit letters to a male student


Florida ex-teacher Stephanie Ragusa given 10 years in prison for sex charges
 
Woman pretends to be boy to seduce girl Daily Telegraph.

Qantas, British Airlines Note: Woman on plane offered 14-year-old boy sex, drugs...

Recently British Airlines had to compensate a Father for causing embarrassment and humiliation as their policy states that un-parented children are not to be placed next to any adult male in the fear that he may be a predator, a paedophile just waiting for the opportunity to drag the screaming child into the nearest loo and have his evil ways..

Have you ever heard of any such attacks or even any article stating anything similar..

Now we already know that women are the greatest child abusers (check your own governments stats in any country in the world that has an unbiased one) and you will see that women abuse children at twice the rate that men do. Irrelevant obviously to British Airlines, Qantas and Air New Zealand who all have the same policy..

SO what are they going to do now one must ask ??

Woman on plane offered 14-year-old boy sex, drugs
From Sun-Times Media
Link..
A Chicago area father is suing Southwest Airlines, alleging his 14-year-old son was forced to sit next to a woman who allegedly made sexual advances toward the boy and offered him illegal drugs during a flight to Florida.

The suit, filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court, claims that the flight attendants didn’t protect the boy during the July 13th, 2008 flight from Chicago to Orlando.

“My client was a 14-year-old little boy when he was aggressively, sexually pursued by an older passenger who offered him drugs, who wanted sex from him,” said Chicago attorney Jeffrey S. Deutschman.

“He went to the bathroom four times, he asked to move and he was told to take his seat,” Deutschman said.

The boy was so “shaken” he refused to take the return flight home alone, the suit states.

“His father had to fly down and bring him back,” Deutschman said.

The suit claims the airline was negligent and failed to “remove the adult female who was obviously intoxicated and/or under the influence of other drugs.”

A spokesman for Southwest Airlines declined comment.

"I do not understand how an airline today, in this post-9-11 world would permit a passenger to be abusive to a small child," Deutschman said.

The family is seeking at least $50,000 in the personal injury lawsuit.

AAP Actually named a Female Abuser, Amazing..

I know this is trivial but I thought I would just mention this as AAP actual distributed an article that contained more than the prerequisite 4 lines whenever any female crimes were released to news outlets..

Amazing..

Count them ! Also of course it's just another poke at lying feminist's claim that women are not violent apart from not being able to lie either..

Wrong on both counts..

Woman jailed for taping dog to fridge
AAP
July 10, 2010, 6:19 am

A Colorado woman convicted of taping her boyfriend's dog to a refrigerator in a jealous fit has been sentenced to 30 days in jail and three years' probation.

Abby Toll, 21, was sentenced on Friday after she was convicted of felony animal cruelty in April. She could have faced up to 18 months in prison.

Prosecutors say Toll used hair ties and packing tape to bind the snout and legs of her boyfriend's two-year-old Shiba Inu named Rex, then taped the dog upside-down to the refrigerator.

Police say Toll told them she was getting back at her boyfriend, Brian Beck, for paying more attention to the dog than to her.

Beck pleaded guilty to misdemeanor attempted animal cruelty and was given a one-year deferred sentence.
Another family has adopted the dog.

Stop helping boys, says equality watchdog..

The heading really states it all. Nothing, absolutely no effort should be utilised to reduce the negative and openly sexism the schooling system demonstrates daily.

GO to any school, University, College and you will clearly witness the total concentration of efforts solely focused on the girls. As far as the system is concerned, boys are just the unfortunate collateral damage, should they fail it is just a callous offering to the shrine of the feminist dogma of hate..

Stop helping boys, says equality watchdog
10.07.2010 | Author: Alexandra Frean | Posted in Support for Boys
Link..
School strategies to boost boys’ attainment and close the gender divide with girls are “divisive and counterproductive”, according to a report to be published this week by the Government’s equalities watchdog.

The underachievement of boys relative to girls at school has become a recurring theme of educational debate and significant resources are invested in raising boys’ achievement.

Although there has been a slight narrowing of the gender gap in this year’s exam results, girls still outperform boys across the board. In primary tests, girls beat boys by ten percentage points in English last year. At A level, 25.1 per cent of girls achieved an A grade compared with 22.8 per cent of boys.

But in a highly provocative assertion, the Equal Opportunities Commission, suggests that “playing up the difference will exacerbate such difference”. While it acknowledges that there is a gender gap in literacy, with boys underperforming in relation to girls, the 80-page document adds: “In other areas, the gap is not significant and certainly the focus on boys’ underachievement detracts from the consideration needed to be given to the larger gaps between groups defined by social class and race.”
The underachievement of boys relative to girls at school has become a recurring theme of educational debate and significant resources are invested in raising boys’ achievement.

It concludes: “The strategies recommended have been divisive and often counter-productive in terms of their emphasis on gender differences and give the impression that all that was needed was to treat the two sexes as separate, homogenous groups.”

The report, by academics at Roehampton University, blames gender stereotyping by parents and teachers for exaggerating the gender gap. Entrenched attitudes based on ill-founded assumptions about gender roles mean that perceived differences between supposedly masculine subjects (such as physics) and so-called feminine ones (such as literacy) will increase over time, it cautions. It adds that there is no hard evidence that single-sex teaching improves boys’ results. Instead, the report suggests that schools should challenge stereotypes and encourage boys and girls to diversify their skills and interests.

The report notes that social class and race have a far more significant effect on school results than gender; girls from disadvantaged backgrounds trail far behind middle-class boys from the same ethnic group. There is also a wide variation in performance across black and ethnic minority groups, with a gap of 16 percentage points between the highest and lowest achieving ethnic groups in their English results.

Jenny Watson, who chairs EOC, said that the solution to raising school standards across the board was to adopt a holistic approach that took account of gender, class and race differences together, not in isolation.

But John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was right for schools to invest resources in raising the attainment of boys, just as they had done 20 years ago to raise girls’ achievement: “While it’s right to focus on all other underachieving areas, such as class and race, the focus on boys should not be eased, especially at a time when the gender gap is starting to narrow at GCSE and A level.”

Nick Gibb, the Tory schools spokesman, blamed 40 years of “progressive” teaching methods for the underachievement of boys, disadvantaged children and certain ethnic groups.

Lindsay Lohan: Sentenced 90 Days, maybe do 23 Days..

Since when is there overcrowding in the Women's prisons, they hardly ever receive a confinement order. Most are let off for any reason..

Got a feeling it is maybe just another one of those "victimhood" outcomes ?

Lindsay Lohan sentenced to 90 days' jail for probation violations

LINDSAY Lohan may only serve only a quarter of her prison sentence after a judge jailed her for 90 days for violating terms of her probation of her 2007 drug and alcohol case.

Lohan was breaching the court-appointed order by failing to attend enough alcohol education classes.

But a spokesman for the county sheriff in Beverly Hills has told TMZ that generally a female inmate in Lohan's position only serves a quarter of their sentence, meaning the actress could spend less than 23 days in prison.
Overcrowding in US jails, and a good-behaviour discount, could see her sentence reduced to 23 days.
Judge Marsha Revel said that Lohan had lied about her drug and alcohol use several times over the past few years.
"It's like somebody who cheats doesn't think it's cheating unless they get caught," Judge Revel said.
The 24-year-old starlet must surrender herself on July 20.
Ahead of the judge's ruling in a Beverly Hills courthouse, Lohan, 24, made a statement saying she was compliant with the program "as far as I knew".
"When I asked to leave town they gave me permission to leave town," Lohan said of Right On Programs Inc, the alcohol education program she was ordered to attend.
"I wasn't expecting any special treatment aside from the understanding that I have to provide for myself, I have to work, and my schedule is unfortunately very different."
The Mean Girls star had been ordered to attend alcohol education classes every week over a 27-week period but fell short.
Lohan broke down in tears, telling Judge Revel, "I wanted to make sure that I would come back here making you happy".
"It's just been such a long haul, and I don't want you to think that I don't respect you and your terms," the actress said.
Earlier, Lohan shook her head, muttered under her breath and glared at prosecutor Danette Meyers as she argued in her closing statement that Lohan's skipping of seven classes was a violation of her parole.
Cheryl Marshall, the co-owner of Right On Programs, said in a letter that Lohan's excuses for missing the classes were "endless" and "disrespectful". However, in testimony today, Ms Marshall said she did not notify the court when Lohan skipped her scheduled meetings.
Ms Meyers also declared that she believed Lohan was not benefiting from the alcohol education classes, citing a June 7 incident in which the actress' court-ordered alcohol-monitoring bracelet uploaded a report showing evidence of alcohol.

Is Main Stream Media Finally unable To Deny The Female Crime Wave ?

Oh Look..

Is Main Stream Media finally playing ball after years of hiding female crime ?

I wonder..

Check out the two variations..


Link.. 

Baby shot dead, allegedly by his mother, near Rockhampton

UPDATE 4.20pm: POLICE have found a gun in the wreckage of a vehicle driven by a Queensland mother suspected of killing her baby boy.

Neighbours have told of desperate cries for help after the baby boy was found shot and bleeding on the floor of his home in central Queensland.

The eight-month-old was found at his Gracemere home, near Rockhampton, after a man, who'd also been shot, staggered to a neighbouring property seeking help at about 7.50pm yesterday.

The 22-year-old mother of the baby died in a single-car crash just minutes after the shooting, 10km from the scene on Upper Dawson Rd

And this one..
Link..

Mum dead after shooting baby and partner
A BABY boy, just eight months old, has been shot dead by his mother who also shot her ex partner last night.

Neighbours have told of hearing a gunshot and screams for help as they found the baby boy fatally shot and bleeding in a home in central Queensland.

The baby was found at his Gracemere home, near Rockhampton, after a man who had also been shot staggered to a neighbouring property for help.

Police are investigating whether Tuesday night's shootings are linked to a subsequent car crash that killed a 22-year-old woman.

The woman died after her vehicle hit a tree, 10km from the scene of the shootings.

The baby and the man, 36, were taken to Rockhampton Base Hospital, but the boy was pronounced dead on arrival.

The man has undergone surgery for a gunshot wound to the stomach and remains in a critical condition

Could it be because they have some conscience or is it because they can no longer hide as they have always done ?..

There is more to Feminism than just artificial equality..

I wish I was not the continual forecaster of bad news, I wish that I could post something positive, I wish I did not have to spend the last 15 years fighting this, is it worth it when it appears that no-one basically gives a rats rear end including politicians and governments in general..

But it continues..

Again a brilliant observation from Paul Elam once again instilling a little common sense and intellectual banter into the bleeding obvious, obvious because we all know we have all been thoroughly screwed..

 The problems relate to feminist ideology, and you will read a lot about that here. But most of that is just addressing a symptom of the problem. The core of it is what I call Marxist Consumerism. It is a term that would ostensibly appear to be an oxymoron, but is actually a perfect description of where society is heading. Our cultural evolution is tracking toward a dumbed down population of brainwashed consumer units who are wholly owned and controlled by a State that is now a government/corporate complex. And it rules, largely by a system of Governance Feminism. Let me explain from the start:

Still believe that feminism is about equality or does it have another agenda, one that big that they are not willing to even discuss it for the fear of the populaces finding out about it and then foregoing their funds...

We already know about this agenda..

By destroying marriage, creating a chasm between men and women, alienating fathers from children, dissolving parental authority, indeed dissolving the family itself, the barriers to state control of everyone are removed. Think of any social ill inflicted by feminism, and then think about those ills in terms of an agenda for autocratic control of the entire population. You will find they are almost indistinguishable; that one serves the other in every way.

but do we really comprehend this part of their agenda, it does get a lot more sinister..

Do you really think all this is just because feminists are just getting their way about things?

If you really think it is that simple, please read and ponder on the implications of this passage from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris."We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Obviously explains why men are thrown into prison at the whim of a female under false allegations and any other fantasy that feminists can introduce..

In the west we have been blinded to the true nature of all this massive social change with unbridled, shallow consumerism, political correctness and the intentional erosion of our education system. Children, from grade school to high school are dissuaded from critical thinking and pressured into conformity by a Marxist Feminist pedagogy. It is the perfect set up to participate in a system of higher education that is geared primarily for indoctrination. And it is no coincidence that the indoctrination so rampant in the modern halls of western academe is also an artifact of dominant feminist ideology. The average college graduate today, especially in the arts and humanities, leaves school convinced that men are inherently bad and that women are oppressed, despite the incontrovertible evidence that neither is so.

Any voice of opposition to this has been all but eliminated. By putting a dress and lipstick on Marxism, the social engineers furthering that agenda were able to rely on chivalry and other aspects of traditional masculinity for protection. It is mind blowing. They actually used the people being the most viciously attacked to protect the very people who were attacking them. It is, in all fairness, fucking ingenious.

Link..

Last but not least is this..

The sad reality is that women have become the weapon of choice that government is using to dominate and control the lives of men; to steal their property and income; to force them, in ever increasing numbers, to surrender their assets and live in bare subsistence, and to incarcerate or kill them if they don't comply.

And the only appropriate response, for the precious few who can do it, is the development of an unorganized sub culture of men that are focused on surviving, and as much as possible, flourishing in this corrupt system. And on sharing that information with other men.

To do that requires men to make job one of a radically different view of women.

It will be a small culture of men who can do it, as most men simply cannot think outside the bounds of their own sexual programming. But .25 percent of a billion is a pretty respectable number.

Whatever size the community of men takes, our lifeline, for as long as we have it, is the internet. It is the only way most of us will ever make contact with each other.

NOMAS, Michael Kimmel: Feminist's Fake Men's "Concern" Site..

NOMAS has always been a concern for me. A feminist organisation masquerading as a pretend Men's Site does tend to project a totally incorrect or even rabid interpretation on what men are and all the associated issues pertaining to men generally.

My first entry is dated 29 October 2009 (Link) even back then my hackles were raised. I really could not comprehend how feminised/socialist men would deliberately turn against their own to ensure their downfall and their only justification is the introduction of the male-hating feminist doctrine which they profess on their site..

More has come to light since my last entry on the 3 July 2010. Paul Elam's expose of that site is comprehensive and deserves a read..

Michael Kimbell Defends Nomas.. From the Voice For Men Site. Needless to say , how can anyone defend a hate movement but this obviously does not deter Kimmel from attempting to do so but fails miserably.The usual blathering is there for all to see as irrelevance and hegemony rears it's head..

NOMAS is a unique organization about masculinity because it rests on four co-equal principles, just as a table rests on four legs. (1) We are pro-feminist, which means we believe in gender equality. (2) We are gay-affrmative, which means we suppor the rights of all men to live lives of dignity and love, free of all discrimination, regardless of their sexuality. (3) We are anti-racist, which means that, again, we support the rights of all men to live lives of integrity and love, free of all discrimination, regardless of their race. (4)And we believe in “enhancing men’s lives” by which we mean that we want to enable all men to live lives of integrity and happiness.

Paul Elam's response to this nonsense..

In it, I expressed concerns over what appears to be positions and activities by NOMAS that are in diametric opposition to their stated goal of “enhancing men’s lives,” namely the absence of any attention to the many legitimate struggles faced collectively by men and boys in modern culture. I also expressed concern over their pervasive negative stereotyping of men as violent, power obsessed anathemas to civilized society.

Link to Paul's Article..,

After reading Pauls excellent denunciation of that hypercritical and nonsensical site and Kimells irrelevant, hypocritical book, have a look as this (link)..

Peter Allemano Jr does an excellent review, just brilliant..

A MASTERPIECE: This is a "must read," but for reasons the publisher did not intend, December 3, 2009 By Peter Allemano Jr
Link..
This review is from: Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (Hardcover)
Michael Kimmel's GUYLAND is a masterpiece -- of manipulation and deceit.

Ostensibly a concerned but kindly portrait of young American males, the book is actually a scathing, unforgiving indictment. Indeed, an in-depth analysis of how adroitly Kimmel has crafted his monumental insult of young American males and impugned their dignity -- while patting himself on the back for being simultaneously insightful and avuncular -- is the stuff of a doctor's thesis with potential to run for more pages than the book itself. This review constitutes but a brief glance at a few of the salient points that such a thesis would highlight.

False Rape Accuser Gail Mangum : holds press conference to defend herself..

Not only did this female lie in court and lie to everyone else who wanted to listen, never sentenced for filing a false claim but the 88 academics from the sexist Duke University never apologised either. Their blatant anti-male attitude stands to this day.

So now we have the false accuser getting some of the justice it deserved a few years back and that failed to surface. Now we have her trying to pre-empt the justice system (If we can call it that now) trying to influence that outcome as she considers herself to be a "victim". We can thank feminism for all of this lunacy and the screwed up judicial system that appears incapable of holding any woman accountable regardless of her crime..

Duke lacrosse accuser holds press conference to defend herself
By Stanley B. Chambers Jr. - Staff writer

DURHAM -- Crystal Gail Mangum believes the system is out to get her.

With a motion bracelet strapped to her right ankle, Mangum, 31, held a press conference in front of a Savannah Avenue home this morning - where she is on house arrest - to defend herself against a February domestic violence arrest.

Mangum was arrested at her Lincoln Street home after police alleged that during an argument with her ex-boyfriend, she set the apartment on fire and tried to kill her now ex-boyfriend while her three young children and two Durham police officers were in the home.

“I don’t feel like I’m going to get the justice that I deserve through the judicial system and I feel this my only and last means to reach out to the public and let them know that I did not set a fire that night,” she said while sitting in front of Savannah Avenue residence, unable to even walk to the driveway. “To let the public know that I am being unfairly treated due to preconceived notions that people have about me concerning another case. I feel like enough is enough.”

That case happens to be the Duke Lacrosse case, where Mangum accused three Duke University lacrosse players of sexual assault during a party in March 2006. State Attorney General Roy Cooper cleared the three men in 2007. Mangum never faced any charges in the case, which gained international headlines and led to the resignation of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong after the State Bar charged him with 20 ethics violations.

Mangum never mentioned the case by name during this morning’s conference but believes it has led to the multiple charges from the February incident, including arson, child endangerment and attempted murder. She pleaded for her ex-boyfriend, who she said abused her, to come forward and tell the truth about what happened.

Mangum said that her ex-boyfriend, after taking her to the emergency room for a spinal tap, started hitting her and accusing her of cheating after she asked him to leave the residence. Mangum said she and her three children ran into a bedroom for safety. Mangum stated that she doesn’t know who set the home on fire but that her ex-boyfriend was the only other person in the home.

“I can’t explain to you why I keep going through issues with domestic violence,” she said, referring to past relationships. “Maybe it’s mistakes. Maybe I tell men too much about my past and they try to take that for granted. Maybe domestic violence is more prevalent than people think.”

Mangum’s next court date is Friday.

Articles On Men..

Here are some more interesting topics from the Articles On Men Site..

German Child Custody laws set for Overhaul to Remove Discrimination

In the wake of a European court ruling that German child custody laws discriminated against single fathers, the government is preparing an overhaul. The Local examines the painful reality facing parents when they split up.

Domestic violence study reveals gender stereotypes

Most cases of domestic violence are initiated by men, but studies show females can be physically violent as well.

Ongoing ASU research may create more understanding of female perpetrators of “intimate partner violence” and encourage services for both the perpetrators and male victims.

Men harassed by women want Centre’s help
20.06.2010 | Author: Dahlia Boyd

India: In an attempt to turn the tide of gender equality towards both men and women, various pro-men organisations have asked the Centre to form a National Commission for Men.

In a joint press conference of the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) and All India Mother-in-law Protection Forum (AIMPF) on Friday, members vouched for a commission for men to address their issues.

Lesley Laing: Let's Fabricate and Produce Feminist Version about DV..

Gotta give feminists credit for their on going and irrepressible effort at lying, dis-information and exaggeration. They have won so many battles that way and why stop that misandry and anti-male behavior, it's earned them millions if not billions and got them umbilically attached to the UN without any problems at all..

Laign of course is just another feminist and whatever that promotes is inevitable as well as unenviable.

Link to Laign page at that sexist University of Sydney.. 

And ofcourse a link to that report as well..

And link to the article from "Articles About Men"..

This is akin to that study feminists did at that emergency centre in Boston all those years ago where they decided to proclaim that "1 in 4" women will be raped, later changing it to " 1 in 4 in their lifetime" as they faced scrutiny and they knew that comment would just not stand the light of day and changed to something else even more meaningless but it served it's purpose..

“No the way to conduct research”! – fathers slam discredited report
04.07.2010 | Author: admin | Posted in False Allegations

Response to a discredited report

The ‘No Way To Live Report’ has been conducted by an anti-fatherhood lobbyist based on interviews with only 22 women, cherry-picked from a larger sample, who curiously never alleged domestic violence until prompted to by this researcher. Serious questions have arisen that this has been an exercise in junk science, with none of the information collected either checked, verified or substantiated in any way. This report has no credibility as a reflection of the state of the 2006 family law reforms, and reads more like a sham than science, clearly manipulating data to arrive to a pre-determined conclusion.

Perhaps Dr Laing’s “No way to Live Report” should be retitled “No the way to conduct research”!

One would have to question the validity of research findings with a sample size of only 22 subjects. I’d also be interested to know how Dr. Laing select her sample of subjects.

Anti-fatherood lobbyist Lesley Laing

Another issue did Dr. Laing verify the a subjects claims by reviewing their evidence presented in their respective Family Law Court proceedings? I guess that would be pointless because her subjects didn’t raise domestic violence concerns as an issue for consideration in their respective matters. Is there any evidence corroborating the claims of Dr. Laing subjects? Or is the ‘study’ based on subjective rants from jilted parents who didn’t get their way or simply resent their former partners?

Regardless, how does the failure of Dr. Laing subjects to raise domestic violence concerns reflect poorly on the Family Court or the Family Law Act? Id argue it doesnt. Failure by her subjects not to raise domestic violence concerns with the Court is their responsibility – and to a lesser extent – their lawyers.

At the end of the day – lawyers act upon instructions from their clients. If a parent fails to disclosure information to the Court with respect matters effecting the welfare of a child (including domestic violence) – and I note parties ARE REQUIRED to disclosure all information relevant to the welfare of a child – that parent is responsible for putting their child at risk of harm through non-disclosure. Not the Court. Not the ‘friendly parent’ element of the Act. The parent.

In Family Law child-related proceedings – one of the very first questions a Judge or Magistrate will ask is – “Are there any domestic violence orders or restraining orders in place with respect the parties or their children?”.

Question 13, Part B of the Family Court’s compulsory Parenting Questionnaire seeks the following information:

Have you or any person with whom the child resides or has contact:
- been involved in child welfare proceedings
- been found to have breached orders
- committed an offence under the Family Law Act? If so, please provide details.
Dr. Laing has provided some highly questionable data used by a lobby group to validate a piece of propaganda for political purposes.

Question 14, Part B the Parenting Questionnaire asks the following:

Are there any current Family Violence Orders in the State or Territory in which you are currently residing or any other State or Territory, or have there been any in the past which affect you or any of the children in this case? If so, please provide details.

Question 17 Part B of the Part B the Parenting Questionnaire asks the following:

Do you have any other concerns about your safety or the childrens safety other than while attending court? If yes, what are those concerns?

On the front cover of the Parenting Questionnaire, parents are reminded of their obligation to make frank and full disclosures as follows:

You have a duty to the Court and each other party under Rule 13.01 of the Family Law Rules to give full and frank disclosure of all information relevant to the case in a timely manner.

Furthermore, immediately below questionnaire offers the following:

Some tips for completing this Questionnaire
1. DO raise any concerns you may have about your own or your childrens safety with the judge at the earliest possible moment

Presumably, all of Dr Laing’s 22 subjects failed to disclosure domestic violence concerns to the Family Court in their respective questionnaires. Furthermore, Dr. Laings subjects withheld information for the Court in violation of Rule 13.01. And the question begs, How can the Family Court or the Act be held accountable for the failure of Dr. Laings subjects to make full and frank disclosure to the Court in their respective Parenting Questionnaires pursuant of Rule 13.01?

Did any of Dr. Laing’s 22 subjects initiate proceedings in a Local or Magistrates court to obtain restraining orders in relation to domestic violence? If any did, presumably this information was withheld from the Family Court. However, its more likely that there were no restraining orders in place as this would have been difficult to conceal this information from the Family Court.

On the surface it would appear that Dr Laing’s subjects failed to take any meaningful action with respect their alleged domestic violence concerns what-so-ever.

The absence of family violence restraining orders, or Local and Magistrates Court proceedings, brings into disrepute the veracity and seriousness of the domestic violence claims advanced by Dr Laing’s 22 subjects.

I question the veracity of domestic violence concerns raise by Dr Laing’s subjects.

Over the course of the last 4 years, I have attended 100 or more Family Court matters at the Sydney registry. I represented myself in Family Court matters involving abuse allegations. Im not a lawyer. My observations of the Family Court, Judges and Magistrates are that they generally deal with matters involving domestic violence allegations effectively and appropriately.

A court being a court, arrives at a final determination after testing the evidence presented to the court. Family Courts can only deal with evidence presented to it. If a party fails to disclosure information or indeed withhold information – how can the Family Court, the Family Law Act, Judges or Magistrates be held responsible for this? The essence of Dr. Laings findings are illogic and total nonsense!

Dr. Laing didn’t conduct a study of any meaning or relevance.

Dr. Laing has provided some highly questionable data used by a lobby group to validate a piece of propaganda for political purposes. These types of attacks on the Family Court and the Act are unhelpful, annoying and do not advance in any meaningful way the welfare or interests of children in relation to domestic violence.

Dr. Laings research undermines the interests of children by further advancing the myth that parents do not have recourse in Family Law to address domestic violence risks and puts children at risk of harm.

This type of ill conceived research – and I apply the term ‘research’ rather generously Dr. Laings study – brings into disrepute the quality of research projects undertaken by the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Education & Social Work.

This study merely demonstrates Dr. Laings ”unsophisticated” understanding of her subject matter and deficiencies in her capacity to produce meaningful research.

They must be giving PhDs away these days because this is not the standard of research one could reasonably expect from a senior lecturer at a prestigious Australian university.

Perhaps Dr Laing should have popped over to the Law Faculty to sense check her research before publishing this stuff.

Dr. Laing needs to “acknowledge and take responsibility for the harm” caused to children by propagating and advancing the myth – fuelling the misconception – that parents cant express concerns for the welfare of their children in the Family Court.

And yet another article published by Adele Horin with any critical thought or evaluation applied.

5 yr olds & the truth: Study into false sexual abuse stories..

How disturbing is this article and how many men are now rotting in prisons due to some lawyers, psychologists, judges or some well meaning child welfare worker's effort to ensure the outcome was the outcome they wanted even though the parents involved were innocent !

How many articles have you read over the last 5 years that have been used by feminists to malign and denigrate Fathers for something they have obviously not done as children were coerced into stating what has now been proven to be untrue..

All 30 had been in the care of one man. The seven told of incidents of genital touching, the man putting his hands under their upper clothing, of him touching their bottoms, and of him making them touch his.

The revelations were a particularly unpleasant surprise because the team assessing the children knew there had been no sexual abuse.

This result is shocking but just another example of the hysteria generated in the "best interest of the child" where even now parents are too frightened to allow their children to walk or go anywhere just in case one of those billions of pedophiles surfaces from the nearest bush..

Again and again feminists have increased the hysteria on that issues where obviously none existed..

5 yr olds & the truth – study into false sexual abuse stories
04.07.2010 | Author: Alan Samson | Posted in False Allegations

GROUND-BREAKING New Zealand research indicating that many children fabricate stories of sexual abuse when questioned by adults is currently before an international forum in Paris.

The Law Society-funded research, by mainstream Hamilton psychologist Jane Rawls, received publicity when she presented her findings to the society’s conference in Dunedin.

She told how a team of lawyers, police and psychologists got an unpleasant surprise when they assessed a study group of 30 five-year-olds: seven of them reported they had been sexually abused.
But, in spite of this, a near-absolute trust in the child persists among many abuse workers, and men in particular still get convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of children.

All 30 had been in the care of one man. The seven told of incidents of genital touching, the man putting his hands under their upper clothing, of him touching their bottoms, and of him making them touch his.

The revelations were a particularly unpleasant surprise because the team assessing the children knew there had been no sexual abuse. The children had invented every supposed incident. Every moment the man — a research assistant — had spent with the children had been videoed.

The children had been taking part in what was intended as a routine study into the nature of children’s disclosures under questioning.

Dr Rawls completed her masters degree in psychology and post-graduate diploma in clinical psychology at Waikato University, and a doctorate in developmental and child psychology (in the area of children’s testimony) at the University of Kansas in the United States. She has a private practice as a child and clinical psychologist in Hamilton, and serves as a specialist report writer for the Family Court and consulting expert witness in the High Court.

Dr Rawls says she was amazed at what the study showed.

And the results could easily have been worse. Depending on the way questions were asked, the children’s total accuracy of recall about a variety of situations at their first set of interviews ranged from 13 per cent to nil.

For some of the children, these errors seemed relatively harmless, including “climbing ladders, going to other rooms, having other children present, wearing elaborate costumes and tickling with feathers”.

What was especially frightening was that errors appeared to evolve over time with repeated interviews and, for many, were first reported when diagrams of body parts were used.

The belief that children don’t lie — or get it wrong — when making allegations of sexual abuse has been shaken internationally by several much-publicised examples of wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

false abuse allegations

But, in spite of this, a near-absolute trust in the child persists among many abuse workers, and men in particular still get convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of children.

This is despite growing calls for evidential confirmation to be mandatory before claims are believed.

The trust-the-child theory holds that children don’t lie to get someone into trouble, only to get out of trouble. And that on the rare occasions they do make false allegations, the real truth will come out during interviewing procedures.

The research by Dr Rawls, finding that responses to questions are often wrong and that many invent stories of inappropriate touching, has further thrown in doubt the wisdom of acting on child claims without corroborative evidence.

The research, reported at this year’s Law Society conference and the subject of seminars in Hamilton and Auckland, has been criticised by the Children and Young Persons’ Service (CYPS) for its methodology and lack of “rigour”.

But Dr Rawls, in Europe on the eve of presenting her research to a Nato conference in Paris, insists that her methodology was well thought through. She says she is willing to have her work critically evaluated “by those with a thorough understanding and experience in research methodologies”. Dr Rawls points out she was not trying to replicate or assess CYPS procedures: the research results, she says, were “an unhappy surprise” to herself and her research assistants.

Interview questions were either closed (“Did he touch you on the . . .”), open (“What happened?”) or a mixture of the two forms of questions. The ones who got it most wrong, the study found, were the children who were asked closed questions.

The children participated in a series of four videotaped and observed sessions in which a male adult — a research assistant called Trevor — played a dressing-up game with the child.

The sessions involved small amounts of “appropriate” touching when items such as hats and jewellery were put on or taken off each other, and sometimes required the child to keep secret an additional minor (benign) event.

A body parts’ diagram, similar to those used in evidential interviews, was introduced into the second interview as a prop to make the children’s reporting easier for them.

When children were interviewed for the first time about the initial dress-up session, open questions resulted in an average accuracy of 32 per cent correct, compared with the mixed questions (20 per cent) and closed questions (9 per cent).

Questions about the last dress-up produced accuracy levels for open questions of 13 per cent, mixed 4 per cent, and closed 0 per cent.

According to Dr Rawls, the results with closed questions were of particular concern because errors “seemed to evolve” over time with repeated interviews.

And, for many, they were first reported when body parts’ diagrams were used in the second interviews.

Nearly one-quarter of the total sample (24 per cent) reported inappropriate adult-child touching, though there had been none. Three reported genital touching, two of these also referring to touching under their upper clothes. Two more children reported that the adult either touched their bottom or they touched the adult’s bottom, while two others reported mutual touching under clothing.

The accuracy of children’s diagram markings to illustrate touching was also found to be substantially inaccurate.

When “secrets” were programmed for each child, none volunteered to tell them.

But when specifically asked about them, 23 per cent always declined to “disclose”, 27 per cent sometimes described them accurately and sometimes didn’t “disclose”, 20 per cent consistently provided accurate accounts, 10 per cent gave some true and some false accounts, and 3 per cent, either no account or a false one.

Seventeen per cent described fictional unprogrammed events that included inappropriate touching and said they were the “secrets”.

Dr Rawls also found that only 40 per cent of the five-year-old sample could, after varying degrees of exposure to examples, provide an acceptable definition of truth, lies and promises.

Mary Dawson, managing psychologist at South Auckland’s CYPS specialist services, has responded by saying that artificial interviewing departs from accepted interviewing procedures.

Questioning children about a non-threatening series of “dressing-up games”, she said, was very different from interviewing for clarification of statements already made which had been assessed as strongly indicating the possibility of abuse.

The purpose of the evidential interview, she said, was to clarify abuse details: generalisation from experimental findings involving recall of non-threatening events “cannot be safely applied to children’s recall of traumatic events”.

The responses Dr Rawls gleaned from the use of body diagrams illustrated “the danger of a non-trained interviewer failing to follow proper guidelines”, Dr Dawson said. It was “of grave concern” that Dr Rawls did not specify exactly what type of questions or their exact wording were used in her research.

Of further concern, she said, was that Dr Rawls did not appear to have consulted expert knowledge of the service’s evidential interviewers when setting up her research.

Nor had she checked with the service whether any of the child subjects had been known for any previous concerns relating to the possibility of sexual-abuse victimisation.

Speaking from Athens, Dr Rawls defended her research credentials. Every effort had been made to meet obvious ethical requirements, she said.

“I have been, and continue to be, interested in the effects of interview questioning on the accuracy of children’s answers, regardless of the subject or focus of the interview, and have been trained in interviewing as a clinical psychologist, have researched in this area since 1990, and have evaluated videotaped evidential interviews as part of my work.

“The Family and High Courts in New Zealand have accepted this expertise even though I have not attended any of the evidential training workshops run by CYPS.

“This research did not aim to assess evidential interviewing procedures. If, however, my research is of some use to them then that would be a welcome and positive outcome, especially as there has been no other research that I know of that has produced data on the effects of body parts’ diagrams on children’s reports.”

Dr Rawls also questioned why Dr Dawson, who had attended one of her seminars, had not raised her concerns earlier.

“My intention is not to work against the efforts of CYPS interviewers because I, like them, am concerned about child welfare. I fear that message is getting lost.”

Object to Prostitot Culture? You’re Probably a Racist Prude..

This article reminded of the "Condoms for Six year olds" and it's probably a good indication as to where it's all headed if we do nothing..

Regardless on how offensive or how unacceptable this may be they will try it on and at the end it's all about money with little regards how if affects those kids in the longterm. It is an absolute disgrace. Guess that makes me a racist prude as well..

Object to Prostitot Culture? You’re Probably a Racist Prude

2010 June 21 by Jenn Q. PublicLINK..

Decked out in flashy burlesque costumes, five dancers mouth sexually suggestive lyrics as they writhe and shimmy across the stage. The audience hoots and hollers as they gyrate to Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It).”

If you’ve seen the viral video then you already know: these YouTube sensations are just eight and nine years old.

The sight of a talented youth troupe thrusting their hips in shiny red hot pants prompted many commentators to condemn the parents and teachers involved. But not everyone was on board. In a Salon column last week, an infuriated Ada Calhoun ripped into critics for their “hysteria” and “moral panic” over the YouTube clip. And the icing on her lily white cake of predictability? If you criticize the video, you’re a racist.

But let’s start with Calhoun’s first beef with those of us who find the video disturbing. “Can we stop yelling at young women to put their clothes back on?” she asks.

I have been waiting for Eve Ensler to pen a new version, maybe an updated version of "Vagina Monologue for Kids", you know where kids of both sexes could run around on stage screaming c*nt, V*gina and wave their newly designed, inflated child sized condoms around like balloons..
She may even believe that it could be a hit. It was for their Moms apparently..

Marc Rudov Meets Susan Shapiro-Barash: Feminist/Female Apologist and Gynocracy Supporter..

Marc Rudov has been on the Air since 1st of April 2010 on the CBS Network promoting his specialty, No Nonsense..

His guest is:

Susan Shapiro Barash, Author
Toxic Friends: The Antidote for Women
Stuck in Complicated Friendships

Ended up being somewhat toxic herself as a supporter of the Gynocracy and well as believing the feminist's "Wage Gap" nonsense..

He puts her right on both occasions. Well worth a listen.... the best part is in the second hour..

Marc Rudov Radio..

NOMAS: Don't interrupt women when they speak..

Now I can remember doing an article on these gormless,feminised wimps before but I once again stumbled on their nonsensical site accidentally and found this gem..

NOMAS (The National Organisation of Men Against Sexism) is ofcourse another one of feminists fronts pretending to be a legitimate Mens Rights Site", instead it is one those sites that spread that hate movement's mantra that is feminist by their own admittance. Ofcourse there will be no link to that site for obvious reasons. Now the article below, straight from the male-haters wish list explains how one must and will proceed to communicate with the opposite sex not that includes something equal like "how women should address men", that would be considered too radical and be considered to be equal and feminists are definitely not taken that path, are you crazy !

What amazed me was the first part of this statement..

Don't interrupt women when they speak

They say it like there are options. It reminds me of the lecture one gets when facing the Commandant at one of those places when the first instruction was " You will do as you are told". Meanwhile organisation like Nomas suck the government coffers dry and your tax dollars are being used to marginalize and destroy men's rights under a blanket of obvious lies pretending that they are helping men. Their advice to Fathers is "Be warned – avoid father’s rights groups like the plague", so how is that helping Fathers one may ask ?...

... helping themselves more like it..

This is probably a better guide as to what to do just to get at those male-haters..

12 Steps Men Can Take to End Sexism

1. Don't interrupt women when they speak, control their space, or assume they need your protection. Focus on the effect of your actions, rather than on the intent.

2. Support women's leadership and help elect progressive women to political office.

3. Support women's equality in education, sports, and in the workplace.

4. Don't condone, laugh at, or tell sexist (racist or homophobic) jokes or stories.

5. Don't make fun of or invalidate anyone's emotional reactions.

6. Listen, believe, and be accountable to women and their stories. When confronted on your own sexism (racism, homohobia, etc.) listen instead of getting defensive.

7. Tell the women and men in your life that you love them, out loud.

8. Be the kind of father you always wanted to have.

9. Be the kind of partner you would want your children's partner to be.

10. Share responsibility for birth control and reproductive health and safety.

11. Speak up when you see violence or abuse directed at women or children, in real life, or in the media. Donate to a local rape crisis, sexual assault, and domestic violence program.

12. Oppose pornography and the sex industry

Schlafly: Restraining Orders..

This would have the number one issue that I have the greatest contention with to such a degree that I volunteered to be site admin for the Group taking the Tasmanian Government to court for their illegal "Safe at Home" feminist induced legislation that has introduced 16,000 restraining order in a population of just 500,000 people in that state..
Jury Against Illegal Laws..

The restraining order introduced by feminists was introduced to ensure that Fathers would carry the brunt of it's illegality and mothers would be encouraged to screw the Father for every single cent he has apart from automatically having him thrown in jail at a whim..

Read the site above for further information..

So it is understandable that feminists want to ensure that that law remains as it benefits women and persecutes men..

Phyllis Schlafly on the ‘Gamesmanship’ of Restraining Orders
Thursday, July 1, 2010




Family court judges issue restraining orders virtually for the asking, without any evidence of actual domestic violence or even threat of violence. The Illinois Bar Journal (June 2005) explained how women use court-issued restraining orders as a tool for the mother to get sole child custody and to bar the father from visitation. In big type, the Journal proclaimed: “Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

The “game” is that mothers can assert falsehoods or trivial complaints against the father, in order to get a restraining order based on the presumption that men are naturally abusers of women. Restraining orders are in reality a tactical legal maneuver familiar to all family court attorneys as a way to obtain an order of contempt and unfairly increase the leverage of one side (typically the woman) in bargaining with the other (typically the man).

The Fourth Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to be “secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects.” But each year, restraining orders are issued against at least two million men without proof or even evidence, forcing innocent men out of their homes. In 33 states, fathers can be thrown in jail for even a technical violation of a restraining order, such as sending a child a birthday card or telephoning a child on an unapproved day.

Family courts have avoided facing up to whether the restraining orders issued against fathers are constitutional. Accused criminals enjoy a long list of constitutional rights, but feminists have persuaded judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminal husbands and fathers, and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations. Most states do not require proof by a clear and convincing standard of evidence. Even though these restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him ‘See ya’ around.’” People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order.

Too often, the restraining order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute. Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to regain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence (which doesn’t have to be physical or proven) did not involve the children at all.

Probably two million restraining orders are issued each year in domestic relationships. These restraining orders almost certainly increase violence and harm, because studies show that the safest place for adults and children is in a home with two parents, rather than one that is broken by a restraining order. In 1999 there were 58,200 abductions of children by non-family members, a crime typically the direct result of inadequate adult supervision. When an adult is ordered out of a home based on some allegation of domestic violence, the children in that home are no longer supervised, and victimization by crime (and accidents) necessarily increases.

There is no evidence that the millions of restraining orders issued annually each year increase the overall safety of the applicants or their children, and most likely the opposite is true.

It is false to claim that because domestic violence often occurs behind closed doors, it is somehow difficult to prove. In fact, real domestic violence is easier to prove than most crimes. Medical record and forensic evidence is clear and convincing for real domestic violence, and the time and place of the crime are easy to determine, and a restraining order may be appropriate.

What is difficult is to disprove false allegations of non-serious domestic violence, so a higher standard of proof is essential to sift fact from fiction.

It seems elementary that husband and fathers who are accused of crimes by their wives or girl friends should have the same constitutional rights accorded to any criminal, but they do not in family courts. They are routinely denied equal treatment under law, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to confront accusers, and a court-appointed lawyer when they can’t afford to hire an attorney.

It’s time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers and repudiate the feminist agenda that treats men as guilty unless proven innocent.

VAWA will be coming up for reauthorization soon, and it must be reformed. Reforming the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is today’s basic civil rights issue. Domestic violence must be redefined to mean violence. State laws must be changed to repeal mandatory arrest laws and no-drop prosecution laws. We must eliminate the incentives for false accusations of domestic violence, which include using restraining orders as the “gamesmanship” for divorce, child custody, money, or ownership of the family home.

Persons accused of domestic violence, man or woman, are entitled to have fundamental constitutional rights, including due process and presumption of innocence until proven guilty by clear and convincing evidence in court.

Source: http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2010/june10/psrjune10.html

Cathy Young: The Date Rape Redux..

Cathy as usual gets right to the point. The asker is none other than feminist lackey and hypocritical stalwart Ampersand..
Go to any University in the western world and you will see the "women's centre" represented in all their sexist and biased  infamy. Those centres are the typical representations of the feminists movement, blatant and obvious sexist, corrupted and populated by bigoted male-haters for anyone to witness..

The date-rape debate redux
Cathy Young.
Link..

Yes, I know that this blog has been gathering dust for a while, and I’ve kept meaning to come back to it. I don’t know if I’m back on a regular basis (too much else on my plate right now), but I will try to blog at least part-time.

And I’ll start off with a follow-up to my recent Boston Globe column (April 14) on the new sexual misconduct policy at Duke University. An excerpt:

The policy, introduced last fall but recently challenged by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, co-founded by Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate, targets “sexual misconduct’’ — everything from improper touching to forced sex. Some of the examples given in the text of the policy, such as groping an unwilling woman’s breasts, are clearly sexual offenses not just under university regulations but under the law.

But the policy’s far-reaching definition of sex without “affirmative consent’’ covers much more. Unlike the notorious Antioch College rules of the 1990s that required verbal consent to every new level of intimacy, Duke’s policy recognizes non-verbal expressions of consent. However, it stresses that “consent may not be inferred from silence [or] passivity’’ — even in an ongoing sexual relationship.

What’s more, consent can be invalidated by various circumstances — not just obvious ones such as being threatened or unconscious, but also being intoxicated to any degree, or “psychologically pressured,’’ or “coerced.’’ The latter is an extremely broad term, particularly since the policy warns that “real or perceived power differentials . . . may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.’’ As FIRE has noted, a popular varsity athlete may face a presumption of coercion in any relationship with a fellow student.

Meanwhile, women, the default victims in the Duke policy, are presumed passive and weak-minded: Goddess forbid they should take more than minimal responsibility for refusing unwanted sex. In one of the policy’s hypothetical scenarios, a woman tells her long-term boyfriend she’s not in the mood, but then “is silent’’ in response to his continued non-forcible advances; if he takes this as consent and they have sex, that is “sexual misconduct.’’ Why she doesn’t tell him to stop remains a mystery.

The man’s behavior may be inconsiderate. However, adult college students have no more of a right to be protected from such ordinary pressures in relationships than, say, from being cajoled into buying expensive gifts for their significant other.

On April 20, I received an email from my occasional sparring partner Barry, a.k.a. Ampersand, of Alas, a Blog. Sayeth Barry (posted here with his kind permission):

Cathy, I have a question about your recent Globe column. Does Duke’s policy actually state, in any way, that women are the “default victims” in the policy?

The policy appears to be written in gender-neutral language, and the examples make it clear that both sexes can be either a victim or a rule-breaker under the policy. So what am I missing?

Excellent question.

First of all, while the text of the policy is officially gender-neutral, the policy requires the campus Women’s Center (along with the Office of Student Conduct) to be notified of all allegations of sexual misconduct. (See this August 28, 2009 article in the Chronicle, the Duke daily newspaper.) The involvement of the Women’s Center clearly suggests that the victims are generally presumed to be female. The Women’s Center was also heavily involved in championing the new policy.

Secondly, is there anyone who really thinks that a man claiming to be a victim of sexual assault because he had sex with a woman while he was tipsy, or because the woman continued to come on to him after he told her he didn’t want to have sex, will be given serious consideration by a sexual misconduct review panel? I find it very hard to imagine such a complaint eliciting anything but laughter, or perhaps the suspicion that the man is trying to make a political point.

That reminds me: Some years ago while researching an article on the date-rape controversy, I interviewed several people on various college campuses who had some connection to the handling of sexual assault policies and complaints — mostly university officials and counselors. As a litmus test of sorts, I showed them an article someone had sent to me from a campus newspaper in which the author recounted an experience of “rape” by a girlfriend, consisting of non-forcible but persistent advances to which the author finally gave in. (The girlfriend began to make sexual overtures after the author told her, while in bed together, that perhaps they should end the relationship.) Rather to my dismay, almost every person I interviewed agreed that this story was in fact a rape. (By contrast, every single person to whom I showed it outside academia thought it was ridiculous, and several thought it was a parody.) The exception was one Women’s Center counselor who looked quite annoyed at first when she was reading the article, and made a comment about how the author was obviously trying to make a point. Then, as she read on, her expression changed and she said, “Oh … it’s a woman.” The author was indeed a woman; the counselor had mistakenly thought it was a man, and assumed that this man was trying to make the point that, by some current definitions of rape, women routinely rape men too.

It is also worth pointing out that when ostensibly gender-neutral domestic violence laws began to result in a steep rise in arrests of women, the reaction from most women’s advocates made it very clear that these laws were meant to target only men. And not just advocates: the mainstream media, too, carried articles about domestic violence laws “backfiring” or having “unintended consequences.”

Finally, the examples used with the policy are revealing as well. The example with a male victim and a female perpetrator involves clearly criminal behavior (posting online, without his consent, a video of them having sex). It also involves actions pretty far outside the boundaries of socially accepted behavior. The same is true of the female perpetrator/female victim scenario, in which a student in a lesbian relationship balks at going as far as oral sex and her girlfriend threatens to “out” her on the Internet if she does not comply. (In this example, the perpetrator sounds downright psychotic.) Of the two male perpetrator/female victim scenarios, one also involves criminal and (I hope) very atypical behavior (groping the woman’s breasts in public); but the other — the one I mentioned in my column — is indeed fairly ordinary behavior. Thus, in the specific instance in which the policy criminalizes the kind of sex that the vast majority of people would consider consensual, it does use a male perpetrator/female victim scenario.

(Many thanks to Barry for pulling me out of my blogging retirement!)

The best strategy for feminists was to “shut the f__k up..

My thanks to khankrumthebulgar for this interesting and obviously angst ridden article concerning the male-haters in Canada. Always recognised as the main artery of feminist poison..

Cut off the money and feminism dies. They have no support outside their own religion and are totally reliant of public money to spread their hate message. So it's refreshing to see that dry up finally while they in turn still try to manipulate via lies and mis-information. It's what they do..

Here is some good advice from the Canadian Government..

the best strategy for feminists was to “shut the f__k up

and ofcourse I cannot include this in the article without showing it..

The Canadian public and journalists are not interested in this feminist agenda: The Status of Women Committee had been hastily moved to a larger room to accommodate e journalists and cameras, which didn't show up! All is not well for feminists

That really makes my day..

Feminists are traumatized by funding cuts to two of their major concerns: feminist groups and foreign aid for abortion. Outdated and unpopular radical feminist ideologies, out of control mismanagement of tax dollars and a lack of demonstrated accountability have finally led to a long overdue evaluation of grants and contributions by the federal government (see REALity, March/April 2010 “Mismanagement at Status of Women”).

Feminists Meet to Discuss Cuts

Upset by the loss of taxpayer dollars, about 80 professional feminist foreign aid advocates gathered in a Senate conference room on May 3, 2010 to agonize over funding cuts to what they call “gender equality and women's rights.” Announced on AWID letterhead (Association for Women's Rights In Development), international feminists came to give the Canadian sisterhood some sympathy and encouragement. AWID is described as “an international ... feminist, agenda-setting ... organization working for women's rights and economic justice.”

The participants reported a deep chill in Canadian government bureaucracies and NGO's. Many foreign aid organizations, focusing on “gender equality” and “reproductive rights”, apparently can no longer count on Canadian tax dollars to export feminism to the third world. Suggestions were made that the government had been listening to extremist, fundamentalist, religious groups.

One of the speakers, Joanna Kerr, formerly of AWID, North-South Institute, Oxfam, Nobel Women's Initiative and Society for International Development, listed the following funding cuts, which will affect international feminism:

Match International, that received $400,000 a year from CIDA, has now closed down after receiving funding for 34 years;
International Planned Parenthood Federation, received $6 million from CIDA in 2009, and $44.5 million in the last 10 years, funding that has not been renewed this year;
The UN feminist agency, UNIFEM’s bilateral funding has dropped from $4.5 million to $230,000;
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which delivers 80% of Canada’s foreign aid has had its gender equality specific programming cut from 1.85% to 1.01% of the total $3 billion budget, down to merely $32 million a year for gender centered foreign aid;
Foreign Affairs has eliminated its Women's Equality Division, which promoted the feminist package of demands at the United Nations.

Legal Challenge of Funding Cuts

Joanna Kerr also stated that lawyers were hard at work planning to legally challenge the government on funding cuts to feminist groups on the basis that the cuts are a breach of the ODA (official developmental assistance) Federal Accountability Act. That is, the feminists claim these cuts are not consistent with international human rights standards – although it is feminists only who view contraception and abortion as human rights. This legal challenge is reportedly being coordinated by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (which received $1.7 million last year from the federal government), an organization made up of other leftist government funded organizations, whose funding is also in question.

Robert Fox, of Oxfam Canada (which received $29 million last year), praised women as “important change agents”. He admitted, “we are adrift” and “have been silenced by the environment in which we find ourselves.” Oxfam Canada “has recently made a strategic decision to shift its programming, including its campaign and advocacy work in Canada, to focus on women's rights” (FAFIA website 2007.)

Senator Nancy Ruth’s Advice

It was the advice of their sister feminist, Senator Nancy Ruth, that really set the participants’ teeth on edge.

In response to fears that Canada would not include abortion in its maternal health care proposal at the G-8 meeting, to be held in Huntsville, Ontario, June 25 and 26, 2010, Senator Nancy Ruth (a conservative senator appointed by former Prime Minister Paul Martin) stated that she attends Conservative caucus meetings and thought the best strategy for feminists was to “shut the f__k up” on the abortion issue. She warned of a backlash. “Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortions. Leave it there. Don't make it a national issue or a G-8 issue.” She recommended that instead, feminists should “take over” the Foreign Affairs Committees in the House of Commons and the Senate to make the feminist agenda “structural.” The women in the room were in no mood to ?take her advice! In fact, her sister feminists turned against her, deliberately misrepresenting her advice as yet another effort by Stephen Harper to implement his hidden agenda. Apparently, females in the Senate are not supposed to think for themselves and are mere marionettes under the control of male leaders.

Feminist Meeting Co-ordinated with Parliamentary Committee Hearings

Foreign Affairs Committee

The next day, May 4, at a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Margaret Biggs, the President of CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency - annual budget $3 billion) assured worried Liberal, Bloc and NDP Members of Parliament, whose questions consistently focused on abortion, that “nothing has changed at CIDA regarding funding and policy. Canada has never funded abortion directly, she said, but funds “health systems” which then can choose what to do with the Canadian money. She added that CIDA “continues to integrate gender equality in everything we do”. While the foreign aid feminists at the Senate meeting had confidently proclaimed that contraception and abortion are established human rights and part of family planning, Margaret Biggs stated that there was an international consensus is that “abortion is not viewed as a form of family planning.”?

Status of Women Committee

On the following day, May 5, another House of Commons Committee, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, heard from a panel of carefully selected witnesses, who were all abortion advocates. These included:??

* - ACPD, Action Canada for Population and Development (Katherine McDonald)
* - Oxfam (Robert Fox)
* - The Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood) (Sharon Camp)
* - White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood (Maureen McTeer).

All lamented the possibility that third world women might not advance because of a lack of abortion services and gender equality training from Canada. These feminist activists rejected the Canadian government's preference for genuine health care for women over abortion. This, they said was undemocratic, a breach of international standards and a move which would ruin Canada's international reputation as a global leader in “human rights.” Maureen McTeer pointed to religious beliefs as the source of opposition to the feminist agenda.?

No pro-life, pro-family group was included in this “democratic” consultation. Any effort by the Conservative MPs on the Status of Women Committee to add a fresh perspective to the narrow feminist preoccupations was swiftly curtailed under the unyielding control of the Chairperson, Hedy Fry, MP (Vancouver Centre).?

It is significant, however, that even the pro-abortion Globe & Mail in several recent editorials stated that fixation on abortion by feminist groups instead of other key maternal health issues, was harmful. Even the pro-abortion UNICEF has warned against this fixation on abortion.

The Canadian public and journalists are not interested in this feminist agenda: The Status of Women Committee had been hastily moved to a larger room to accommodate e journalists and cameras, which didn't show up! All is not well for feminists