You Mean, "Women are Violent?"..

In October, HLN's A.J. Hammer reported on a criminal investigation of "Teen Mom" star Amber Portwood.

Video on the Mommy Program..

Note the abuse she is dishing out to this DAD in front of their child..

Feminista film flops..

I have always been critical of ABC (Australian Gov. Television) and particularly SBS,  their politically correct attitude to everything including employing "coloured" females to head all their news and commentary positions. A white female or male are almost unheard of..

One of those programs is called at the Movies.

A once interesting and critical review program that clawed it's way with the feminised duo fronting it, to a reasonable following on SBS (Another politically correct television station). But as the years went on and after it was transferred to it's "mother" station, it suffered from the usual and ingrained impotence that we now witness world-wide as political correctness consumes all integrity, honesty and thought..

Needless to say that whenever feminism encroaches anything we end up with irrelevance, lies, deception and misinterpretation as standard. This film is obviously just another example of their intrusion and thereby gets the thumbs down from critics (real critics that is) but not the feminised duo so intent on maintaining what is now their irrelevant positions on the screen..

Feminista film flops

by Andrew McIntyre

November 30, 2010
A promising film spoilt by political correctness
The promises made about this limited release film Agora by director Alejandro Amenabar, showing in Australia at the moment, were intriguing. The subject, Alexandria in the forth century AD at the time of the destruction of the famous library — the “Axial Age”, or, in the words of Karl Jaspers, ‘the most deep cut dividing line in history’ — seemed pretty promising and ambitious. Central to this film is one of feminism’s archetypal historical heroines, Hypatia, a philosopher and mathematician, grappling with the movement of the orbs of the heavenly bodies.

The film, one imagined, was to deal with the complex sets of interactions between the Judaic tradition, the propagation of the Christian message of St Paul, the Roman world and its Law, the decline and virtual disappearance of Hellenism with the gradual withdrawal from Aristotelian thinking, and the eclipse of the Hellenistic values that accompanied the fall of Rome and the subsequent plunge into the ‘dark ages’. It was what the enthusiastic ABC film review Margaret Pomerantz hailed as, “a rare film about something”.
The portrayal of Alexandria was physically fascinating, with a wonderfully convincing mixture of the Roman and the Egyptian, and the collision of their cultural values. There were delightful insights into the liturgy, vestments and character of the early Pauline church. Nevertheless, there was something disconcertingly uninvolving and unconvincing about the texture and narrative. For instance, it contrasted poorly with the splendidly visceral portrayal of the city of Rome in the film Gladiator, and had a strangely total absence of dramatic tension in the plot development.
A predictable dread about the film, as promoted in its advertising, was the inevitable potential for political correctness. The ingredients were all there. There was the fashionable, anti-Christian sentiment that painted Bishop Cyril of Alexandria as an irresistibly self styled Taliban leader, and the inevitable temptation to portray Hypatia as an unyielding and archetypally smug feminista with a rampant and satisfying dose of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. So it came to pass. What could, with generosity, be considered to be a cunning allegorical warning against present day Islamic terrorism in Europe and America, wasn’t really the film’s intention, or the director’s. The film safely fell on the side of reactionary Christian bashing, including a pointed quote from St Paul about the importance of silencing women. No attempt was made to suggest that these views would have had their origin in the prevalent Jewish Synagogue Regulations of the time. The film’s treatment seems to suggest that these 2000 year old Christian values are more reprehensible that those of current Islamic sharia values that the West is feebly yielding to today. This lack of clarity thus manages to portray a fatuous anachronism. The implications are nasty.
Most disappointing is that the ‘ideas’ part of the film end up being trite. The endless ruminations and discussions by Hypatia, played, incidentally, utterly unconvincingly and blandly by Rachel Weisz, about the movements of the planets, with ‘learned’ references to Aristarchus, sounded more like a polite and earnest discussion of a ‘dangerous idea’ on Jennifer Burns’ First Tuesday Book Club. Aristarchus, along with other remarkable figures like Eratosthenes, Hypparchus and Posidonius had nailed the actual physical dimensions and movements of our solar system accurately hundreds of years before.
We should have been forewarned. The Pomerstratton team gave the film four and four and a half stars respectively, so politically correct, safe and predictable it inevitably was. For all its admirable qualities and the attempts to deal with one of the most truly fascinating periods in history, it ended up, as one reviewer put it, as “an overlong school trip to the planetarium, followed by a Romans-in-togas play in the gym”. But worse, it failed to see itself, judging by the reviews and commentary, as a powerful allegory concerning the threat of Islamic fundamentalism on our own doorstep today. A truly wasted opportunity.
Andrew McIntyre blogs at andrewmcintyre.org

Air New Zealand Stand on it's Sexist Policy..

A self explanatory protest by Paul on a very divisive sexist policy promoted by Air New Zealand even after British Airways was forced to change theirs..
I ask that you send them an email expressing your thinking about this sexist policy and please do so in a polite yet forcefull manner..
Link below..

Air New Zealand Stand on it's Sexist Policy
By Paul Elam
Link..
I recently sent a letter of complaint by email to Air New Zealand about their policy of treating all male passengers as potential child molesters, and seating them away from unescorted minors. True to the promise of their auto responder, I have received a more personal response. Rather I should say that they have responded with a non response.  Following is their email to me and then my response back to them.
-----

Dear Mr Elam

Thank you for your email regarding your recent flights with us.

It was a pleasure to read your comments regarding the excellent standard of service which you received on your flights with us, and that you had an enjoyable stay in New Zealand. It is certainly always encouraging to receive feedback such as yours as it is proof to us that the high standards which we aim to provide are being maintained.

However, I am sorry to read of your disappointment in an aspect of our Unaccompanied Minor policy, namely in regards to not seating minors next to male passengers. By way of explanation, Air New Zealand ’s internal procedures relating to the seating of unaccompanied minors and young persons travelling alone are as follows:

• For Crew surveillance reasons, unaccompanied minors and young persons travelling alone are normally seated together in the rear of the aircraft and next to the crew galley.
• Where possible, a spare seat is kept empty next to unaccompanied minors and young persons travelling alone to be used by the crew where special attention is required.
• Where a flight is full, we will endeavour to seat a female passenger next to unaccompanied minors and young persons travelling alone.

These procedures reflect the approach adopted by leading airlines around the world and have been in place for some time.

Mr Elam, thank you once again for taking the time to write in to us.  I trust that I have been able to address some of your concerns, and that we may have the opportunity of welcoming you and your wife onboard our flights again in the future.

Kind regards,

Claire McLister
Customer Support Specialist
-------

Dear Ms McLister,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, and in such a prompt manner.  However, your response would have been much more satisfying had you actually answered my questions rather than just tell me what I already knew, namely that it is Air New Zealand’s official policy to practice gender profiling against male passengers, regarding them all as threats from which the children on your planes need to be protected.
I sought in my query to find out why that was happening, Ms. McLister, not to get a non responsive reiteration of what I was obviously complaining about in the first place.
So I am here, asking you again.
What determinants did your airline use to arrive at such a policy?  How do you respond to my concerns that the policy is discriminatory and fostering inaccurate and negative stereotypes of fully half of your clients?
I am quite sorry, Ms. McLister, but your statement of “These procedures reflect the approach adopted by leading airlines around the world and have been in place for some time,” has the ring of a child excusing their poor judgment by saying “ Well, everyone else was doing it.”
First of all, not everyone else is doing it.  As I indicated in my original communication, Qantas, who appears to be your primary competitor among the USA to NZ air service providers, does not do it.  And, as I also reminded you, British Airways was recently sued over the policy, and was compelled to change it because there was no demonstrable reason to have it in the first place.
Your response to me, as courteous and professionally worded as it was, was simply avoidant of these points and the quite reasonable questions raised about your practices.
Would you kindly answer those questions, or am I to understand that you are going to defend a sexist policy by avoiding any meaningful discussion with a customer?
Lastly, Ms.McLister, I am not married, and so was not traveling with my wife. It appears you just made that assumption when seeing I was traveling with a female. Given the other assumptions you made about me, and all men boarding your flights, I should not, I suppose, be surprised.
It seems to be policy on all levels at Air New Zealand.
But I would nonetheless really appreciate either a straight answer from you regarding my inquiry, or the courtesy of forwarding these questions to someone who will provide as much.
Kind Regards,
Paul Elam
Claire McLister’s email address:

flightcomment@airnz.co.nz

Share on Facebook

Are Feminists Dead in The Water?

Feminists have never been about "equality" and we have clearly demonstrated that fact beyond argument. Does Feminism clearly malign both sexes and the answer would have to be, yes ofcourse they do. They are neither interested in the partnership between men and women or interested in fairness and normality..

Here we have feminists trying to re-align their male-hate doctrine..

Don’t rebrand feminism, reclaim it

Negative stereotypes of feminism, their internalisation by many of us in our daily lives, and attempts to rebrand feminism to make it more palatable are all missing the mark, writes Kristin Aune.
No Link..

The arrogance and ignorance stated above just demonstrates that feminists do actually live in a self-induced mindset and cocoon of their own design, where they are of the opinion that they can save their propaganda machine and just continue with their hate doctrine like nothing is actually wrong with it..

They are mystified as to why anyone, be it male or female, have no wish to wallow in their disruptive and society destroying mantra.

Don’t rebrand feminism, reclaim it

Declared dead, irrelevant, unfashionable, yet simultaneously responsible for a host of social ills, feminism has a bad rep.
In fact, feminism’s image in the mainstream media has been pretty awful over the last decade or so.

Honestly, they actually wonder why ?

The non-feminist women explained that they thought of feminists as: 1) unfeminine; 2) man-haters; and 3) lesbians. Stereotypes of dungarees, rugby shirts, hairy legs, short hair, a so-called ‘ugly’ appearance and, predictably, bra-burning (a long-held allusion to an event which never actually happened) accompanied their explanations.

I know, they are at a loss as to why they have that reputation and even states the following response that even a child could answer..

And yet when asked to give examples of feminists they knew who fitted this description, no one could.

To answer that comment one only has to flick through some of the articles on this blog or just Google that question to receive an overwhelming response as to why feminists are indeed viewed as the obnoxious version that they deny to be.

Here is just one example..

quote..."Lesbianism allows you to explore feminism"....

But ofcourse that just touches the surface of their misandry, their downright malicious attitude and spiteful doctrine aimed at both sexes, having already achieved notoriety and demonstrated clearly to be what they really are as even they stated in the opening statement yet they still want to maintain that malicious attitude without making any changes to their fake hype and misinformation regimen.

Even articles like this are ignored..

Page Three Girls and porn-again feminists

Feminism has always had a contradictory attitude towards sex, combining demands for sexual liberation with a prudish, pursed-lips disapproval of heterosexual relationships. The focus on the problem of men has always concealed two fundamental truths: that men and women have far more common interests and problems than those that divide them, and that men and women like each other.

Yes, again another female journalist against the feminasties, and in their reduced perception they would be falsely considered the writer to be one of them, except that the writer obviously does not consider that to be the case at all. Feminists have always assumed to represent women "et al" but in actual case that has never ever been the case. Even "NOW" (National Org Of W...) claimed to represent over 500,000 members but when it came to quantify that lie, they refused to supply any information and later comments by previous members determined that it may have only been a tenth of that amount (feminists are compulsive liars as we all know).
So they continue in their irrelevance and with their soul destroying practises without even recognising or admitting that they are indeed finished and their time is limited, they can see that inevitable outcome on the horizon as more and more people speak out about their "crimes against society"..

Desperation: Fonda and Sarandon Photoshopped Beyond Recognition..

Talk about growing old with grace and dignity, obviously exempt from these couple of crustaceans. They photo-shopped em!, both, to such an extent as to make them almost unrecognisable, would have tested the metal of the operators and sent all of them into overtime. At least someone benefited..

Meanwhile I am trying to find some ulterior motive and failed as I can only see the egos involved. Both of these (feminists) have been busy male-bashing their way over the years as to make both the pariahs they really are and no amount of adjustment can remove that hate induced end result..

Nothing like spreading the false images and relying on the tried and true method of lying, even about your appearance, when in reality, no one gives a damn..

Too bad I could not track down the re-imaging of Weaver as I could use another laugh..

Magazine’s Airbrushers Hospitalized for Exhaustion After Preparing ‘Aging Hollywood Lefty’ Issue; Updated

from The Powers That Be by Doug Powers

Hollywood liberal stalwarts Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda, joined by anti-Palin lefty Sigourney Weaver, are out to prove that they’re proud of their ages:

The ageing process is a stressful one for any woman, let alone a Hollywood actress.
But Susan Sarandon, 64, Sigourney Weaver, 61, and Jane Fonda, 72, are showing that being older doesn’t mean not being sexy anymore.
The trio posed in a variety of sultry poses for V Magazine’s upcoming ‘Who Cares About Age’ issue.

Nothing wrong with being proud of your age, right? I mean, who cares? Well, the magazine’s overworked airbrush and Photoshoppers, that’s who.
I think this particular issue is called “What they’d look like after a dozen vodka tonics.” First a picture from the magazine and then another from actual life that they’re supposed to be celebrating:

Female Liar Pulls Out the "Racist" Card..

The obvious racist raising the "racist" charge against a police officer without any substantiation apart from her just uttering the words and making a false claim. A claim that hopefully will place this lying female incarcerated..

I have heard and witnessed worse situation than this from Sudanese as well as members from other African Nations where unless their demands are met than out comes the "racist" card just to pressure anyone into submission. This is ofcourse another example of political correctness going mad and who would you think introduced this attitude and keeps promoting it ?

Feminists..

Racism card up the sleeve of niqab
Link..
Miranda Devine
Wednesday, November 24, 2010


THE crucial point about Carnita Matthews, the niqab-clad motorist who falsely claimed a police officer tried to remove her face covering, was made by the magistrate who last week sentenced her to six months in jail.

“The system would collapse, of course, if people are making false and wrong complaints to authorities,” said Campbelltown Local Court Magistrate Robert Rabbidge.

In fact, the system has been under stress for years because of official cowardice and the sort of political correctness that tolerates “deliberate, malicious and ruthless” (Rabbidge’s words) claims such as Matthews’.

This time, the good guy won. But the odds are usually stacked against him. Senior Constable Paul Fogarty was just lucky there was a police in-car video camera recording his encounter with Matthews that night five months ago in Sydney’s southwest.

It was dark at 6.10pm in the southwestern Sydney suburb of Woodbine when Fogarty pulled over the black Honda Odyssey driven by Matthews, a 46-year-old mother of seven wearing a black niqab - the traditional Muslim head-to-toe covering with a narrow opening for the eyes. He asked for her licence and gestured for her to lift her veil so he could verify her identity. She showed him “half” her face.

She would swear in a statutory declaration three days later that he then insisted on seeing her whole face and touched her veil in an attempt to take it off.

The police in-car video recording the 20-minute conversation shows her allegation to be false. It also shows Fogarty exerting considerable self-restraint against a barrage of angry words.

Things turn ugly when he gives her an infringement notice for a partially-obscured rear P-plate - an offence, he tells her, which carries a penalty of two demerit points and a $197 fine.

“Sorry, I’m not accepting that,” she says.

“This is clearly now racist.”

“Sorry?” Fogarty answers, taken aback.

“Firstly, I don’t appreciate being called racist. Just listen, please. Don’t call me racist.”

She replies: “You are racist. I will not accept [the ticket]. I’ll take you to court. I don’t care what you say, you’re not going to give me that ticket because I’ve got my P-plates on.

“You want to give me the ticket for rubbish. I’ve got seven kids.” It’s hard not to feel a little sorry for Matthews, just a few moments from home, rushing to get dinner for her large brood, being caught by an officer determined to apply the letter of the law, unmoved by her distress, and with that trademark traffic cop passive-aggressive patient reasonableness.

But rather than accepting that this is the way of things, and that it is pointless arguing, Matthews chose to play the race card.

For 20 minutes she verbally abuses Fogarty and repeatedly calls him a racist, at points wagging her finger in his face.

“You are racist, because you just looked at me and you see me with the niqab on and you couldn’t handle it. You look - my licence is fine, my car, everything is fine. I am 100 per cent. I am not going to accept it. I’m not going to take this rubbish, this crap. You are racist. All cops are racist.”

He replies: “If you want to discuss this reasonably I’ll discuss it with you. If you’re just going to yell abuse at me, OK.”

She answers: “Honestly, you are feeling guilty.”

“Why?” he asks.

“I can see it in your eyes,” she says. “You know you are giving me ticket for crap.”

“OK. OK, go back and sit in your car,” he says. “If you choose to take matters forward you would be wasting the court’s time. OK. Bye bye.”

She could have left it at that, or taken a legitimate avenue to dispute the fine.

But she chose to take umbrage and to seek advice from Mamdouh Habib. The Egyptian-born former Guantanamo Bay detainee alerted Channel 7 to her “good story” of police brutality, reportedly complained to the Anti-Discrimination Board, made representations to police on her behalf and, with his wife, accompanied her to court.

The one time Socialist Alliance-backed independent NSW election candidate has become something of a cause celebre among the “moral panic"-obsessed chattering classes, even starring this year in the play Waiting For Mamdouh, which toured the nation and won second prize in a NIDA competition.

Habib’s son has previously claimed he is a racism victim. In 2007, 19-year-old Mustafa was convicted of public mischief after he accused police of running over his foot after they pulled him over for talking on his mobile while driving. Video footage showed Mustafa lifting his foot toward

the rear wheel of the police car as the vehicle drove off, and then falling to the ground screaming in mock pain.

He escaped with a good behaviour bond after claiming that his father’s detention had traumatised him.

Absurd methods of claiming racism and police brutality have paid dividends in parts of southwestern Sydney, where police say they have been cowed by endless complaints.

If not for the pursuit of the story by radio 2GB talkshow host Jason Morrison, it’s likely the Matthews case would similarly have been swept under the carpet and Fogarty left with a blemish on his police record. Similarly, another dishonest declaration - by former justice Marcus Einfeld - would have been missed if had not been for this newspaper’s reporting.

“They would have toasted Fogarty,” says ex-detective Tim Priest. “The ticket would have been ripped up. He would have been subjected to a cultural awareness program.

“He was on a hiding to nothing except for that video.”

Matthews is appealing against her conviction on all grounds, according to her lawyer Stephen Hopper. It’s yet to be seen whether Hopper repeats the flimsy defence he gave to the court that it might have been another niqab-clad woman, not Matthews, who went to the police station and signed the false statutory declaration complaint.

After all, the station officer who took the complaint had said: “I’m looking at you and all I can see is two eyes.”

But all Hopper’s claims managed to do was bolster the case for banning niqabs and burqas in Australia, a situation that will only make life more difficult for the minority of Muslim women who wear the cultural garb.

Such is the ripple effect of Matthews’ reckless lie.

Harsh as it may seem to lock up a mother of seven whose initial offense was a badly displayed P-plate, it is about time someone was called to account for abusing the complaints system.

It does more than tie up court time. On a large scale it damages our system of justice, only increasing racial tension and leading to ever more draconian laws for the law-abiding.

TSA Puts Down Threat of 3-Year-Old With Thomas the Tank Engine Backpack

Thank goodness for that, whew, you know what terrorist those three year old are..

TSA Successfully Puts Down Threat of 3-Year-Old With Thomas the Tank Engine Backpack
from The Powers That Be by Doug Powers

This TSA business is getting so pathetically comical that I have a new theory: All of us who fly are unwittingly starring in the next Sacha Baron Cohen movie. Except instead of Borat, this time Cohen has recruited thousands of actors disguised as TSA agents to make a mockery of air travel.

Try and watch this little kid get a serious pat-down without laughing. Even the kid’s laughing. The only people laughing harder are terrorists:

Innovative Paving Machine..

How's this for a brilliant concept and design. The automatic paving machine. Ahh yes, the lads are always thinking of something new..

Link..

Unlike the opposite sex who always seem to be distracted by anything that either maintains their own purview or some other destructive paradigm..

Obama’s Domestic Violence Initiative: Hope, Hype, and Hogwash..

Obama’s Domestic Violence Initiative: Hope, Hype, and Hogwash

from The Spearhead By Carey Roberts

Desperate times call for desperate measures. So shortly before the November 2 elections, Barack Obama pulled out all the stops to woo the fading female electorate, unveiling a multi-pronged effort to “end domestic violence against women,” as the president theatrically called it. But did the president’s 5-point initiative deliver on the goods?

Let’s begin with Obama’s Hope about “ending” domestic violence. Folks, let’s get real – the only way to put a stop to partner aggression – think Blondie chasing Dagwood with her rolling pin at the ready — would be to separate men and women at birth and ship them off to opposite corners of the universe.

But wait! It turns out domestic violence is twice as high among lesbians as among heterosexual married couples. Well, scratch that idea.

If the hopey-hopey routine doesn’t do the trick, let’s turn to the Hype. And here, Tinker Bell’s magic wand sparkles with a wondrous gleam.

Because President Obama has taken to casting a spell on women with this Abuse Fairy Tale: Take a piece of paper and inscribe the words, “Stay away, you big meanie!” Sprinkle Pixie Dust, and now call it a Restraining Order.

And the would-be ravisher of women will slink away, knowing her magical scroll has the amazing power to ward off bullets, knives, and any other conceivable weapon of mass destruction.

Seriously, there’s not a scrap of research that shows restraining orders deter violence, but this is what President Obama’s “Fact Sheet” claims with a straight face: “Protective orders are effective in reducing the level of violence.”

Once the woman comes to believe that piece of paper will ward off the Abuse Demons, the Protector-in-Chief will conjure up a copy of A Woman’s Guide to Green Jobs. According to the Department of Labor website, the Guide will “aid in increasing women’s access to high-growth and emerging industry occupations in the green jobs section nationwide.”

That and the Jolly Green Giant.

Enough Hype? Now on to the Hogwash!

Folks, this is really the best part. But before we plunge any farther into President Obama’s domestic violence rabbit hole, let’s get a firm grip on reality. (For the skeptics, I’m providing the links below.)

In the area of child abuse, the federal Administration for Children and Families somberly notes, “In 2008, approximately 56% of child abuse and child neglect perpetrators were women and 42% were men.” http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=70

As far as dating violence, girls win the battle of sexes hands down. According to a national survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 9% of teenage girls, compared to 11% of adolescent boys, have been slapped, hit, or otherwise hurt by their opposite-sex partner: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5704a1.htm, Table 11.

And in a landmark 2007 article published in the American Journal of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control researchers reported 7 out of 10 instigators of one-way partner violence are…can we break the spell?…female: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full

Scholarly research echoes the same theme: “Women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners,” according to a recent summary of 275 studies by California State University researcher Martin Feibert, PhD.

The evidence is conclusive: Government surveys and scholarly research point to members of the Fairer Sex as the persons who are more likely to abuse. But not a single word of the president’s carefully orchestrated White House event even hinted as to the existence of aggressive women or abused men.

The truth about female-initiated violence should be vexatious to persons who fancy themselves the champions of women. Because if the abuse escalates, it’s more likely the female who will be harmed. As CDC lead researcher Daniel Whitaker explains, “a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence.”

So in a sane world, we would get more help for stressed-out moms, teach conflict resolution skills to teenage girls, and provide drug and alcohol treatment for violence-prone women. We might even devise a few programs to help abused men.

According to a 2006 Harris Poll, 88% of Americans have seen or heard of a male abuse victim in the past year. So most voters, men and women alike, will view the Administration’s domestic violence initiative as a cynical political ploy.

But Barack Obama is seemingly enamored of a different logic: As long as we can sway unsuspecting women into believing their husband is a closet batterer, we can justify the unfettered governmental intrusion into the private affairs of citizens, and the continued expansion of the power of the state.

Those Kidneys !!

10 Women Rape 17 Year old Boy..

It would appear that it is impossible for any journalist these days to just report any article without including that "women are the victim" as well..

But again, feminists ranting rings in my ears with their "women victims/ man aggressor" mentality but it has as usual fallen short and as usual demonstrated to be lies and exaggeration..

A 17-year-old village boy has been gang raped by 10 knife-wielding women in Papua New Guinea, police say.

Southern Highlands Province police commander Teddy Tei said the gang of women attacked the schoolboy just outside the provincial centre of Mendi on Friday.

"This is a serious matter and police are trying to identify who these animals are," he said.

"More than 10 women with kitchen knives attacked him and four women had sexual intercourse with him".

The boy went to hospital for treatment, he said.

Police commander Tei said he feared the women may have infected the young man with HIV/AIDs.

"HIV/AIDs is a problem in PNG and I am concerned the women might be infected.

"I always warn the women to be careful at night but I am now warning the men too.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/boy-gang-raped-by-four-women-at-knifepoint-in-papua-new-guinea/story-e6frfkyi-1225958505014#ixzz165CwyovR

Feminism: Living Off the Carnage It Created..

Being an eligible bachelor, it not rare for some well meaning soul to try and set me up with an 45-50 year old female. They are quite practiced at it. On six different occasions over the past few years I found myself with these desperate women, hoping to impress and maybe snare me into some type of relationship, all of which I resisted and wrote off.

Strangely, every single "single" female was a left winger, a socialist and a supporter of the state and the left side of politics. When confronted with the truth about their support of that side was reflected mostly in men being discriminated against, the shutters went down and topic changed..

Needless to say their protestations about being an "independent" woman was gleaned over as well and rectified much to their disgust..

Even for women, divorce is not all it’s cracked up to be

by W.F. Price on November 22, 2010

Although here on The Spearhead we often dwell on the injustices heaped on men and the incentives and benefits women can receive from betraying and abandoning husbands, one thing that ought to be pointed out is that in many – perhaps most – cases divorce is actually a stupid move on the part of a woman. Legions of women divorce their husbands and find themselves harried, working harder, poorer and either alone or with a man who doesn’t live up to her initial expectations.
Certainly, there are some cases where divorce is clearly to a woman’s advantage, such as a homemaker married to a wealthy man who is having an involved affair with another woman and on the brink of leaving his wife. But that’s a small minority. Another case could be a woman married to a man hurtling toward self-destruction with a severe alcohol or drug problem, which may be more common. As for the matter of physically abusive husbands, they do exist, but in most of these cases the wife has plenty of problems herself that likely won’t be entirely solved by divorce.
Usually, the woman is simply leaving her husband on impulse, as often as not out of sexual urges compelling her to seek out a new mate when her mating cycle renews (every four or five years, it seems), and sometimes simply for a power trip. It isn’t usually a rational decision, but rationalization has a way of occurring after the fact, so that’s no matter. But objectively speaking, their lives are usually worse after they take the plunge and wreck their families.
Growing up in the 1980s, during the divorce rampage that swept the US starting in the 1970s, I knew a lot of kids whose mothers made these poor choices. Perhaps they were disappointed with their husbands for not growing up fast enough, or maybe they felt the thrill of women’s lib and wanted to go to war against the men they had married to advance the cause of feminism. Because we were kids at the time, we had no way of understanding why these women did what they did, but we saw how they lived. The typical pattern was ejection of the husband, followed by relationships with other men, sometimes a succession of them, and then a slow, downward slide into the typical aging, middle-class single mother.
One thing I saw happen over and over was the gradual transformation of the children’s fathers from their initial down-and-out state following the divorce to respectable, stable adult men. Some remarried and some didn’t, but most of them gradually improved their station in life as their children became adults. Of course, some never recovered, and fell away from society for one reason or another, but that wasn’t the norm. Most of the women, on the other hand, just got stuck in a rut. They were dependent on court-ordered payments from their ex-husbands for expenses, and when those dried up as the kids graduated, they were left relatively poor and unable to attract a new boyfriend.
The kids were a mixed bag. They all faced problems, but some of them did alright eventually, particularly those whose fathers stayed around and took an interest in their lives. The odd thing is, though, that initially many of us had an impression that there must have been something wrong with these kids’ fathers for having been left by their wives. However, around the time we were high school, as the kids’ fathers came into their own and began to establish themselves, I started looking at a lot of these single mothers’ life choices with some incredulity. Here was one whose ex-husband became a high-ranking Navy officer. And there another whose ex-husband got a job as head engineer at a local sporting goods factory. Another became assistant chief of police, and one is even serving in Obama’s cabinet. And I knew that these men hadn’t divorced while successful — I’d seen the guys struggling when I was a child.
As I grow older the differences are becoming even clearer. The women who stayed with their husbands are typically happier and wealthier than those who didn’t. Even women whose husbands were never particularly successful financially are much better off than your typical working-class divorcée. Those who have middle and upper-middle class husbands are living the American dream. But the mothers who never found a suitable replacement, or married and divorced a second time, are facing late retirement and poverty in old age. And men my age, who saw what they did first-hand, tend not to have a great deal of respect for them.
Interestingly, feminists do not seem concerned at all about these aging women who made terrible choices while young. One might think they are avoiding the subject because it shows feminism for the dumb idea it is for most women, but that probably isn’t it. Feminists could easily take a subject like that and frame it in a way to make men look bad, or use it to come up with some excuse for taxing men even more, but there’s another reason they don’t pay attention: feminism is, above all, concerned with the exercise of female sexuality and maximizing the power it confers. These washed up older women simply don’t have anything to offer in that regard.
I suppose one could look at the legions of young women who make stupid choices offered by feminists as akin to the common footsoldiers in a war. Most of them never get anything out of it but some temporary glory – if that – and many are left permanently damaged. It is only the politicians, the ‘generals’ so to speak, who really make a killing off of their sacrifice. The Gloria Steinems, Gloria Allreds, Joe Bidens and other such characters who pushed so hard to foist this culture of divorce and family destruction on America now stand tall on the wreckage of millions of American families, offering nothing but a bleak future for the women who put their pet policies into action. But perhaps this is how it always has been with humanity: the greatest earthly glory goes to those who have wrought the greatest carnage.

A Plea from the Founder of the Domestic Abuse Helpline

Jan Brown

show details Nov 19

I sent a note earlier this month about helping us out by going to the Pepsi Refresh website and voting for our all volunteer agency (since 2000) that specializes in offering supportive services to under served victims i.e. male victims. We are losing the Pepsi challenge,  not enough people are voting daily for us to win. 
If you truly want to see under served victims receive services (toll free helpline, hotel and safe housing emergency shelter, food, clothing, transportation costs etc) from an agency that really cares about them please take a few seconds out of your day for the rest of November to vote for our agency to win beginning today.  Info on how to do so is below.  Thanks, Jan Brown

Will you take 2 seconds each day in November to help victims of domestic violence?

Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women (DAHMW) has entered the Pepsi project challenge for November in attempt to win a $50.000 grant from Pepsi so that we can offer more services to victims. DAHMW is a nationwide ALL VOLUNTEER non profit agency that offers supportive services to victims of intimate partner violence. In literally just 2 seconds each day in November you can help us win. Here's how:

Use your cell phone to Text 103820 to 73774 (Pepsi). Pepsi will confirm that they received your vote. Keep the text you sent them in your sent box and go in daily, open it up and press send. That's all you need to do to help us win $50,000! Standard text messaging charges apply.

You can read more about our Pepsi project and vote for us online too here:
http://pep.si/aC5cuP

Thanks in advance for your help, please pass our need on to your friends and family members.

Sincerely,
Jan Brown and Heather Fortunes, Founder and Co-Directors
Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women
dahmwagency@gmail.com
www.dahmw.org
Helpline: 888-743-5754
Business: 207-683-5758

--
Sincerely,
Jan Elizabeth Brown
Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men an Women
www.dahmw.org
You can help a worthy cause without driving to the store or donating a penny! Shop online at over 730 name brand stores this holiday season and a percentage of the amount you spend will go to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women!
www.iGive.com/DAHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdUYPcEgooc

Going to Restrict Sex then Pay the Consequences..

This what I have been saying all along..

Women, if you want a relationship you have to anti up the sex..

Now that may be way too obvious to guys but women just refuse to get that message. They are of the opinion that they can "regulate" it and it will play into their scheme of things..

Wrong..

Women want affection and guys want sex. Guys are quite happy exchanging it but deny that because of the lack of it and if you play that game you will have your worst nightmare come true..

Don't want to bonk than suffer the consequences, Is that too hard to comprehend or what ?

Women want feelings and men want sex. How hard is that to remember ?

But as usual, their excuses wallow in the myriad of imaginary issues that they promote and formulate. Their justification is to use it as a bargaining chip, determined too get their own way, never ever realising that if you do not grant it then he will find it somewhere else. It's as simple as that..

Your plan just does not work..

Here we go..

Why Women Get Cheated On

November 17, 2010 by Chateau

Here is a woman writing to an advice columnist about her predilection for dating men who wind up cheating on her.

Dear Bossy: I’m writing to you with hope that you can help me shed some light on why things happen in my personal life, and what i can do to resolve those things making me unhappy.
I feel really happy and fulfilled in all areas outside of my love life – career, family, friends, sports etc etc.  It’s all going great and I’m healthy and confident and good.  However, the last two years, i’ve had multiple experiences in my romantic life that make me question my own judgement and leave me feeling, well, worthless and unloved.
Let me take you through the details.
Two years ago, i caught my partner sleeping with another girl in our bed.  I moved out and broke it off with him.
Last year, i met someone i felt a real connection with.  He was warm and intelligent and thoughtful, and i really felt good around him.  I heard gossip from other people about him cheating, but when i confronted him to ask him why people would say such things, he assured me he was devoted to me.  Several months later, he confessed that he had another girlfriend, not just me.  I felt like I’d been punched in the stomach.  I cut all ties with him, and looking back, i know that i had my part to play in the situation, because, just like last time when there had been signs, i ignored them.  Not because i didn’t want them to be true, but because i guess i just trusted blindly. You know the saying, a liar won’t believe anyone else?  Well, i guess being someone who wouldn’t cheat made me ignorant of the idea that others do.
It took another 6 months before i met someone i was attracted to, who i had started off being friends with.  I just felt like a casual fling, he was not my type at all romantically, and I advised him that while I enjoyed his friendship, I wasn’t able to offer him anything more. One night this guy sent me a message saying he had just been on a date, and that he’d had an amazing time, but the girl in question wouldn’t have sex on the first date….so could he come over?  Again, I acknowledge my part in this by wanting a casual fling, but I guess I thought one could be conducted with dignity and respect.
Fast forward another couple of months, I got to know this really lovely guy at work.  I was just friends with him for a long time, not good friends, but i felt i knew enough about him.  I’ve seen him take care of another colleague who was sick, he has photos of his nieces and nephews on his desk, and he gets physically uneasy when one of our male colleagues makes inappropriate comments.  I guess what I’m saying is that this time around, I took the time to try to pick up on cues that tell me what a man’s really like before dating him.  Anyhow, I went to lunch a few times with him, and I really felt he was genuine and compassionate and interested in me.  We went on a couple of dates, and they were really great.  We went out for a coffee after work and talked for four hours.  I had been very cautious about dating given my previous experiences, but felt that he was trustworthy and honest.
Two days later, my other colleague, who had recently broken up with his work girlfriend, came to me and asked me to coffee (not knowing i was seeing this colleague – i wanted to keep it quiet at such an early stage).  During coffee, my friend broke down and told me that his ex had told him she’s started seeing someone else….yep, you guessed it, my new guy.
Bossy, I feel like I’m a hamster in a wheel, running on the same path making the same mistakes over and over again.  I don’t want to make these mistakes.  I thought I’d learned from the first two cheaters, but it’s becoming a pattern that is hurting so much, and I want to break it.
To an extent, I hold these guys responsible for their own behaviour, but deep in my heart I feel like this is happening because 1. I am not picking up on signals that i should, and 2. I am sending out signals that i am deserving of this.
Bossy, I’m swearing off men for a little while until I get my head straight.  At the moment I just feel too fragile and too suspicious, which is definitely not a good mix for a potential future!
I guess I’m just seeking your advice on a couple of things:
Firstly, how can i better screen guys?  What’s wrong with me that the men i’ve dated in the last two years consider me just discardable and unworthy of honesty and fidelity?  How can I paint myself in a diffferent light?
Secondly, I feel like dirt.  I feel worthless and discardable… some of these guys have gone on to be in successful relationships, so it feels to me like they have the capacity to respect, but not to respect me.  How can I overcome these feelings?  What can I do to feel good about myself again?
Finally, when it’s time for me to be ready to date again, how can I develop a balance between being jaded and cynical, and being naive?
I know I’m imperfect.  I can learn a lot and I accept my role in these situations.  I just feel so used and useless right now, and I don’t know how to fix it.
Thank you,
Cheated

“I feel like I’m a hamster in a wheel, running on the same path making the same mistakes over and over again.”
You don’t say! Even women recognize their gender is afflicted with a rationalization hamster.
Props to the guy asking for a booty call because his other woman wouldn’t put out on the first date. Balls, my friends.
I’m not including “Bossy’s” reply, because it was stupid — typical womanese, full of blame-shifting and platitudes, signifying nothing.
Here is the truth. Women get cheated on for four reasons, three of which they are complicit in their own betrayal.

1. They have stopped catering to a man’s desire. Women who choose to get fat or withhold sex are ripe candidates for being cheated on. A man who is driven to cheating by his fat, frigid wife has my sympathies.
2. They tingle for assholes. About 1/3 of women — usually the hottest chicks — have an irresistible urge to copulate with assholes, jerks, thugs and other assorted aloof cads. (Another 1/3 are susceptible to the asshole’s charms but are occasionally capable of eschewing the blind cravings of their vaginas.) Naturally, the assholes cheat. These women then cry foul, but they have invited betrayal into their lives. Their pain was prophesied the moment they spread their legs.
3. They shoot out of their league. I would tell a woman: You want to date an alpha one or more points higher than you? Prepare to be betrayed at some future date, said date which will be sooner rather than later if he’s considerably higher value than what you could be expected to get. More than a few women are OK with this trade-off.
4. Men like variety. Women have no control over this. Men are programmed to enjoy the hunt, and to experience pleasure from a multitude of pussy, and men with options are able to fulfill that desire. The best women can do to counter this manly impulse is to be young and hot.

A reader named “repentant male” (*cough* girly man *cough*) commented on the article:

I thought I would add some thoughts from the opposite side.
I used to be a cheating husband.  I love my wife dearly, I love my kids, I get angry at sexist jokes, and have photos of my kids on the desk.
I have been married for 20+ years, but there has been a hole in my personal fulfillment.  I met somebody else who was extremely physical with me.  O.M.G It was like I was 19 again – My world changed from one where I was literally begging for physical intimacy – and driving my wife away by doing so, to one where my every need was more than fulfilled.
After 6 months, I decided that it was time to leave my wife of 20+ years.  in the end, I couldn’t do it – I confessed, and broke the relationship off with the other woman.
Was it entirely my wifes fault? no Was it entirely my fault? – no – it was a combination of factors.  My wife didn’t understand how important physical intimacy was to me, and I wasn’t communicating properly with her.
Long story short, lots of counseling later, we are both still together, and the physical side is getting better – it will never be as awesome as it was with the other woman, but that’s not the point.
So – Are you *sure* that you are meeting the needs of your partner?  You may not be.

Take heed, ladies. You have to earn a husband’s faithfulness. This woman was lucky; her husband was too beta to do the right thing for his happiness. Maybe you won’t be so lucky. The sexual market is a worldwide dominion of genitals, and marriage is no exemption from its eternal, unrelenting, remorseless barter.

Prostate Cancer: Aus. Government Dont Give A Damn..

This is something that I have been involved with for many years and it's great to see it finally taking off and spreading worldwide as this site demonstrates..  Link..

Movember ofcourse is an opportunity for everyone to support both financially and physically to end this slaughter. Prostate Cancer kills a lot of men on a daily basis..

Apparently, 3300/365 is slightly over 9 men a day dying from this avoidable disease. I say avoidable as there is a drug that will reduce it's affect but the feminised Australian Government have been sitting on it for the last year, the usual "no vagina, no help" applies..

Australian Government holding back treatment for Men..

The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA) is the peak national body for prostate cancer in Australia. It is dedicated to:

• funding research into the cause, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of prostate cancer.
• raising awareness about prostate cancer
• providing support, information and advocacy to men and their families impacted by prostate cancer

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in Australia and the second greatest cause of cancer deaths in men. The latest data shows that in 2010 almost 20,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. Tragically more than 3,300 men will die as a direct cause of prostate cancer.
PCFA receives limited government funding and relies on the generosity of our corporate partners, individuals and the community to help continue its essential work.

Support this now..

Big Blokes Red..

Have a BBQ..

Better still, donate some cash..

Marc Rudov: Pay your own damn way..

Marc Rudov lecturing at a singles club and laying down the new thinking. However, and as usual, the 11th commandment was transgressed again (Thou Shalt Not Criticise a Female) and as usual we hear that same claim when one does, you must be bitter, you hate women, you are a misogynist etc.etc..

Have a look at the resistance his message gets from the females in the audience. Oh, by the way, when a female demands money, it's not a handout, that only happens when it's a man demanding it..



Marc's Site..

A Female Murdering Children Is Not Her Fault..

Gee, a female murders a couple of kids like it's news( how rare is that that they actually mention it) and what do we get ?

But females are nurturers, they would never harm a hair on your head according to feminists, schucks!!..

But we have to achieve a certain amount of "feel", you know that "women do nothing wrong" mantra, must be extended in the "modern day media" so they can demonstrate their feminist propaganda in the right fashion..

Guess what..

Elaine Campione, 35, wept, too, as she learned how she will likely spend the next 25 years of her life: behind bars.

Gee, like she wasn't teary eyed when she murdered those kids ?

And ofcourse there is always the excuse..

“This was an illness that she never asked to get,” she told reporters after the verdict. “It was an illness that unfortunately overtook her to the point where she just became sicker and sicker and sicker.”

Yes, whenever a female murders anyone there is always a reason and a justification. It is not a matter of them being nasty, spiteful, angry, revengeful or just right murderous..

Perish that thought..

It gets better, why stop at painting the poor victim role when you have so much to play with..
How is this for playing the "victim" role and what a pathetic bit of journalism to boot. Instead of reporting the facts, we have this bit of theatre..

“It is more than disconcerting to think that if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person, her two daughters could still be alive,” Judge Stong said.

How many of us cannot claim abuse ?
Now how about this. The Family court being Pro women in  90% of cases we have this excuse as well..

The drownings came shortly before she was to head to family court for a custody hearing. 

Do you think that lunatic may have considered the fact that she maybe might loose that case due to her behaviour ?

What about that whimsical Judge waxing lyrical. She murdered two children for shit sake..

What a farcical joke those journalists make this.Whenever women commit murder there must some other reason apart from the obvious. They have been murdering children for eons and getting away with it..

A special mention for the journalists and their obvious theatrics..

By Kenyon Wallace and Elspeth Lodge

They must be looking forward to their first Pulitzer Prize in their imagination..

Mother found guilty of drowning children in tub


By Kenyon Wallace and Elspeth Lodge
Link..


Jurors wept Monday as they convicted a Barrie, Ont., mother of two counts of first-degree murder for drowning her two little girls in the family bathtub four years ago.


Elaine Campione, 35, wept, too, as she learned how she will likely spend the next 25 years of her life: behind bars.

Looking pale, thin and exhausted, Campione hunched forward as she cried, her long dark hair (ed:by 'John', of Toronto Hairdressing SuperMall) falling over her shoulders onto her baby-blue collared shirt.


“The circumstances of this case are undeniably and inordinately tragic,” Judge Alfred Stong told the crowded courtroom. “One can only hope that they do not reflect, even at their most extreme, a direction of our society.”


A few women on the jury wiped tears from their eyes as Justice Stong read the verdict after nearly seven days of deliberations, while Ms. Campione’s parents, sitting in the front row, were visibly shaken at the news. They have been by their daughter’s side the whole trial, forming a close relationship with her defenders, waiting patiently to hear what fate awaited their child.


Defence lawyer Mary Cremer described her client, who had been treated for depression, as a person “ravaged by mental illness.”


“This was an illness that she never asked to get,” she told reporters after the verdict. “It was an illness that unfortunately overtook her to the point where she just became sicker and sicker and sicker.”

In the year before she killed 3-year-old Serena and 19-month-old Sophia, Campione had been hospitalized three times for various psychiatric breakdowns. She tried to kill herself. She believed she was being followed by men who wanted to kill her. She thought aliens were visiting earth. She believed red symbolized blood and forbade Serena from touching anything of that colour.


During the trial, the jury heard how Campione wrote in a journal that she was sexually abused as a child in her native New Brunswick by a man who owned a farm where she did chores.


“It is more than disconcerting to think that if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person, her two daughters could still be alive,” Judge Stong said.


The jury put the most stock in the Crown’s submission blaming Campione’s intense hatred for her estranged and allegedly abusive husband, Leo Campione. The drownings came shortly before she was to head to family court for a custody hearing.


She held them under the water in the bathtub of her Coulter Street apartment in Barrie. She then dressed them in pajamas, lay them down on her bed and wove rosary beads through their cold, lifeless hands. She called police two days later.


A home video, which Campione filmed the night she killed her children, shows a vindictive, angry woman. The footage begins with baby Sophia playing in the bathtub, laughing, smiling. Cut to an hour later, and the children are dead.

“Are you happy now?” Campione spews at the camera in a message intended for her husband. “You can visit them in their caskets.”


Campione will be formally sentenced on Wednesday, when her husband is expected to read a victim impact statement to the court. The judge said the Ministry of the Attorney General will be responsible for covering the cost of any counselling jury members need after the two-month trial.


Rosemary Gartner, a criminology professor at the University of Toronto, Monday likened the verdict to others in similar murder cases.


“In cases of mothers killing their kids, juries tend to have extreme emotional reactions. One reaction is that anybody who does something like this is obviously a bit crazy and deserves sympathy. The other side says, well, this is clearly the devil,” said Prof. Gartner.


The former reaction is a legal phenomenon known as “jury nullification,” where a jury will take into account mitigating factors, such as mental illness, or will even take pity on a young mother, and hand out a reduced sentence, as in the case of Andrea Yates, a Houston, Texas, mother who drowned her five children in her home’s bathtub in June 2001.


Ms. Yates was originally convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison, but a jury overturned the verdict on appeal in 2006, ruling she was not guilty by reason of insanity.


In 2008, an Ontario Superior Court jury found Xuan Linda Peng guilty of second-degree murder for drowning her 4-year-old daughter Scarlett in the bathtub of her family’s Toronto home four years earlier. She had originally been charged with first-degree murder.




Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/15/mother-found-guilty-of-drowning-children-in-tub/#ixzz15QKqXpDv

And some of the comment to this biased article..

morningglori

10:41 AM on November 15, 2010

Thank GOD! Finally a jury who did not buy into the oldest excuse in the book whenever a woman commits a violent crime. I'm sick to death of women committing murder, being involved in armed robberies, child abuse and on and on and the same excuse we hear time after time is mental illness. Enough already! If it was the father who had done this, there's no way any jury would have bought mental illness as an excuse. It's high time women are made to be accountable for their actions as well. BRAVO BARRIE!!!

Tossed Salad
It is a proven fact that women kill there children more than men and it is the oldest trick in the lawyers handbook to use the battered woman syndrome. Women can be just as evil if not more so when scorned.
One suspects however that she will get a light sentence and be out on the streets within two years. Not present in this article but in others is the judges words from a prepared text:

"Appearing to read from a prepared text, the judge ruled the acrimonious breakdown of Ms. Campione's marriage to Leo Campione, and appeared to hint that the breakdown was to blame for the murders of Serena, 3, and Sophia, 19 months old."

He is already setting the table for a light sentence. There is nothing he could do with a jury verdict but mark my words she will be out in two years. Judicial pandering at its worst. May she fry.

Thank you Percy..

The Sensitive Girl..

This article does somewhat contradict my usual stance as I am a MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) type of guy. But this particular article is not only well written and it's probably for that reason that I restrict myself from writing any long articles, (articledly challenged, yeah I know, another new word, I actually checked it). But Roissy once again demonstrates a different side to his usual "fuck em and chuck em" attitude with a somewhat interesting consideration that maybe a couple or 2 blog followers can relate to..

On top of that I was interested in the responses..

Girly Girl, I feel the same way also. I am extremely sensitive and I also become very anxious, especially around men. I have trouble forming sentences without bubbling like an idiot and it is difficult for me to maintain eye contact with men. I often relieve myself of stress by crying (I have no control over it), so I come across as very immature and unstable, when I am in fact very intelligent. I haven’t had my first kiss yet (I’m 26) because I’m a Muslim, but amongst my Muslim friends I am one of the few who is unmarried because I am so fearful of a broken heart. Which is sad because I think I am (moderately) attractive (7?).
I am glad he devoted a post to sensitive girls like myself. We really don’t respond to game in the same way.

and also this one..

Girly Girl:
“”"Oh my goodness, I feel like this post was written about me. Reading it brought tears to my eyes. You have no idea what it is like to be petrified about the prospect of having your heart ripped to shreds.”"”
Get yourself a nice beta guy and he’ll be bending over for your every neurosis rather than breaking your heart. It’s really not rocket science.
Unless you meant “You have no idea what it is like to be petrified about the prospect of having your heart ripped to shreds by the alpha cads that make my panties wet and whom I fantasize about, not the rest of the invisible men who I completely abhor“.

The Good guys have constantly noted how women behave in this fashion (Shagging a looser) and then when they want to settle down and "have a baby" they head towards the person that will take up that opportunity regardless of her neurotic and unexplainable behaviour. It's what it has really been all about, her pursuing her fantasies, but the current mentality is that she will find a nice guys after she has had her "fling" and then demand that he plays his part knowing full well that she will resort to her previous practice..

Que-sara-sera.. (whatever will be, will be)..

I rest my case. you figure..

MGTOW is not there to be ignored..

The Sensitive Girl

November 15, 2010 by Chateau
Link..
Something that men in their rush to conquer pussy tend to overlook, particularly those men new to the game, are that some girls can be destroyed by the coldblooded mechanization of the modern mating market. These are the sensitive girls who don’t know how to, or aren’t willing to, give as bad as they get. They genuinely hurt when their hearts get crushed, and have no way to defend themselves except by retreating to sulking in their bedrooms for months. They are easy prey for worldly seducers.

The sensitive girl (SG) is created as much as born. While most are born with a predilection to sentimentality, their exquisite victimization can be reinforced by their choices. An SG7 who shoots out of her league with a male 9 is asking for heartbreak. An SG slut (they do exist; you’ve never seen such a bag of neuroses!) has herself to blame for always falling short of experiencing the loving commitment she secretly craves from a man. An SG who has had the misfortune to fall in love with a sociopath will know the pain of having her buttons pressed and her strings pulled only to learn in the end that her romance was an illusion.

There are also the faux SGs — the ones who pretend to sentimentality but are really just drama whores forever searching for their next hit of accelerated relationship fanfare. They are contrivances who should be handled with a healthy dose of cynicism. Faux SGs make perfect backup lovers, as your continual unexplained absences where you spend time devoted to your primary relationship fuel their drama fix. It’s easy to identify a faux SG — just look for the girl who can’t stop flapping her gums about “how hard it is to date men in this city” while she’s showing some random guy her new hip tattoo.

The authentic “tears on pillow” SG is usually:

- a 5, 6 or 7. Uglier girls have been resigned to their depressing fate since childhood, and don’t expect much from men. They grow up to become hard-headed pragmatists, and make good disciplinarians for the omega roustabouts in their lives. 8s and above are too hot to be sentimental saps for long; most find that capitalizing on their brief window of power is far more fun than wallowing in self pity.

- stricken with a small physical flaw to which she is prone to blaming her unluckiness in love.

- a formerly hot cougar. Now we know the appeal of cats. What creature is more willing to sit still as a despondent aging cougar at the nexus of nostalgia for her lost beauty and sentimentality for the romantic gestures from men she can no longer attract regales it with tales of lovelorn woe?

- a young, naive girl. Break her heart and surely there will be a concierge waiting for you at the garnet gates of hell.

- a broken bitch. Not every girl who rides the cock carousel long and hard erects around herself a bodice of tankgrrl armor. A few self-confident sirens exit the ride puking their guts out, their souls shattered, whimpering for release in the arms of a niceguy. See: … well, you can figure out who.

Of all the taxonomy of women, the sensitive girl stands alone as the most capable of inducing pangs of guilt in a player. A true SG, her heart freely given with no strings attached, is so easy to destroy that you may hesitate before dragging her too deeply into your rakematrix. The SG has a habit of falling in love, and of glorifying your every word and action. Breakups often hit her completely unawares. She will mewl for reassurances from you that you won’t leave her. She cries just imagining a breakup, and will tremble with anxiety if you so much as hint at dissatisfaction with the relationship.

Tragically for inveterate romanticists, the SG is a species on the verge of extinction. You will find her skipping in Polish meadows or careening through Iowan cornfields, oblivious to the changes around her. Daisies poking up from a steaming worldwide shitvista.

The SG suffers unbeknownst in our post-monogamy, quasi-polygyny world. She is the victim of her bloodless sisters who turn men to the art of the game and the darker nature of women. These men, their egos and their courtship dance sharpened to a serrated edge, will unintentionally hurt the SG should they stumble into her tiny snowglobe world, mistakenly thinking she is like the others. Collateral damage, they will say. But a few players who retain a semblance of empathy will feel horrible for ushering another childlike heart into the realm of Phthonus.

A reader emails:

Hopefully a quick question – The GF is about to say “I love you”, but I don’t know how to respond? Any recommended advice here, or anything that’s worked well before? I don’t exactly love her either, but I’m a sucker for tears if I ever saw them.

A woman’s tears can immobilize a man. This blog teaches men to train themselves to remain stoic in an onslaught of waterworks, because many women are skilled in the art of manipulation through summoned tears. But sometimes a tear is just a tear, a Lite-Brite view of genuine inner turmoil.

If, as suspected, this man’s GF is an SG (SGs are the type of girl who will say “I love you” first, and will be the most hurt if the response isn’t in kind), then care must be taken with the handling of her heart. In event of unreciprocated love, her tears will be real. The reader was redirected to this post for possible replies to an “I love you” from a woman one doesn’t love in return. Further suggestions were offered, with the caveat that, no matter how expedient, it is in the player’s interest to avoid saying “I love you, too” if the feeling isn’t mutual. One, it’s hard to say with a straight face if it isn’t sincerely felt. Two, saying “I love you” to a girl you don’t love will cheapen the words when you want to say them to a girl you truly do love. You’ll come to doubt whether any of your future feelings of love are real.

It’s especially dangerous territory to lie about love with an SG. Lie all you want to a lawyercunt or a slut or a golddigger or a single mom or a thrice divorcée, because being the instrument of karmic comeuppance is your male prerogative. But lie to the SG, and her hopes, having been lifted to exalted heights, will inevitably come crashing down so hard her sorrow will weigh on you like a phantom inquisitor for years afterward. Have you ever walked out for the final time from a dimly-lit bedroom to the receding sound of your lover’s sobs trailing you from the shrinking corner of her bed? I can assure you, it’s not easy to brush off. The memory will singe. Heel thyself, cad.

Needless to say, this guilt is bad for maintaining the right frame for pickup. The best way to deal with ILY from an SG you don’t love is to be playful and evasive. “I’ve been waiting for you to say that.” Or “Right back atcha.” Plausible deniability — in the form of “I didn’t say or insinuate that I didn’t love you” — is key here. Most SGs hear what they want to hear, so this tactic will work.

To the callous bastards who read here: despoil your SGs, ruin them for the supplicative betas who would be good fits for the SGs, corrupt them to the power of the jaded side, but don’t tell them you love them if you don’t. There is a personal code of honor even the cruelest player abides. Violate at your own risk.

Of course, there’s always the option of falling in love with an SG. It’s not like it’s hard to do.

I Like The Way You Lie: Woman's Fantasy..

Here is a good example on how the "Pop Culture" educates people and I say people as it does demonstrate the behaviour of both sexes and how "they" should supposedly interact..

"I love the way you lie, I love the way you hurt"

Art imitating Life or just producing another batch of needy psychotics ?..

I may be totally misinterpreting this altogether ?

What is your interpretation ?

The major complaint from the "Good Guys"( those steady hardworking and conscientious guys only come into play when SHE is finished whoring around, mostly in their 30's) is the notion that women only gravitate towards assholes, druggies, ex cons and bikies and sadly enough they never seems to short of hangers on, their example and behaviour only fortifies that behavioral agenda..

No Fault Divorce: Feminists Knew Women lack "Moral Compass"..

Oh yes, the "No Fault Divorce" was the feminist's wet dream where they ensured the destruction of the family (copious entries on this blog's 2600 entries to choose from) and promoted this to such a degree that even women are now screaming for mercy. Dr Stephen Baskerville was once a member of NOW, (my version is the National Organisation of Witches) unfortunately or maybe fortunately, he finally realised what their agenda really entailed..

Destruction of marriage and the Family.
Denigration and Alienation of all Males.

So NOW (pun intended) he is onside, exposing the feminasties for what they really are with insider information..

-10 points for joining and 10000 points for exposing their agenda..

Australian Government: Abandoning men's health..

As we have female feminists in charge in Australia eg. P.M.Gillard and Ministers Roxon, Macklin, Ellis and Wong, no wonder Men's Health is a non-event as far as they are concerned. Gillard's "partner" a hairdresser and "Men's Ambassador" is about as effective as tits on a bull, his main effort is trying to make Gillard appear human by blow waving the hair in that way. It's the sow ears analogy, naturally.

The fact that prostate cancer does not affect women is apparently sufficient for it to be ignored while the PP(privileged princesses) have every possible facility and funds thrown at them at the neglect of all men and boys. So one must ask where are all those "equality" issues and where is the ongoing claim that feminists continually lie about that "they" are beneficial to our sex ?

For the past 12 months the Labor cabinet has been sitting on a Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee’s decision to release a drug called Avodart which could help reduce the size of the prostate in the 400,000 Australian men suffering from the complaint.

So there we have the blatant sexism demonstrated clearly by the feminists in charge in Australia who care about one half of the population as much as they have demonstrated to care about rising cost of living by introducing inane and nonsensical privileges to one sex only..

Abandoning men's health

by John Izzard

November 15, 2010

Of all the Rudd/Gillard broken promises, the cruellest was their undertaking that the Labor government would give cabinet approval within six months of any new drug recommended to it by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Its not as though cabinet has to discuss the medical or scientific aspects of new life-saving or distress-relieving pharmaceuticals. No! All cabinet has to do is rubber-stamp the PBA Committee’s approval so the drug can be made available to those who urgently need it.
Casual observers of the body politic will remember the passion and money justly devoted to women’s health issues such as breast cancer and cervical cancer. The publicity and resulting campaign to provide Professor Ian Frazer’s cervical cancer vaccine was extraordinary. He became Australian of the Year and his vaccine became immediately available with big government-run campaigns and free immunisation. Indeed there is even a free Cervical Cancer Vaccine Reminder Service that sends women and girls an SMS reminder message with the date of their next vaccine appointment.
Now government agencies are looking at a request to give the cervical cancer vaccine to 12 and 13 year-old schoolboys, via a government-funded scheme, as a “universal gender neutral program”. Yes there is such a thing. The idea is to stop promiscuous boys passing on the papilloma virus (HPV). Apparently the idea is to achieve a thing called … “herd immunity”.
But when it comes to men’s health where does the Labor government stand?
According to the Prostate Cancer Council of Australia “close to 3,300 men die of prostate cancer — equal to the number of women who die from breast cancer annually”. Around 20,000 cases are diagnosed in this country each year.
A far greater number though are diagnosed with an “enlarged prostate” which can be a precursor to prostate cancer. The enlarged prostate is usually indicated by a high PSA reading — Prostate Specific Antigen — detected through a blood test. With about 400,000 Australian men with non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate you would imagine that the Labor government would be anxious to assist men with this serious health problem.
The symptoms of an enlarged prostate are problems in urinating — mainly at night with sufferers having to get up many times during the night, irregular flow, pain during urination and general problems with the male urination system — their plumbing! Disturbed sleep by the sufferer, and their partner, also can affect health.
For the past 12 months the Labor cabinet has been sitting on a Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee’s decision to release a drug called Avodart which could help reduce the size of the prostate in the 400,000 Australian men suffering from the complaint.

In an article in The Australian last week (November 12) journalist Sue Dunlevy wrote:

The extended wait appears to have placed the Gillard government in breach of its promise that cabinet approval of drug subsidies would take no longer than six months. 

And it raises the questions about whether the government is delaying the approvals to save money as it strives to get its budget under control. 

If the above is true, and the three women ministers who control when this cabinet decision will be discussed — Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Health Minister Nicola Roxon and Finance Minister Penny Wong — the question arises as to whether the Gillard cabinet takes the issue of men’s health at all seriously. Would they be delaying a PBAC approval for 12 months, with no indication as to when it will be approved, if it involved women’s health?
When you have possibly 400,000 men having interrupted sleep by having to get up two or three times a night to urinate — that’s nearly 1,000,000 unnecessary functions across Australia, each night. Or 7,000,000 a week taken to an extreme, the delay in passing a simple cabinet-minute has possible caused 2,555,000,000 unnecessary functions and 146,000,000 sleepless nights — all because a cabinet-minute remains in cabinet-limbo.
As prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Australian men and is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in men, you would think that the Australian Labor government would show some compassion and concern. As a lump in a women’s breast is an alarm-bell, so is an enlarged prostate for men. The Gillard cabinet’s “impotence” is immoral.
Another drug that cabinet has had before it since September last year is Vidaza, a medication that can double the life expectancy of sufferers of myeloid leukaemia. According the Sue Dunlevy article, the frustration in the delays are annoying the Leukaemia Foundation. Their spokeswoman, Anna Williamson, says that she can’t even get Ms Roxon’s office to tell her when cabinet might rubber-stamp the approval.
It isn’t as though Labor hasn’t a laissez-faire track-record when it comes to rubber-stamping PBAC recommendations for new drugs. On March 27, 2008, The Daily Telegraph ran a story critical of Kevin Rudd leaving on a 17- day overseas jaunt without placing urgently needed PBAC drug approvals before cabinet for rubber-stamping. The drugs were needed for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease and renal disease. At the time, opposition health spokesman, Joe Hockey, described the delay as cruel. “Many people are living in hope of these drugs providing them relief,” he said.
You can imaging the outcry from feminist groups if women’s health was treated in the way men’s health is being treated in regards to the prostate drug Avodart. The sisterhood would be beside themselves.
In a speech, delivered to Lifeline on September 24 this year — and available on the ALP News Site — Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, “And I can assure you that issues associated with men’s health will be regularly drawn to my attention because my partner, Tim, intends to continue his advocacy work on men’s health issues.”
Well Tim, here’s you big chance.