Wednesday, 29 April 2015

"Why I am no longer a feminist", by Christine Damon

Reblogged with permission from "The Honey Badger Radio official Facebook group"

I am not the typical woman you see posting up pictures and declaring she doesn't need feminism. I considered myself a feminist for 30 years. Like most women who consider themselves feminists, I didn't read feminist literature or take women's studies courses. I just believed it was about equality.

I believed, and still do, that women are as intelligent and capable as men and should have equal rights and opportunities. That is what I thought feminism was all about.

I was wrong.

In June of 2013 my boyfriend was driving me to work. We were pulled over by the Ashland Police and he was arrested for rape, cuffed, and thrown in the maximum security rape tank at the Jackson County Jail on a $1 million bail. It seems there had already been a secret grand jury that had indicted on just the testimony of his accuser.

I was completely aware of the allegations. His father's now ex wife, Lisa, a mentally ill woman with a history of false reporting, was doing it to punish his father. It turns out the judge in the divorce had already dismissed her claims against her husband of sexually abusing the chihuahuas. Now she was going after Greg to hurt his father.

She had told a friend that if she “didn't get the house, the boat and the dogs in the divorce she would destroy” his father's life by claiming that he had raped her.

I sprung into action. After alerting work to the situation, I drove home to start making phone calls. A terrible mistake had been made. I believed that I could get them the information and he would be released. I was wrong.

First, what I found out is that the police had not done an investigation. When Greg found out what Lisa was claiming, he immediately contacted the police. It took weeks for them to get back to him.

He went down and told the detective in charge what had and had not happened. There had never been any sex, consensual or otherwise. Greg gave him a list of witnesses and informed him of her mental illness and the fact that she was on a list of psychotropic drugs. No witnesses were ever contacted.

How does this happen? How does a completely innocent man, with a completely clean record and no evidence that a crime was committed end up being thrown in jail and held on an enormous bail? We thought it must be complete incompetence. We were wrong.

It turns out the Ashland Police Department was rolling out a new program. It is called You Have Options and it is being widely celebrated and implemented in police forces nation wide. Under this program the police act more as rape crisis counselors than detectives. They blindly believe the accuser1, allow the accuser to decide how much of an investigation takes place, if any.

It also allows the accuser to decide if the witnesses or the accused are interviewed or informed of the charges. If Greg's father had not alerted him to what she was doing he might not have been aware of it until they were arresting him.

In the week after Greg's arrest I did the investigation the police should have done. I found Lisa's daughter, who was willing to testify for the defense on Lisa's multiple false accusations. I had established that Lisa was not even in the state at the time she claims the assault happened (two years prior), and I got a letter from a friend of Lisa's who claimed that Lisa had premeditated the false allegation to punish Greg's father in the event she did not get what she wanted in the divorce.

I found a lot of exculpatory evidence and got it to the police. Making matters worse, in that first week I was also fired from the job that I loved and was given no explanation. It would all be worth it if I could get Greg out of that horrible place. The detective put together a report and delivered it to the DA who promptly ignored it.

It turns out that Oregon has hearsay exception laws that allow for the indictment for rape on just the accusers testimony if there is no other evidence and if there is no reason to question that testimony. By not doing an investigation the police managed to avoid all the evidence and all the reasons to question her claims, and as a safety net for the DA, just in case they are completely wrong, and destroying innocent people's lives, the DA gets the grand jury to give them immunity.

This is a recipe for disaster. No accountability.

Fortunately, Greg got an amazing public defender. She uncovered the fact that Lisa had claimed that Greg had been molesting her for years and it was all in her psychiatric report. The police had requested that report over a year ago and the DA was still waiting for it. When the report finally arrived, 53 days after Greg had been incarcerated and the day before jury selection, there was absolutely no mention of it. Lisa had made it up and lied to the grand jury, a felony. The charges were “dismissed in the interest of justice.” Greg was released and I had him home.

That is when the real learning began. At this point I still believed that feminism was about equality. If feminists knew this was happening they would be concerned, too.


Again, I was wrong.

Feminists asked us not to come forward with the story. They did not want other women to be discouraged from coming forward. The DA chose not to file charges against Lisa stating that “Just as Hartley is innocent under the law because of his constitutional protections, so, too, the same presumption of innocence applies to his accuser” "How would we prove it? There was no confession or recantation."

So, the only time they will consider it a false report is when the accuser actually recants and confesses to the crime? The only evidence there had ever been of a crime in this case was of her filing a false report and committing perjury before a grand jury. No wonder they get to claim that false reporting is rare. What is really rare is women admitting they falsely accused innocent men.

Apparently we were supposed to go home and try to get on with our lives. We were supposed to pretend it never happened. The state, the city, and police refuse to acknowledge what happened. It wasn't their fault. There would be no justice. At least Rolling Stone admitted their mistake and apologized. We can not even get them to acknowledge we exist.

I descended on social media like a storm. Surely those good people on Huffington Post, Raw Story, Salon, among others would care that this was happening. False reporting is not only horrendous for the accused it makes it harder for actual rape victims to get justice.

The response was being called a traitor to my gender, to be told I was internalizing my misogyny. I actually had a feminist threaten to destroy my life and contact my employer to get me fired. Jokes on her; I had no job.

Most of the feminists who bothered to listen, came back with attacks. My boyfriend should learn to control himself. I calmly explained he had done nothing wrong. They could not hear it. Feminists repeat the lie that false reporting is rare often enough that they blindly believe it.

Even when the cases that feminist journalists use to prove that there is a rape crisis end up being false reportings, they still either choose to believe the accuser, despite evidence they are lying, or claim that at least they brought attention to the problem. They are so blinded they cannot even admit that a crime with actual victims has been committed.

The common narrative among feminists is that women do not lie about rape. They also charge anyone who bothers to question the veracity of those claims with victim blaming. There have been recent protests at Berkley and Ohio University against affording the accused due process. These feminists feel that since women do not lie about rape, we should just be able to assume that all accused are guilty.

There is absolutely no concern that innocent lives may be destroyed.

When the Rolling Stone came forward with an apology over the article on the UVA Gang Rape, which also ended up being a false reporting, their was a tremendous outrage.

Feminists were not angry because innocent men were falsely accused and had their reputations damaged.

They were not angry because a woman had committed the crime of false reporting.

They were angry that Rolling Stone followed this narrative and inadvertently exposed the fact that women do, in fact, lie about rape.

The fact that there were actual victims of the false reporting is not even mentioned. Not only did they not care about the victims of false reporting, they flatly refused to admit that they even existed.

Fortunately a local monthly publication was willing to cover our nightmare and wrote an amazing story, but people needed to know about this outside of our little valley though. The You Have Option program responsible was being outsourced to other states. It was a finalist for the Webber Seavey award for Quality in Law Enforcement.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was promoting it to Congress as a solution to the rape crisis and was using it as the model for the Campus Accountability & Safety Act (CASA) program. I wrote articles and letters to every media outlet I could find contact information for, from DemocracyNow to FOX news.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2200057.1430105627!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/assault27n-1-web.jpg

[Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand continues to support false rape accuser Emma Sulkowicz, despite her exposure as a fraud]


Absolutely no one was interested in covering the story. How could they continue to claim that false reporting was rare if they acknowledged it was happening?

The bigger question we should all be asking is, if there is indeed a rape crisis and if false reporting is so rare, why is it these journalists who are intent on exposing the rape crisis keep exposing false reportings and can not seem to find an actual rape?

What I learned in those first months was that feminism was not interested in equality. Feminism is a profoundly dishonest ideology that puts forth dishonest studies designed to get the results they want.

Feminists attack anyone who even attempts to point out its shortcomings and hypocrisy. Feminism is in no way interested in the truth. And feminists are completely unconcerned with the injustices suffered by the falsely accused, all while claiming that they are fighting for men's rights as well.

I am a strong intelligent woman who fights for equality. I am an educated, a middle aged, hairy legged, liberal, hippy.

I thought I was a feminist.

I was wrong.

1[editor's note: this is promoted by the VAWA using the Duluth Model, which automatically presumes any accused man as guilty

Monday, 27 April 2015

Feminist: "All men are rapists, all women victims". Seriously.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/were-both-drunk-addressing-sexual-assault-alcohol-stephanie-l-mcclure

"rape, which is penetration no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus of a person by any body part of another person or by any object, or of the mouth of a person by a sex organ of another person without that person’s consent."

A definition carefully crafted to erase female rapists.

If someone has sex without your consent, it's rape.

"Silence or absence of resistance does not imply consent".

Rubbish. Most people have sex without verbalising; always have. We have this wonderful thing to communicate when we want the other to stop. We call it "language".

"past consent to sexual contact or activity does not imply ongoing or future consent"

Of course it does. It does for every other situation. Most every human on the planet has had sex without clearing it first on the grounds that they trust their partner to say something if they are uncomfortable.

You realise you feminists want to remove all fun from existence, don't you? Seriously, i realise your lives must be miserable, but must you force your misery on the rest of us?

"We all are responsible for getting a clear, affirmative, unimpaired consent before engaging in sexual activity with another person."

So any feminist who goes down on a man without verbal consent is a rapist? Oh right - your definition means HE RAPED HER when she went down on him without asking.

Neat! So are you enjoying your vacation from Hell here on Earth?

"For men it also tends to increase sexual drive, and aggression. For women it decreases the ability to fight back and resist unwanted advances. "

Wow. Not even going to hide your sexist double standards, are you?

You have no evidence it does this. You are quite happy to treat your sexist and misandrist opinion as if it was scientific fact.

And, Jesus Christ, you really think drunken lesbians don't do things they regret later? You don't think they get horny, and decide to call that ex they know is no good for them? And you don't think men have trouble resisting advances... oh, but as we are all rape monsters, we would never resist, we are all so ready for it...

I'd go on, but you have left the planet, and I hope your return to the Abyss is a permanent one.

Sunday, 26 April 2015

Charles Henderson Middle School students learn their place in the Feminist tomorrow.

http://d2zkx2ttqi8r5j.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/0425Chivalry3_web.jpg

CHMS students practice serving their betters



This is nothing to do with chivalry, which had mutual obligations. This is
#HeForShe; he exists only to serve Her needs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry
When examining medieval literature, chivalry can be classified into three basic but overlapping areas:
  1. Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valour, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.
  2. Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord.
  3. Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.
Of course, Feminism demands only the latter be preserved... in direction contradiction to what it previously desired!


"The idea that men were to act and live deferentially on behalf of women and children, though an ancient principle, was already under attack by 1911 from militant suffragettes intent on leveling the political playing field by removing from the public mindset the notion that women were a 'weaker sex' in need of saving."


So we now accept that women are a weaker sex? No, of course not, in most situations; yes, of course, in a few.

Then why do they need saving? Why must they be carried about like the old or the crippled? (As a cripple, I demand women carry me about, dammit!)

http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/SlaveTrade/collection/large/KOSTER1.JPG

If feminism was about equality, it would abhor chivalry. Instead it wants to use the old romanticism to make men serve women - yet what do we get in exchange?

What did women do in medieval society to serve their community?

They might mend clothing, give away food to the poor, or serve their husbands in marriage - which was related to the courting business, of course - the men gave before marriage to show they were good providers but women were expected to be their equal but different partners - not leeches, not charity cases, not their betters to be served for the joy of service.

http://chivalrytoday.com/women-chivalry/

 Female characters, conversely, represented the intellectual side of chivalry — they are characters of reflection. Whenever a knight accomplished a great deed, he (or perhaps his vanquished foe) returned to Camelot to recount his actions to the Queen and ladies of the court.

In such instances, it was the job of the Queen and her ladies to either praise the knight for adhering to the true spirit of chivalry, or rebuke him for succumbing to the temptations of vanity, pride or greed.
If you can find me some feminist website praising men, you are doing better than I am. Feminist almost universally condemn men.

The pain of Aboriginal men abused by their women


http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/centralian-advocate/pain-of-aboriginal-men-abused-by-their-women/story-fnk4wgm8-1226840754537

https://archive.is/JoMhY

Saved from
no other snapshots from this url

24 Sep 2015 11:16:55 UTC
DOMESTIC violence against men is just as common as it is for women in some Aboriginal communities.
But Aboriginal men are hesitant to speak up because they fear being “shame jobs”.
Former Pioneer footballer Geoffrey Miller says there is a lack of services in Central Australia that can effectively deal with these issues men face.
“When I was working with DASA (Drug & Alcohol Services Association), it was the main problem we had,” he said.
“Women have their own legal aid and shelter — it’s all in place, but for men — there’s no shelter.
“What we used to call the men’s shelter was the prison cause that was the only place to go, even if it’s not their fault.
“If they stepped off their track, they ended up in prison — not a shelter.”

I have been pointing this out for years now. DV figures for the NT are extremely high, predictable given the disrupted social structures, but they are reciprocal.

But feminists look only at the figures that suit them and use that twisted cherry-picking to justify having legal discrimination against men in DV; no free legal services etc!!

Almost all DV paints a picture of an evil man and an innocent women.

When NSW police tried to show one example of a male victim, they were shouted at by thousands of feminists on their website.

See Also:

Duluth and the VAWA: "Power and Control"

Where Are All These Abused Men?



Feminist decide that censorship, by definition, is something they can’t do, so it totally doesn’t count when they do it.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/23/women-are-silenced-online-just-as-in-real-life-it-will-take-more-than-twitter-to-change-that
“In the US, censorship is defined as action to prevent or block speech by the government. Those last three words are very important, so I put them in bold.”


This is very interesting; The Guardian seems to have blocked me so i can’t reply directly, but is that a common belief over there?

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=censorship+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=igc8VZe4DJK78gWi74GoDg

I don’t see anything that says it has to be from the government to count. That doesn’t make any sense. In an anarchy, for example, you can still have censorship when a group of thugs walk over and burn your books because they say things they don’t like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings

"On 10 May 1933, in an act of ominous significance, the students burned upwards of 25,000 volumes of "un-German" books, thereby presaging an era of uncompromising state censorship."

If censorship was, by definition, by the State, then "state censorship" would be redundant.

The Mary Sue says feminists giving money to Anita Sarkeesian will hurt critics.

Anne Wheaton Tricked Gamergate Into Indirectly Donating to Feminist Frequency | The Mary Sue



I think this is brilliant and all feminists should follow her example. Whenever someone says something you don’t like, give money to anita sarkeesian.

When the person who says things you don’t like starts giggling at the idea this somehow hurts them, give more money.

When they are laughing uncontrollably, give property, jewelry, any easily disposable assets to anita sarkeesian.

Remember, she’s the victim here; she needs your cash more than you do.

Keep giving as the opponent writhes on the ground, weeping tears of laughter.

You have no money? Perhaps you could rob homes or sell crack? Have you considered selling your children? She accepts blood or bodily organs.

Keep going. Almost there.

As the last of your life drains away, know that you have mortally wounded your opponents by making anita sarkeesian very, very rich.

Friday, 24 April 2015

Free speech under fire

Why men’s rights groups are censored on campus


"“These are groups that are, in some jurisdictions, considered to be a hate group..."

Which jurisdictions? They never say. They know they will be prosecuted. But the smear is good enough for Feminists.

Simply implying that the Others are criminals - without ever having a trial - is a perfect extension of their Principle of "Listen and Believe".


The Feminist Authority simply points and the mob of feminists below all believe they are guilty as an article of faith. It's been a part of the Duluth Model for decades. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/duluth-and-vawa-power-and-control.html




Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Vote Hillary because.... vagina?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/16/pelosi-hillarys-votes-dont-matter-whats-important-is-shes-a-woman-video/

"What’s important is what it would mean to elect a woman president of the United States. It’s a very major consideration. A very qualified woman to be president of the United States, not just that she is a woman, but a very qualified one. "

Hmm. Sounds like she's saying she should be voted for because she's a woman? Yet when Sarah Palin was running, she wasn't?

How does that even work?

Of course, the truth is that Feminists want people to vote for her because she's a feminist. It's the same reason they often claim there's been no women leaders - all the other leaders like Margaret Thatcher were not Feminists.

So why do we need a Feminist President? To smash the Patriarchy. What is the Patriarchy? The system that only allows male leaders - and don't look at the history books and find count-examples, thinking is Patriarchy!

So what is her record? She voted for the Iraq war. Ok, what else? When Boko Haram was building up, slaughtering thousands of men and boys, denying them any chance of an education, she did not care.

It's hardly surprising - her speeches repeatedly emphasise that male lives mean nothing to her. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/hillary-clinton.html

And millions of Americans -including men, who will be eligible for the draft in her next campaign - will blindly vote for her - because she's a woman. That's all.

Nothing else matters.

Right?


Monday, 20 April 2015

NOW, Feminism, and Historical Revisionism

http://web.archive.org/web/20070708213232/http://michnow.org/jointcustody507.htm interests me because it keeps coming up in debates between feminists, who claim they want joint custody, and anti-feminists, who point out that their actions directly contradict this.


http://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2xk11d/cmv_feminism_isnt_the_answer_for_men/
wrt89 says:
 Feminists fight AGAINST men’s rights.

(screenshot; right click/view image to see large view)

Here are some examples to prove my point.

Father’s rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner.

Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW’s own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. “fathers are abusive, don’t give them custody.” That is from 1997, but still remains valid today.

Sunday, 19 April 2015

Lesbian attempts rape. Victim cannot comprehend the attack. Feminists jazz hand madly.

Feminism teaches women that all men are rapists - and no women.
Is there any innocent explanation for this? Is there any chance of misunderstanding?
She could not believe it. It was against feminist conditioning. Men are wicked. Women are angelic. How could an angel rape you?

Data shows domestic violence, rape an issue for gays

“Gay people in the United States are just as likely as heterosexuals to experience domestic violence, sexual violence or stalking, and bisexual women are more likely than other women to be abused”

US department of Justice: “1 in 9 lesbian/bisexual women have been raped by a female partner.”

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf page 29 and 30

With thanks to http://occupymelbourne.net/2013/06/18/stop-lesbian-rape-culture/

Klingons and Gender Politics!

http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t200.php

Reflecting on what Chuck was saying about the traditional gender roles; women had to be chaste, men brave. And the gendered insults: 'coward' and 'slut'.

And while there has been a movement to argue that 'sluthood' is honourable; oddly enough, there's no equivalent to argue that men don't have to be brave, that men don't have to be ready to lay their lives on the line for women - with no converse expectation.

It's still HeforShe, after all.

With regards to the Klingon sexual divisions, it's hard to tell what's deliberate and what's continuity errors. For example, "no women on the council" could have been a decision made after a progressive faction was defeated - and, knowing the Klingons, slaughtered.

Generally Trek is rather confusing about the place of women in it's Klingon society - maybe it's connected to the rise of the Warrior class, so that brute strength has even more importance over the course of the series - and presumably Klingons share human sexual dimorphism with regards to body strength.

Thus, the leaders will tend to be male on the grounds they can bash things gud!!! Not necessarily that they are good at leading.

And looking at how often Klingon civil wars seem to happen, poor leadership does seem to be their favoured style. They are good warriors - but that's it.

And that's just not enough.

I think in some future episodes they showed the Klingons joining the Federation? I can understand that. The Romulan empire seems to be a ruthless meritocracy, far more interested in cunning and treachery than physical might,  and I would expect female rulers as often as male (and we did see a female Romulan captain in TOS, when no human female captain seemed possible).

Saturday, 18 April 2015

Feminists say "not even YES means yes"!

http://the-penultimate-word.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/catcn-22.jpg


https://archive.today/PTVhQ    (Saved from http://www.bustle.com/articles/67926-is-it-rape-if-you-say-yes-5-types-of-sexual-coercion-explained 18 Apr 2015 08:01:49 UTC)

"It can be as as simple as encouraging someone to have a few too many drinks... There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether a drunk woman can give consent to sex. But you don’t have to be fully drunk in order to be sexually coerced with alcohol"

Why is it only drunk women can't consent? If a drunk man murders a woman, would anyone question whether he was responsible? Would it matter if the woman was pouring the drink?

We never question male agency. Why would we have a double standard for women?

It seem like they are saying a feminist can never be trusted to drink like a man would. Perhaps the best way to kill a feminist is, then, to point out a bottle of methylated spirits.

They'll gulp it down in one giant swallow.

They just can't help themselves.

" or it can hide inside threats like “I’ll leave you if you don’t sleep with me.” "

Yes, this is formally a part of the Feminist platform. If a man expresses his desire to leave if the relationship isn't making him happy - that's now rape.

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/duluth-and-vawa-power-and-control.html

"Sexual coercion is a tricky thing to define"

So you don't know what it is - but you want to imprison people regardless? Based on your feelz? You want to destroy people's lives with one of the most serious accusations in our society - despite the fact you can't even define it to yourself.

"If you have said yes when you didn’t really want to, know that you may have been sexually coerced, that there’s no excuse for what happened to you, and that what happened was not your fault."


Yes, a feminist can have sex, screaming YESYESYES the whole way through... and then afterwards decide she didn't really want it.


Can you think of any other arena where that excuse would be taken seriously? Can you say you were not responsible for driving drunk because you decided to finish a bottle?

"1. You’re Having Sex Because You’ve Been Told It’s Your Duty"

Well, yes, it is part of the duties of a relationship to keep your partner happy. If you don't want to - why are you in the relationship?

This is actually enforced by law in some States.

Frenchman ordered to pay ex-wife £9,000 for not having sex after marriage

(Saved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033972/Jean-Louis-B-pays-9-000-damages-lack-sex-marriage.html  18 Apr 2015 09:13:31 UTC)

"3. You’re Having Sex Out Of Guilt"

Yes, if your partner feels guilty over something, you are now a rapist. As long as you're male and they're female, of course; a lesbian rapist is a contradiction in terms, according to feminists.

Compare this to: https://archive.today/orSUv

(Saved from    http://www.gq.com/news-politics/mens-lives/201303/men-dont-have-sex   
18 Apr 2015 08:26:10 UTC)

There we see the feminist double standard. If a man says no, it's selfish.

There's no possibility the woman is being a rapist with her demands. And I agree - everyone, male AND female, has the right to say no, and if that is unacceptable, it's time to either look at counselling - or end the relationship.

But no, Feminists want the threat of the charge of rape to be applied, but only, as I pointed out, when it harms men.
This has actually been implemented, and a student (who was blacked out when his partner had sex with him) was charged with sexual assault.

An Amherst College student blacked out, accompanied a fellow student back to her dorm room after drinking in February 2012. While he was blacked out, she performed oral sex on him.

Nearly two years later, she would accuse him of sexual assault. And under Amherst's guilty-until-proven-innocent (and even then, as we'll see, still guilty) hearing standards, the accused student was expelled.




See also:

Consent Campaign At Oxford College Of Emory University

Friday, 17 April 2015

Feminist declares men who use sexbots are rapists

Feminist knows nothing about robotics, cares nothing about researching robotics, still wants any man who has sex with a robot arrested as a rapist.

Women, of course, can keep screwing their machines, because the vagina-powered halo is just too bright to be denied!

Thursday, 16 April 2015

Tell me again how women couldn't work before feminism?

https://twitter.com/oldpicsarchive/status/588659122888974337




Female photojournalist Jessie Tarbox on the street with her camera, 1900s.

More examples: https://archive.today/nDhM5

3,289 women candidates, and the researchers have as-yet-unprocessed data for about 1,800 more.* The total number of campaigns in the database is 4,480; in a startling 3,339 of those campaigns, women candidates were successful.

Chmielewski also pointed out that if the researchers had included women who were appointed to office, or held civil service positions, the number of those who had served before suffrage would have been much bigger. “We would have been at about 50,000 women,” she said.
archive.today
webpage capture
   
16 Apr 2015 11:20:30 UTC

Consent Campaign At Oxford College Of Emory University

This is a response to http://www.buzzfeed.com/jocelynh4a780d26d/consent-campaign-at-oxford-college-of-emory-univer-1hnsj

Are we going to do all this again?

2) The absence of a "no" is not a "yes".

Well, the only acceptable yes to a feminist is a verbalised one - pronounced before any shift in position or activity. To any non-feminist, non-verbal communication is an option. If someone's mouth has been applied to your genitals, you don't need to ask if you can reciprocate.

Feminists claim only verbal consent counts - I can only presume good feminists never have the body parts of their lovers in their mouths - which may well be the case as that would be giving pleasure to a male, which is clearly antifeminist.

And feminists then put in a little catch.

It still does not count. A Feminist can always retrospectively invalidate consent by saying she felt pressured, or fearful.

Even if the lover had recorded the entire event with witnesses and the required number of consent questions had been asked at the required intervals, and every yes  had been signed off on by a Justice of the Peace - it doesn't matter.

In court, she can always claim he gave her a 'look'. How can he prove otherwise. He's presumed guilty, not innocent.

3) Oh. Feminists are still going on about Blurred Lines. Really.

http://www.theoilersrig.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lets-beat-that-horse.jpg

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/blurred-l-ines-by-robin-thicke-is.html

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/stabbyraccoons-take-on-blurred-lines.html

4)

Yes.

Being in a relationship is implied consent for everyone who is not a feminist.

And I understand, I really do, that feminists view as sex with men as 'problematic' as best; men are hideous rape-monsters, but sometimes a feminist gets an embarrassing itch and needs someone else to scratch it.

The rest of humanity is quite happy to explore this thing we call 'trust'. In means, for example, my lover can go down on me, or vice versa, without waking me up, and if i don't like it, I express that, verbally or otherwise. I don't wait until I'm satisfied, then when my lover ends the relationship, give the cops a quick call to ruin their lives.

Oh right, the cops would never act on my complaint; I'm male. But if I was a female with a male lover, I could do that; it's not like evidence is required now.

But Feminists want their rules to apply to everyone.

Wouldn't it be fairer to simply have feminist relationships, and non-feminist relationships? In the sane variety, we could carry on, having sex without your rules. Meanwhile, any male who enters your space could simply and humanely be shot in the head, thus saving time and paperwork.

5) If someone changes their mind - but doesn't make it clear - then they are responsible. Men do not have telepathy. Feminists might want to imprison men for not being supernaturally equipped, but sane people prefer to let humans obey the laws of physics.

6) "She said yes to a drink, not to sex"

So she had one drink and passed out? Impressive. Was it soft drink? Is she narcoleptic? I will agree that any feminist who is so feeble should never have sex, or interact with men in any way.

It's already illegal to screw someone who is unconscious due to drinking, and there's not a lot of guys who aren't aware of that. But that's not what the Feminists are after, is it? They want to claim that any woman who has touched the Devil's Brew can no longer make any decisions - unlike a man.

According to Feminists, women are but feeble children in adult bodies.

Consent is IMPOSSIBLE.


7) Coercion is not consent.

Really, Feminists think men are unaware of that. Everywhere in the non-feminist world, men will go up to women, throw them down and have their way, and go on, without any thought that might not be socially acceptable.

Of course, feminists re-define coercion on the fly, so they might well decide that saying "would you like to sleep with me" now counts - in the same way they defined cat-calling as anything from "hello" to "have a nice day" if spoken by a man to a women - when the man is considered unattractive by that woman, of course.

8) Alcohol is no excuse.. hmm, might want to tell your other feminists that. It's not our side that is claiming women are unable to consent if they have swallowed any booze.

9) Consent is beautiful? No, it's an ugly bag of pus, thanks to feminists.

10 ) "Love softly"? That's gibberish. A good summary of Feminism; something that sounds like it might mean something, but doesn't.

Recommended Reading:




https://archive.today/qG2Ng     16 Apr 2015 12:18:34 UTC from http://www.oxy.edu/sexual-assault-resources-support/policies-procedures#V.%20Prohibited%20Conduct%20and%20Definitions

Consent:

Not indefinite:

Consent may be withdrawn by any party at any time.
 

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? In BDSM, that means a safe word or activity; three taps, for example, usually repeated like morse code.

"Recognizing the dynamic nature of sexual activity, individuals choosing to engage in sexual activity must evaluate consent in an ongoing manner and communicate clearly throughout all stages of sexual activity. "

How do you communicate clearly at all stages?

May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?

How many times can you say that?


dAnd of course, since the purpose of sex is to enter an irrational state (i.e. orgasm!), at some point you can either stop talking or stop feeling.

Of course the point is that everyone will break the rules - but then they can pick and choose who to punish. And from the experience with the courts, which group do you think will be most selected?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Duluth-lynching-postcard.jpg

"Withdrawal of consent can be an expressed “no” or can be based on an outward demonstration that conveys that an individual is hesitant, confused, uncertain or is no longer a mutual participant. "

"Outward demonstration"? Well, that seems critical! A young man's life hinges on the 'outward demonstration'!

So is it defined? Of course not! That might mean anything at all; she might tense up because she's having an orgasm, or because she's now feeling uncomfortable - you, as someone without telepathy, just don't know.

So the only way to pass this test is never to take it; remain celibate.

And remember; if you do masturbate, as a male, you are likely to use porn instead of a vibrator like females do - and that means feminists can and will shame you and even criminalise you for doing so!

Feminism; it hates men. It really hates men.





In response to the comments:


Further Reading:

  1. Consent Continued
  2. Women cannot consent because they are feeble and timorous beasties
  3. Feminists say "not even YES means yes"!

Monday, 13 April 2015

Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

https://archive.today/2Ojwx

" Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated."

There's no possibility that a man did not consent, no presumption of innocence, no definition of a legal standard any man can meet to be sure he will be seen as innocent in court.

"The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent."

Despite the fact that "no means no" works for every other situation.

Your honour, I did say I would pay money for the car but i didn't really mean it, and when I crashed it, I said I would pay for repairs - but deep down I was terrified and unable to say no!

Oh, you poor dear, run along then, the terrible man obviously pressured your weak little mind into agreeing to such things!



"Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex"

No definition given of "too drunk". One glass of wine? A sip? What if it was done without a man knowing? A drink before meeting? Indeed, since no breath or blood test is performed, she can simply say she was drunk whilst remaining sober at the time. She is not required to prove it; he is required to disprove it.


" if they simply freeze and say nothing"

He kisses her, she kisses back. His kisses go down her body. She cums. She then calls the police to report her rape. He has no idea what went wrong.

She kisses him, he kisses back. Her kisses go down his body. He cums. He then calls the police to report his rape. The police laugh at him. These guidelines only protect women. These guidelines make it plain that only men are rapists.

"Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”. "

Using a lie detector? Magic? Wonder Woman's Lasso? How will a man prove that a woman said yes without feeling fear because of some past experience?


How do you prove your innocence? Will you have to record every moment, have a witness present, what? They don't give a method.

Effectively this means that any man who is accused is guilty.

Why bother with the trial, then?

She points. He hangs.

http://atlantablackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/black-people-lynched.jpg

Listen and Believe.


Feminism.

Saved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html
28 Jan 2015 22:39:23 UTC

Sunday, 12 April 2015

Netflix has a message for all Australians


No matter what we do, we keep finding Australians watching our programs.

Well, it's ours, so you lot can bugger off! We've tried not selling it to you at all, we've tried selling it to you years after everyone else so the joy of it can be destroyed by the international streams of gossip and spoilers - but no, you use VPNs, you torrent, you even copy from hard drive to hard drive.

You just won't bloody stop! Don't you realise we are doing this because we hate you? We could be making money - but instead, we are taking losses in order to spite you. Don't you get it? We want you all to burn, damn you!

So we paid a huge b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶ donation to the Australian political parties to make sure they would throw you under a bus, and they've finally done it. We look forward to the miserable look on your faces as your favourite cultural events occur without you.

Suffer horribly, you bloody horrible koala buggerers!

Signed,

Netflix.

p.s. Great new deals for Australian customers on Season 27 of "Beige Cubes: the silence". Now only three times what everyone else would pay!

Friday, 10 April 2015

Debunk Feminism

I got a lot of this from the amazing oratorasaurus  as well as other amazing antifeminists. I will add as I go along.

“The Wage Gap”
Domestic Violence
Rape Culture
Mens Issues
Female Privilege
Feminists being horrible

See also:

Debunking 5 common feminists arguments

When feminists promise to kill your son, should you take it as a joke?

A response to ​"The Myth Of Misandry"

   “All that being said, what about those feminists who joke about misandry?”

You mean, like members of neo-nazi groups joke about hating gays?

I mean, there’s no possibility the hatred could be serious... is there?


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1027434.1331909536!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/8aq0km87.jpg

Valerie Solanas is glamourised by Feminists - mythologised into a sexy warrior, fighting the Patriarchy.















She has fan clubs.

Can you imagine the reaction if someone treated a man who shot women in such a fashion?


“While Warhol was on the phone, Solanas fired at him three times. She missed twice, but the third shot went through both lungs, his spleen, stomach, liver, and esophagus.[48] She then shot art critic Mario Amaya in the hip. She tried to shoot Fred Hughes, Warhol's manager, in the head but her gun jammed.[55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas#The_shooting

Oh yes, I see now! When a feminist hurts a man, it’s irony. When a man hurts a woman, it’s proof that masculinity is toxic.

Boy, I’m glad I have a brain tumour and can now see the world as you do.


“Isn’t it wrong to say that you hate men, even in jest?”

Only if you don’t genuinely hate men. Is that not clear?

“Isn’t it wrong to say that you hate black men, even in jest?”

“Isn’t it wrong to say that you hate queer men, even in jest?”

Isn’t it wrong to say that you hate those men, even in jest?

Because that’s what you are saying.

You hate us.

All, Of. Us. Black, white, straight and gay, cripples, athletes, priests and publicans  and your hatred is nothing new, we have seen it so so many times before.



















“Doesn’t that set the feminist movement, with its declared goal of equality, back a decade or five?”

No.

Because it’s rhetoric and it’s actions have no connection at all. It talks equality like the Nazis talked peace.

It never DOES equality.


“ And above all, where are the men in all of this discussion?”

Your ‘allies’ are grovelling under the table - have you forgotten to feed them again?

And as for the rest of us - we are joining together with others, women, and men, shoulder to shoulder, united - against YOU.

“ Who is thinking about them?”

Not you, I hope, go back to your blogging and wanking and endless self-validations. Don’t mind us - we have stuff to do.

”As writer-editor Jess Zimmerman so perfectly put it in Amanda Hess’ recent Slate column, ironic misandry is a “reductio ad absurdum.””

You advance no evidence that there’s anything ironic about your hate.
You fight to demonise our sex, and put your hate into law.

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/duluth-and-vawa-power-and-control.html



"It works as a joke because it’s “inhabiting the most exaggerated, implausible distortion of your position, in order to show that it’s ridiculous.”"

So when feminists say they hate men - we can't trust them at their word.

Feminists are liars? That's an interesting defense.

http://dontneedfeminism.com/post/71296384847/oratorasaurus-lzbth-im-not-a-feminist


You can’t deny the simple fact that feminism is a movement for women and their boogeyman is the entire male gender. That feminism is about hating men. You simply have to look to what the political and famous feminists say and the complete taciturn approval of the entire feminist movement of those statements:

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon


“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

;“I haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power.

But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist?

No, I really don’t mean that. Yes, I really do.

; “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”

; “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”

— Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

From her “The Demon Lover” (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn’t hide her bigotry):



* p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic… each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things…. He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic “play” between “consenting adults,” as he is one with the rapist.

* p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others’ agony.

* p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn’t understand the furor about it.

* p. 316: Did she die of the disease called “family” or the disease called “rehabilitation”, of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?



“And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism—the lie that there can be such a thing as ‘men’s liberation groups.’ Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a ‘threatening’ characteristic shared by the latter group—skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed ****ED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism—the oppressed have no alternative—for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men—but in the short run it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women—kill your fathers, not your mothers”.

— Robin Morgan



“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo."

— Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto



"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.”

— Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.)



“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things.”

— Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)



“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”

— Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW



“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”

; “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.”

; “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”

; “Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”

; “Q: People think you are very hostile to men.

A: I am.”

; "Men use the night to erase us.”

; “The annihilation of a woman’s personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality.”

; “Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives.”

— Andrea Dworkin, one of the people who created 'Gender Studies' classes along side  Catherine MacKinnon







“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it ‘Her’.

Men ruin Her.

Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination....

... in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.



“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” ; “Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.”

— Ti-Grace Atkinson



“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6



“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” — Sheila Jeffrys



“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”

; “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”

; “You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.”




“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”

— Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.), quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies.



“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone; Actress




“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

— Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.



“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”

— Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.



“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”

—Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.



“If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them.”

- David Angier



“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”

- Catherine Comins



“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.”

— Marilyn French (her emphasis)



“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.”

— Marilyn French; The Woman’s Room.



“All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women… All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey.”

— Marilyn French



“All men are rapists and that’s all they are”

— Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.)



“The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations…obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign.”

— Marilyn French



“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”

— Barbara Jordan; Former Congresswoman.



“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.”

— Germaine Greer.



“Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence.”

— Judith Levine; Authoress



“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to ****/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’

— Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)



"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, ‘hate in love,’ for the men women share their lives with—husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers.”

— Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love



“There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of ‘sex acts’…includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder.”

— Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women’s Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)



“All men are good for is ****ing, and running over with a truck”.

Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University 1995 settlement.



Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as “The ****ing Molesters Society”. (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.



“Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do.”

— Popular Feminist Graffiti



“I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father’s concubine… What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What’s more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.”.

— Sylvia Fraser; Journalist



“We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.”

— Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.



“Catharine MacKinnon maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women’s exploited labor.” In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination.

Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state’s nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality.

If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid—ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed—they’re “hiding from the truth.” The family isn’t a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don’t simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to “breed” them for that purpose.“

— Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)



"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal—a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students—I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment…of persuading students that women are oppressed"

— Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.



"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact.”

—taken from Daphne Patai’s excellent critical work, Heterophobia



“Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men’s violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers.” — taken from Daphne Patai’s excellent critical work, Heterophobia



“At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert… writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages.”

— Heather Hart 7

“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist” (National NOW Times, January, 1988)

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage” (feminist leader Sheila Cronan)

In response to a question concerning China’s policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, “I consider the Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world” (Gary Bauer, “Abetting Coercion in China,” The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989)

“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole…patriarch!” (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine)

“Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women…. We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.

Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men….


All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women.


We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft
” (from “The Declaration of Feminism,” November, 1971)

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.” — Elizabeth Cady Stanton


From ‘A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:


MALE:…represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants…the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.


MAN:…an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched…a contradictory baby-man…


So you can clearly see, if you’re going to say feminism is not a man-hating movement, I’m going to have to insist that you provide links either to sites showing feminists condemning the statements listed above, or feminists telling women to respect men as men.

"The humor of ironic misandry lies in the fact that, contrary to popular belief, feminists don’t actually hate men."

http://www.urbanhonking.com/before/spacecanon/FemaleMan.jpg
I mean, it's not like Feminists constantly talk about #KillAllMen, is it?

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/exposing-feminisms-rotten-core/


"I keep seeing people use a line of reasoning that goes something like, well, how would you feel if men jokingly wore t-shirts that said misogynist on them or drank out of mugs labeled “female tears""

Considering feminists had the game "GTA: V" yanked from shelves in Australia because there was "violence against women"

- despite the fact
  1. they weren't real women! No-one has ever proven a link between games and real violence
  2. most of the violence was to men by a huge margin
Then yeah, I don't think it would last long. But look at how feminists reacted to the meninist parody! They went berserk. They added him, along with Richard Dawkins, Brian Cox, Mercedes Carrera and Christina Hoff Sommers, to the Blockbot - where they describe such people as harassers and even pedophiles.


"—and OK, I get where you’re coming from and all"

You might 'get' it but you just don't fucking care. As a third wave feminist, you feel the truth should never get in the way of your propaganda.


" but here’s the thing: if the past bajillion years of history hadn’t happened"

You wouldn't be blogging on your iPhone while sipping your pumpkin latte?


"and if women didn’t experience oppression"

They don't, in the West - where Feminism is focussed on.


"and marginalization on a staggering global scale"

Moving the goal posts - shit is bad outside the West for everyone. Boys are made into slaves but feminism doesn't give a fuck about that. It spends a lot of energy making sure there's no domestic violence shelters for men in the West, however.

" maybe I would find it funny"

Maybe I would find it funny if I took a screwdriver to your eye socket. Maybe, maybe, maybe... maybe we should talk about the fucking real world for a change?

"But things don’t exist in a vacuum"

You really are completely clueless, aren't you?

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/materials/SED_wall_1920x1200.jpg

"the truth is that misogynists actually do threaten, hurt and kill women on a regular basis"

Where is your fucking evidence for that claim?

You have none. Meanwhile, men are dying for the women in their lives all the fucking time.

Jonathan T. Blunk of Aurora, Colo., pushed his girlfriend under the theater seat when James Holmes allegedly started open firing into the audience at the midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises." He told her, 'We have to get down.'

Colorado Shooting: Victims Who Died While Saving Their Loved Ones


" So when men “ironically” call themselves misogynists"

Oh, so if the members of the group YOU HATE call themselves misogynists - and I've seen a total of one, out of all the men I've encountered - then it must be that they are lying if they say it's a joke - but should any member of your group say it - and make it clear they mean it - then you have your excuses ready.

"what they’re conveniently forgetting is that misogyny is a very real thing that women live with every day"

Your privileged fanny will never know a world with misogyny in it. Men and boys will be expected to die to preserve your rancid hate-filled heart from harm. And you will spit on our corpses when we are done.




"I promise you—without a hint of hyperbole—that it’s a force that makes us actually fear for our lives."

YOUR HYSTERIA HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY.

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/08/06/lynch_wide-e5f3db3981908390959c32e0a836705492e16ee8.jpg?s=1400

A woman points. An innocent men dies. She says she was afraid. He can never speak again.

There was another group that constantly claimed it was under threat, that it's acts were always self-defense.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/images/The%20Jews%20as%20the%20instigator%20of%20war.jpg

Threats to women could justify any atrocity.

http://www.lucifereffect.com/pix/nazi4.jpg


And we know where such manipulation leads.

http://i.imgur.com/TWnAC.jpg


Where feminism aches to go.


" there are no feminists out there shooting up fraternity houses because of misandry a la Elliot Rodger"

Elliot - the man who killed five men, and two women? Who hated all of humanity?


You look at two female victims and ignore all the men, because their lives mean nothing to a misandrist like you. You like, and lie, and lie again.
          
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/10/world-war-ii-the-holocaust/w01_2001356_/main_1200.jpg
You think you can break us? We fought harder battles than you can imagine.

And yes, we paid a price.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/54c16abdeab8ea44186278be/image.jpg Your hate cult might kill many of us before it's time is done.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/ww2_18/w24_50417095.jpg
But we will endure.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Ebensee_concentration_camp_prisoners_1945.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Kissing_the_War_Goodbye.jpgAnd we will be here when you are gone.

http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2008/05/02/800x_b1_cCM_z/Concentration-camp-survivors-from-Holocaust-part-of-Sylvania-ceremony-3.jpg