Tag Archives: feminism

Do to Renuka what F4J did to Harriet Harman

To succeed, any movement must have slogans that “say it all” to communicate an irrefutable message that everyone instantly understands.

Yesterday, F4J staged another great protest, scaling the home of British feminist minister “Ms.” Harriet Harmon, who has been actively destroying marriage and fatherhood in Britain.

For the protest, F4J unveiled the best slogan I have seen in years: “A Father Is For Life, Not Just Conception“. If that does not say it all, I don’t know what does.

READ DAVID USHER’S FULL ARTICLE HERE

BBC ARTICLE AND VIDEOS HERE

Advertisements

Men are the Silent Victims in the Sex War

Doris Lessing: ‘The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests’

Doris Lessing is another Erin Pizzey, another Madhu Kishwar who is disillusioned with what feminism has done to humiliate men. She ia appalled at the constant flailing of men, who barely protest.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE

What defenses do WE HAVE? The Twelve ‘Female-Only’ Defenses

Excerpted from The Myth of Male Power

By Warren Farrell
 

1) THE INNOCENT WOMAN DEFENSE

I am starting with the innocent woman defense because it underlies all twelve defenses. At first I had called this the “Female Credibility Principle” because of the tendency to see women as more credible than men because of being thought more innocent. However, even when women admitted making false allegations that they were raped or that their husbands abused them, for example, their admission that they lied was often NOT believed.Therefore the belief in the innocent woman ran even deeper than the tendency to believe women.

 

2.) THE PMS DEFENSE (“MY BODY, NO CHOICE”)

In 1970, when Dr. Edgar Berman said women’s hormones during menstruation and menopause could have a detrimental influence on women’s decision making, feminists were outraged. He was soon served up as the quintessential example of medical male chauvinism. But by the 1980s, some feminists were saying that PMS was the reason a woman who deliberately killed a man should go free. In England, the PMS defense freed Christine English after confessed to killing her boyfriend by deliberately ramming him into a utility pole with her car; and after killing a co-worker, Sandie Smith was put on probation – with one condition: she must report monthly for injections of progesterone to control symptoms of PMS. By the 1990s, the PMS defense paved the way for other hormonal defenses.

Sheryl Lynn Massip could place her 6-month-old son under a car, run over him repeatedly, and then, uncertain he was dead, do it again, then claim postpartum depression and be given outpatient medical help. No feminist protested.

 

3.) THE HUSBAND DEFENSE

The film “I Love You to Death” was based on a true story of a woman who tried to kill her husband when she discovered he had been unfaithful. She and her mom tried to poison him, then hired mugger to beat him and shoot him through the head. A fluke led to their being caught and sent to jail. Miraculously, the husband survived. The husband’s first response? Soon after he recovered he informed authorities that he would not press charges. His second response? He defended his wife’s attempts to kill him. He felt so guilty being sexually unfaithful that he thanked his wife! He then re-proposed to her. She verbally abused him, then accepted.

 

4.) THE “BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME” DEFENSE, AKA LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

Until 1982, anyone who called premeditated murder self-defense would have been laughed out of court. But in 1982, Lenore Walker won the first legal victory for her women-only theory of learned helplessness, which suggests that a woman whose husband or boyfriend batters her becomes fearful for her life and helplessness to leave him so if she kills him, it is really self-defense – even if she has premeditated his murder. The woman is said to be a victim of the Battered Woman Syndrome. Is it possible a woman could kill, let’s say, for insurance money? Lenore Walker says no: she claims, “Women don’t kill men unless they’ve been pushed to a point of desperation.” Ironically feminists had often said, “There’s never an excuse for violence against a woman.” Now they were saying, “But there’s always an excuse for violence against a man… if a woman does it.” That sexism is now called the law in 15 states.

 

5.) “THE DEPRESSED MOTHER” DEFENSE: BABY BLUES AND TERRIBLE TWOS

Remember Sheryl Lynn Massip, a mother in her mid-twenties who murdered he 6-month old son by crushing its head under the wheel of the family car? Massip systematically covered up the murder until she was discovered. Then she testified that she suffered from post-partum depression – or “baby blues.” Her sentence?? Treatment. Mothers do, get the baby blues. As do dads. Were the husband to kill his baby, as Sheryl Lynn did, it is unlikely that we would just treat him for baby blues or Save the Marriage Syndrome. Why does her version of baby blues allow her to receive treatment for child murder, when he would receive life in prison for child murder, with or without baby blues?

The Terrible Twos

Josephine Mesa beat her 2-year-old son to death with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger. She buried the battered baby in a trash bin. When scavengers found the baby outside her Oceanside, California apartment, she denied she new him. When the evidence became overwhelming, she confessed. The excuse? She was depressed. The child was going through terrible twos. The punishment? Counseling, probation and anti-depressants. She never spent a day behind bars.

 

6. THE “MOTHERS DON’T KILL” DEFENSE

ITEM. Illinois. Paula Sims reported that her first daughter, Loralei, was abducted by a masked gunman. In fact she murdered Loralei. But she got away with it. So when her next daughter, Heather Lee, disappointed her, she suffocated her, threw her in the trash barrel, and said another masked gunman had abducted her daughter. It wasn’t until the second “masked gunman” abduction that a serious search was conducted. Only the serious search led to evidence. Might Heather Lee be alive today if mothers did not have a special immunity from serious investigation?

 

7. THE “CHILDREN NEED THEIR MOTHER” DEFENSE

ITEM. Colorado. Lory Foster’s husband had returned from Vietnam and was going through mood-swings both from post traumatic stress syndrome and diabetes. They had gotten into a fight and he had abused her. So she killed him. Yet, even the prosecutor did not ask for a jail term. Why not? So Lory could care for the children… Lory was given counseling and vocational training at state expense.The most frequent justification for freeing mothers who kill their children is that their children need them. Moreover, if mothers were freed because “children are the first priority,” then fathers would be freed just as often. But they are not. Even when no mother is available.

 

8. THE “BLAME THE FATHER, UNDERSTAND THE MOTHER” DEFENSE

ITEM. Ramiro Rodriguez was driving back from the supermarket. His daughter was sitting on his wife’s lap. As Ramiro made a left turn, a van crashed into the car and his daughter was killed. Ramiro was charged with homicide. The reason? His daughter was not placed in a safety seat. Ramiro explained that his daughter was sick and wanted to be held so HIS WIFE DECIDED to hold her. Yet only Ramiro was charged. The mother was charged with nothing. Ramiro was eventually acquitted after protests over the racism. No one saw the sexism.

 

9.) THE “MY CHILD, MY RIGHT TO ABUSE IT” DEFENSE

A million crack-addicted children since 1987, but only sixty of the mothers have faced criminal charges. One was convicted. That conviction was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court. 3 percent of infants in Washington D.C. die from cocaine addiction, but no mothers go to prison. The right to choose means the right to kill – not a fetus but a child. Should the mother who addicts her child to crack have any more rights than another child abuser or drug dealer. How can we give a normal drug dealer a life sentence but claim that a mother that deals drugs to her own child should not so much as stand trial? If we feel compassion for the circumstances that drove her to drugs, where is our compassion for the circumstances that drove the drug dealer to drugs, the child abuser to abuse, the murderer…

 

10. THE PLEA BARGAIN DEFENSE

Once a woman is seen as more innocent, her testimony is more valued, which leads to prosecutors offering the woman a plea bargain in crimes committed jointly by a woman and a man. And if a District Attorney is up for reelection, the Chivalry Factor allows him to look like a hero when his office prosecutes a man or a bully if he should put a woman behind bars.

 

11.) THE SVENGALI DEFENSE

A beautiful woman dubbed “The Miss America Bandit” conducted an armed robbery of a bank. Federal Sentencing guidelines called for a minimum of four and a half to five years in federal prison. The federal judge gave her two years because she told the judge that she was in love with her hairdresser and he had wanted her to rob the bank. The judge concluded, “Men have always exercised malevolent influence over women, and women seem to be soft-touches for it, particularly if sex is involved….It seems to me the Svengali-Trilby relationship is the motivating force behind this lady….the main thing is sex.” [Svengali is a fictional character said to have hypnotic qualities of persuasion over the innocent Trilby.]

 

12.) THE CONTRACT KILLING DEFENSE… DEFEND SELF BY HIRING SOMEONE ELSE

When I did the first review of my files in preparation for this section on contract killing, I was struck by some fascinating patterns. First, all of these women hired boys or men. Second, their targets were usually husbands, ex-husbands, or fathers – men they had once loved. Third, the targeted man usually had an insurance policy significantly larger than the man’s next few years income. Fourth, the women often were never serious suspects until some coincidence exposed their plot. Fifth, the women usually chose one of three methods by which to kill: she (1) persuaded her boyfriend to do the killing (in reverse Svengali style); (2) hired some young boys from a disadvantaged background to do it for a small amount of money; or (3) hired a professional killer, thus usually using the money her husband earned to kill her husband. Dixie Dyson tucked in her husband for his last night’s sleep. She had arranged to have a lifelong friend and a boyfriend pretend to “break and enter,”, then rape her, kill her husband, then “escape.” She would collect the insurance money.

At the last moment, the lifelong friend backed out, but the boyfriend and Dixie managed to kill Dixie’s husband after 27 stabbings. They were caught. Dixie “cut a deal” to reduce her sentence by reporting the boyfriend and his friend. The friend who backed out got 25 years for conspiracy.

Deborah Ann Werner was due one third of her dad’s estate. She asked her daughter to find some boys to murder him by plunging a knife through his neck.

Diana Bogadanoff hired two young men to kill her husband on an isolated nudist beach, while she watched. After he was shot through the head, she reported the killers but produced no motive for the murder – no money was stolen and she was not sexually molested. Diana did not become a suspect until an anonymous caller contacted a nationwide crime hotline. The caller coincidentally heard about the murder on the radio and remembered a friend describing just such a murder he had refused to do… on an isolated nudist beach while a woman named Diana watched. Without this tip, Diana would never have become even a suspect.

Collapse of the Marriage Institution is Treason from Within

Bill Wood  made a statement before the Ways and Means committee which is an excellent analysis of the miserable current state of society, its roots in Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals and feminisim as the means for propagating these ideals. Read his thorough analysis by clicking on the link. I have excerpted key themes in the post itself.

bill-wood-1
Those of us who believe in the ideals of family, marriage, country know that a WAR has been declared on these ideals. Unfortunately this war is being waged from within, by the very institutions our taxes are funding. The roots of this can be traced back to Gramcian Marxist Communist ideals. Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time.  His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.

Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people.   His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.

Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world.  A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.

In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture.  This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.

Feminism’s goals are to use women to undermine and destroy the culture by abandoning marriage and by not carrying on the critical task of “transmitting the culture” to the next generation.  Today’s feminists use women to advance the destruction of women, children, and families while convincing them they are somehow a “victim” of the patriarchal structure.  And the patriarchal structure is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak for the social structures and institutions that have kept Western civilization together long before the social decay we see today.

Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union.  Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country.  The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened.  Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children.

“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America. America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.  The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies.  What a frightening use of our “tax dollars at work” to undermine and destroy the social order of America.  Even going so far as to pay incentives on a slightly reformed version of Article 81 of The Russian Family Code.  This was promoted in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel as “The Wisconsin Model” for child support and welfare reform.  “The Wisconsin Model then became a center-piece for the national child support and welfare reform movement.” No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system. 

Gramscian Marxism suggests that “The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony.”

“If the family trends of recent decades are extended into the future, the result will be not only growing uncertainty within marriage, but the gradual elimination of marriage in favor of casual liaisons oriented to adult selfishness.  The problem… is that children will be harmed, adults will probably be no happier, and the social order could collapse.” “In his book, The American Sex Revolution, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin reviewed the history of societies through the ages, and found that none survived after they ceased honoring and upholding the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero, in a speech in the Roman senate recorded by Sallust said;
“A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within.  An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city.  But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.  For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.  He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  A murderer is less to be feared.  The traitor is the plague.”

Another article that predicts the collapse of the marriage institution

Who’s Oppressing Who?

Read a very insightful analysis of current day feminism by Barbara Kay

Barbara draws interesting parallels between anti-Semitism and feminism. A scapegoating ideology always ends in grievance-collecting and a conspiracy theory of history. Just like virtually all Arab and many other Muslim nations rely on Jew hatred to externalize an explanation for their own failures, so do feminists rely on men to explain their own failures. It works very well. The world has not seen such a widespread and virulent strain of anti-Semitism dominating an entire region since the Nazi era.

As a result of feminists’ promotion of career equity with men and unrestrained sexual experimentation over early and faithful commitment, women are having fewer children later, and many are having none. Consequently, birthrates are down in all western countries, in many below the replacement levels.

When angry feminists adduce their mantra that only men are inherently violent and that women use violence only in self-defense, I bring up a theme that is forbidden to discussion in women’s shelters: how is it then that partner violence amongst lesbians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual partnerships?

  • Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Beverley McLachlin: “We have to be pro-active in rearranging the Canadian family”
  • Former justice minister Martin Cauchon: “Men have no rights, only responsibilities”
  • Feminist psychologist Peter Jaffe, a social-context educator of family court judges: “[J]oint custody is an attempt of males to continue dominance over females”
  • And most egregiously this from the National Association of Women and the Law: “Courts may treat parents unequally and deny them basic civil liberties and rights, as long as their motives are good”.

Misandry in family law arises from an ideology that views children as the property of women, even though many peer-reviewed studies show children want and need both parents, and no studies show sole parenting by a mother serves children’s best interests. This ideology is instilled in judges during training sessions featuring feminism-driven materials, and subsequently often plays out as unaccountable kangaroo courts.

Is it then a suprise that paternity fraud is worth nothing? (READ HERE)

There is a Yiddish expression my mother used to invoke with a philosophical sigh, “der reidele dreht sich” – the wheel turns. A hundred years ago, it was homosexual love that dared not speak its name. Today homosexual love roars, and it is manliness that whispers in the shadows.