Latest Posts

I am surprised as to how many women out there are so ignorant about their own bodies. I have seen and noticed older women come to the assistance of younger ones when it is deemed necessary, when something was amiss with the plumbing. I have seen the end result of what happens when girls are not educated sufficiently about their menstrual cycles (shhh..don't mention the periods, verboten). So it does rather fascinate me when I can witness the umpteen processes in action already for girls to be informed, educated and trained on how to deal with inevitable bodily functions (bugger the boys though). Now, on top of the billions spent on those privileged princesses, it would appear that the information is just either not sinking in or the published feminised drivel they are told is held in precedence to the actual facts..

The interesting issues that arises is that we can grab our beach chair, stubby(beer) and just sit back and watch the other sex trying to impress each other as well as trying to prove that they are not only better than them Men but vastly superior in every way imaginable (ask any feminised mangina) and that folks is what has become the new comedy program, the new laugh a minute segment and should surface on Comedy Central..

“Those women who are at the top of their game could have had it all, children and career, if they wanted it,” suggests Pamela Madsen, executive director of the American Infertility Association (A.I.A.). “The problem was, nobody told them the truth about their bodies.” And the truth is that even the very best fertility experts have found that the hands of the clock will not be moved. Baby specialists can do a lot to help a 29-year-old whose tubes are blocked or a 32-year-old whose husband has a low sperm count. But for all the headlines about 45-year-old actresses giving birth, the fact is that “there’s no promising therapy for age-related infertility,” says Dr. Michael Soules, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine and past president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). “There’s certainly nothing on the horizon.”
One does have to wonder, exactly how far does one's head have to be in the sand in order to display such inconceivable ignorance about your own body. It is a known fact that women are born with the eggs already attached and are ready to spawn after puberty. Even I am aware of that fact..

women are born with all their eggs in one — okay, two baskets (ovaries). To be more precise, a woman is born with about one to two million immature eggs, or follicles, in her ovaries. Throughout her life, the vast majority of follicles will die through a process known as atresia. Atresia begins at birth and continues throughout the course of the woman's reproductive life. When a woman reaches puberty and starts to menstruate, only about 400,000 follicles remain. With each menstrual cycle, a thousand follicles are lost and only one lucky little follicle will actually mature into an ovum (egg), which is released into the fallopian tube, kicking off ovulation. That means that of the one to two million follicles, only about 400 will ever mature.
Relatively little or no follicles remain at menopause, which usually begins when a woman is between 48-55 years of age. The remaining follicles are unlikely to mature and become viable eggs because of the hormonal changes that come along with menopause.

I have read on several occasions, mindless comments from feminists, that women actually "create" life, a lovely dream or boast or maybe even both, but ofcourse just exposing another layer of that sand ofcourse..

So we have one of the feminist indoctrination sites named IVillage, and we also notice their intellectual level requirements as they apparently have huge problems filling out a simple survey about woman's stuff. It does demonstrate the optimum level required to be a follower of their blatant, obvious, manufactured self induced stupidity..
I did read an article a few years back that suggested that bus drivers should not be overly intelligent as that would be a distraction due to the fact that it was or can be a boring occupation so they opened the door for more women to apply. Again, studies do just sometimes demonstrate something more than they were originally supposed to promote..
According to the Centers for Disease Control, once a woman celebrates her 42nd birthday, the chances of her having a baby using her own eggs, even with advanced medical help, are less than 10%. At age 40, half of her eggs are chromosomally abnormal; by 42, that figure is 90%.
Her survey found that nearly 9 out of 10 young women were confident of their ability to get pregnant into their 40s. Last fall the A.I.A. conducted a fertility-awareness survey on the women’s website Out of the 12,524 respondents, only one answered all 15 questions correctly. Asked when fertility begins to decline, only 13% got it right (age 27); 39% thought it began to drop at 40.


Sinead O'Connor has been the feminist pinup "girl" for some considerable time, dating back to the early 90's when she made some hullabaloo over one thing or another. The group she supported were the same ones who were out in the street with placards that stated "Don't need no damn Man" or "A woman needs a Man like a fish needs a bicycle". All very pleasant and typical of that hate movements activity up until this day. Even today, you would still be pushed to seperate the 'non' to the 'with' as the majority of females prefer just to watch from the sidelines rather than actually make waves..

But ofcourse, that worm has now turned. We witness many examples of regret where former male hating feminists are now complaining that the same sex they were marginlising and denigrating will not have a bar of them. Hence all that endless angst and handwringing. They now are well aware of the fact that it may have been the hip thing to do back then but now with their minds corrupted and salied with an overdose of victimhood, they now wallow in self pity like a child covered in slime and frog waste after falling in that pond they were told to stay away from. Pitiful, pathetic and hopeless, the whining is endless as well..
The other thing that confuses me no end is the claim that at 44 years old, she is at the peak of her sexual prime. A somewhat delusional comment but that's the way it is these days as they swallow that published drivel. It does make one wonder why the younger examples of that sex appear to have no issues in that department unlike OConnor who obviously does..

Sinead O'Connor. Reasonable Younger, Night-mare Now..
Sinead O’Connor: “I’m Desperate for Sex”

Nothing compares … to a real man, for Sinead O’Connor. In a bizarre blog post entitled, ‘Is Sinead About To H**p Her Truck?’, the 44-year-old Irish singer bemoans her lack of partnership, writing, “I am in the peak of my sexual prime and way too lovely to be living like a nun. and it’s VERY depressing.”
Note to applicants: Sinead says she is in need of “a very sweet sex-starved man.”
  • He must be no younger than 44. He must also have a job!
  • “Must be living in Ireland but I don’t care if he is from the planet Zog.”
  • “Must not be named Brian or Nigel.”
  • “Must be blind enough to think I’m gorgeous.”
The outrageous title of the blog post was taken from a story O’Connor says she read about a woman who “married and regularly h***s her truck.” O’Connor says she can relate. “Im desperate for sex.”
She also seems to be nostalgic for her former svelte figure. “‘Needless to say what I do for a living makes it hard for me to find men that only want me cuz they like my (legendary) arse.
“‘My s**t-uation sexually/affectionately speaking is so dire that inanimate objects are starting to look good as are inappropriate and/or unavailable men…” wrote O’Connor.
You know how feminists and women generally claim that men will screw anything not covered in hair, well, I think I would prefer a Prostate exam rather than jumping into the sheets with that..

The other issue to is that even when women claim to be desperate for a relationship (I can't find anyone), it has zero affect on their demands list, you notice. So in reality, they are not desperate at all, just seeking attention and spreading another lie. Dear oh dear, will it ever stop..

A recommended list adjusted accordingly..

Am in desperate need of a very sweet sex-starved man.

He must be no younger than 44.
Must be living in Ireland but I don't care if he is from the planet Zog.
Must not be named Brian or Nigel.
Must be blind enough to think I'm gorgeous.
Has to be employed. Am not fussy in what capacity generally but vehicle clampers need not apply.
Leather trouser- wearing gardai, fire-men, rugby players, and Robert Downey-Junior will be given special consideration. As will literally anyone who applies.
I like me a hairy man so buffed and/or waxed need not apply.
No hair gel.
No hair dryer use.
No hair dye
Stubble is a non-negotiable must. Any removal of stubble would be upsetting for me.
No after shave.
Must be very 'snuggly'. Not just wham-bam.
Must be wham-bam.
Has to like his mother.
Has to like his ex and or mother/s of his children.
Has to live in own place.
I must end now as I have a hot date with a banana

Misandry in the Media: RADAR Expands its Focus

Misandry, simply defined, is the pathological hatred of men and boys. It is the analog to misogyny, but with the bigotry and rage targeted at males.
Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, two scholars in the field of religious studies at McGill University in Montreal, popularized the word "misandry" in a series of books on the topic: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001); Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006); Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2010).
Nathanson and Young describe misandry as "a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society, 'a collectively shared and culturally propagated worldview, not a personal emotion such as dislike or anger'"1.
As one would expect from the Nathanson and Young definition, misandry is propagated by the media. A vivid example of this occurred late last year on CNN, the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in News." Interviewing the former Lorena Bobbitt (now using the name Lorena Gallo), who in in 1993 cut off her husband John's penis with a kitchen knife, CNN national correspondent Alina Cho displayed both a shocking disregard for John Bobbitt's ordeal and an appalling camaraderie with a woman who justified sexually mutilating her husband by telling the police, "He always have orgasm [sic], and he doesn't wait for me to have orgasm. He's selfish."2
ALINA CHO, national correspondent, CNN:
Her name is Lorena Gallo, but back then on news programs and the subject of late-night comedians, she was Lorena Bobbitt. She's remembered as the wife who employed a – shall we say, dramatic – response to an abusive relationship with her then husband John Wayne-Bobbitt. But in the nearly two decades since then she started a new life. She's been in a long-term relationship, thirteen years strong. She has a five year-old daughter. And while she works as a part-time hairdresser and real estate agent, she says her true passion is counseling domestic violence victims through her organization.
I have to ask you this. As you well know, there was a time when joking about the Bobbitts was a national pastime. I wonder after all of these years – are you finally able to laugh about it?
I finally am. And it took a lot of time, it took a lot of years, and definitely a lot of – I went to psychologists, and thanks to the doctors, the therapies I'm here, and I'll be able to now basically start all over again and start a new relationship and have a family and basically I can laugh now3.
More recently, early this year, Brad Womack, returning to the reality show The Bachelor for a second season, was slapped by contestant Chantal O'Brian on the season premiere show. Before slapping him, she told him: "I watched your season and I have something for you. It's not from me; it's from every woman in America"4. Remarkably, Mr. Womack later stated that while the slap was "very real and very hard," he "deserved it," presumably for his behavior in the previous season. He explained the slap this way: "I think Chantal was trying to make a statement about my past behavior, and make a strong first impression, which she did."5
In the grand scheme of things, a slap to the face, even a hard one, is fairly trivial, but that the The Bachelor producers, Ms. O'Brian, and even Mr. Womack (male guilt?) believe it is acceptable behavior for a reality show contestant speaks volumes about the pervasive disregard for men's rights that currently exists in modern America.
During Super Bowl XLV, Pepsi Max ran an ad in which a black woman repeatedly abuses her black husband. This is supposed to be funny. In the final scene, the woman throws a can of Pepsi Max at his head but misses, hitting a white woman instead. Amazingly, Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times, blogged that the ad was a "toxic package" of "sexism, weird racial overtones and violence against women"6 (emphasis added). No mention is made of the ad's depiction of intentional violence against men.
On June 13, 2011, in a segment entitled "Girls Rule, Boys Drool," New York City's popular NPR host Brian Lehrer interviewed Dan Abrams, legal analyst for Good Morning America and ABC News, to discuss his new book, Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else7. Only on the KKK News Network could one imagine the reverse thesis being advanced, that men, on the whole, are better than women.
Saving the most appalling example for last, we turn to CBS's The Talk, the poor woman's version of ABC's The View. The Talk features a panel of women who discuss current events, including Sharon Osbourne, wife of ageless rockstar Ozzy Osbourne. In his younger, more intoxicated years, he was known for biting the head off a bat and peeing on a monument at the Alamo. But the offensiveness of his antics pales in comparison to Sharon Osbourne's behavior during a recent episode of The Talk.
Last month, on July 11, 2011, a 48-year old Californian woman, Catherine Kieu Becker, cut off her husband's penis, and, unlike Lorena Bobbitt, who threw her husband's penis into a field, threw it the garbage disposal unit and turned the unit on. Osbourne, and most of her co-hosts, found the story hilarious. Osbourne mimicked with her finger what she envisioned the penis looked like as it went down the garbage disposal, and called Becker's act "quite fabulous," adding: "Just imagine that thing whizzing around the disposal, it's like, hysterical." She also made sure everyone knew that she lights candles by Lorena Bobbitt's picture.
To her credit, co-host Sara Gilbert, the executive producer of The Talk, pointed out the obvious double standard: "Not to be a total buzz kill, but it is a little bit sexist. If somebody cut a woman's breast off, nobody would be sitting laughing." Ms. Obourne's disagreed, however. "It's different," she explained, because one is floppy and the other sticks up. Well, there you have it. Severed penises are comedy gold.
RADAR has had some modest success in reforming America's approach to the problem of domestic violence. In fact, the perceived growing power of RADAR was a partial motivating factor for the 2009 hit piece published in's Double X entitled: "Men's Rights Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective". In the article, the author, Kathryn Joyce, incorrectly labels RADAR as a men's rights group and laments the effectiveness RADAR and other groups have had in advancing their views.
Truth be told, however, RADAR and other groups with similar concerns have, with a few exceptions here and there, actually been quite ineffective in stemming the tide of unjust and harmful domestic violence policies. In reflecting on our efforts to reform the nation's approach to solving domestic violence, RADAR has concluded that one major reason judges, prosecutors, and legislators have been unreceptive to our message is the pervasive effect that misandry in the media has on shaping their fundamental biases.
In support of her view that RADAR is frightening, Joyce simply states, incredulously, that RADAR believes "that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women's shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives." Joyce finds it so obvious that no right-thinking person could believe such things that she doesn't even bother to try to refute any of them.
Joyce's faith in the justice of the current system takes on a religious quality. It is this kind of blind faith that RADAR must shatter before any meaningful reform will happen.
Going forward, RADAR will focus less on particular laws and more on the nation's anti-male culture. RADAR plans to focus on the prevalence of misandry and the impact of misandry on the nation's approach to domestic violence. RADAR will highlight the media's role in spreading misandry, with media broadly defined to include not just the print, radio, film and television industries but also the messages disseminated by the nations churches and education, including judicial training that often amounts to nothing more than misandristic indoctrination.
Thank you for your continued support. With your help, we can change the culture. Let's do it.


Date of RADAR Release: August 28, 2011
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.

This pertains to the draconian efforts that Obama and his team of henchwomen, he has installed in the White House under the guise and pretense of being all about "eqwalitee", which ofcourse is so far from the truth that it's not even remotely comprehensible..Obama installed the male hating witches a few months back under that standard guise but here we have another example of what it is they are really working on. If you are of the opinion that Obama gives anything but contempt to all men than you really need to update your thinking paradigm as he has already demonstrated how far down he already is in the feminist's male hating pockets. This President is a feminised sychophant of the worst degree, even wallowing lower than the delusional feminised manginas whom you can see on the web. Obama has to go and it will be within your best interest to see this traitor go..

Dept. of Ed is Ignoring Us, Now We Take it to the Top

Dear Christian,

As we reported last week, the U.S. Department of Education (DED) has issued a directive that requires colleges to use the "preponderance of evidence" standard in handling allegations of sexual assault, a standard that in practice removes the presumption of innocence.

Editorials rightly continue to condemn this directive, like:

The New Rules of College Sex.

We'd like to thank all of you who contacted Ms. Russlyn Ali, Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights last week by email and phone. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough.

We are being ignored, and that is unacceptable. This week we take it to the top!

Let's flood the inbox and voice mailbox of Secy. Of Education Arne Duncan. Be resolute and be persistent. Politely yet firmly insist Mr. Duncan remove the sex assault policy that strips due process from the accused.

Please contact Arne Duncan today:

Telephone: 202-401-3000 Email:

Your voice matters. Use it.

More DED editorials: .



Teri Stoddard,
Program DirectorStop Abusive and Violent Environments

One does have to have a sense of humour whenever reading the latest rants from feminists as they snipe at each other over some irrelevant issue, only they can identify as a problem. Many a time, have I smiled or belly laughed at their total insufferable stupidity or their unmeasurable arrogance or their total ignorance of the human condition. It is as if they do live in some parallel universe and find it necessary to pay the occasional visit and make some outlandish comment so their adherents can construe it into anything they please and claim it to come from some or one of their delusional, self appointed, high priestess..It's funny to read and it's even funnier to witness those adherents to the feminist faith, try and extend, elongate it's supposed meaning into something obscene or throw it into irrelevant obscurity. Finally buried as a lesson in futility and ignorance rather than exercising the free will process or extrapolate it and test the normal cerebral cortex functioning. So we have this bit of feminist malady, fornicating their minds as some perceived healthy dose of self flagellation, as becomes their un-discipline. But it does not work ofcourse, as they are still stamping their feet because society refuses to allow them to show off their tits in public, it's just so, ..inhumane.. so unnatural.. 
Along the same lines, feminist Ludy Wadham writes for CNN:

". . . the Strauss-Kahn case has uncovered the divide, not between men and women so much as between old and new feminists. Old feminists, from Genevieve Clark to Erica Jong, believed that the goal was political and sexual freedom for women, not the political and sexual subordination of men.

"I cannot accept the idea that womanhood automatically implies victimhood, nor do I think that it is a desirable state of affairs when women see men as the enemy.

"The man-hating tirades of my female colleagues are nothing but puritanism in disguise and I suspect that our feminist forebears would be dismayed by the climate of inquisition that seems to dominate relations between men and women today." (Read the entire piece here)
The real issue here is that feminists have always claimed that they are not a male hating hegemony, which ofcourse is just  another oversight on their part, as far as they are concerned and readily denied by even the smallest, most insignificant, irrelevant, lowest, member at Facebook or even {gasp} Yahoo Answers level, still totally claim that to be completely untrue. It does make one wonder how  feminist manginas can actually justify their even lower position on the bottom rung on that hysterical ladder..

The full article is here on FRS and explains a little more about the infighting that we have witnessed so often from this hate machines that hides it's true goals under the guise of doing something noble..

One of the reasons for my interest in this topic is that I have been trying to raise some awareness about this silent, insidious, killer that appears to be an irrelevancy in the stream of things as it only affects men and not women. It is therefore irrelevant and insignificant in chasing the vagina vote..

Over the last few years, some courageous guys have instigated efforts to raise funding as the gubmints were giving all and sundry away to the opposite sex and came up with a winner called "Movember". This is a winner and demonstrates clearly the need for it's recognition and funding but ignored ofcourse..

On top of that ofcourse is that we do not have a Men's Health Department and I wonder why ?

Blumhorst on prostate cancer

I was reading at the National Coalition For Men's website about an article by LA Chapter President Ray Blumhorst where he discusses prostate cancer. Here is what he said:

Prostate cancer strikes one in six men but gets very little funding for research
August 16, 2011
By Ray Blumhorst

President, NCFM Los Angeles

Here’s an important public service announcement from the Prostate Cancer Foundation called “Keep Dad in the Game. Keep Dad in the Game Youtube video

Prostate cancer strikes one out of six men, but prostate cancer research gets only a fraction of the annual funding that breast cancer research receives.

The number of men who contract prostate cancer is about the same as the number of women getting breast cancer. The disparity in annual, government research funding between the two cancers is striking and discriminatory, illustrating yet again the institutionalized misandry existing in Western societies, in my opinion.

This is an imbalance that must not be tolerated. We have to protest this imbalance.

Ray · 1 week ago
Of the fifteen leading causes of death in America: men lead in 12 categories, are tied in two with women, while women lead in only one category.

In America, there is an Office of Women's Health at the federal level, and one each at the state and county levels in Los Angeles , California. There is no Office of Men's Health in any of those places.

Why is men's health given such low priority in so many areas by so many social institutions?

Ray makes an interesting and valid point: why is there no health commission for men like there is for women? That's because it is up to us to make that happen. The only way we can make that happen is to lobby our elected leaders at the federal and state levels and protest this injustice;that we will not stand for it and we need to do this in large numbers if we are to be effective. Send in those emails today without delay.

Also at the state levels is different that the federal level. For example in the State Of California the only service available to men is prostate cancer screening and testing,which is great but prostate cancer is not the only cancer that befalls men. There is also penile and testicular cancer that rarely gets discussed,even by MRA's,but should be. Now compare that to the extensive Women's health section. The Men's Health page,the Women's Health page and a web page where both are listed. Let us not forget the State of California Office of Women's Health but no Office of Men's Health.Now that we can compare how the State Of California views men we can conclude that the State Of California doesn't give a fuck about men and the brothers in that state need to do some emailing to their elected officials and protest this injustice. Other states may be better or worse so yahoo or google to find out.

I reported on this when it first hit the news as not only was there a feminist involved but she also falsified abuse statistics to the Fed.Gov. in relation to sexual assaults etc. Now I am totally convinced that this feminist is not the only one doing so as there are many thousands of schools and many thousands of feminists in charge of those figures. This would explain the hysteria being generated by feminists and Obama in relation to introducing the "if you're a male, you're guilty" law they are introducing into those higher {falsely termed ofcourse) institutions and use it as their new guidance to prosecute any male who so much as touches a privileged princess once her booze addicted brain absorbs even a micro gram of alcohol..
It would be highly advisable for any future male students to keep females are two arms length if they want to achieve their goal and avoid jail at the same time..

Notice also the royal treatment this woman gets, the reduction of felony charges, all thanks to that female only, pussy pass..

Former UCD official pleads no contest to embezzling charge 

By Hudson Sangree   
Sunday, Apr. 17.

The former head of anti-violence efforts at the University of California, Davis, pleaded no contest Thursday to two felony charges of embezzlement and falsifying accounts.

Jennifer Beeman, the veteran director of UC Davis' Campus Violence Prevention Program, entered a plea agreement with prosecutors in which seven other felony charges were dismissed.

She appeared at a hearing Thursday in Yolo Superior Court, in which she entered pleas before Judge Janet Gaard.

Beeman, who has remained free on bail, will likely face a sentence of probation when she goes before a judge June 2, Michael Cabral, Yolo County's assistant chief deputy district attorney, said Thursday.

She will also have to pay restitution of about $10,525 – the amount she is suspected of embezzling, he said.

Beeman has no prior convictions, the District Attorney's Office said.

"We believe it's a fair and appropriate disposition based on the amount of loss," Cabral said.

Beeman left the courthouse without comment.

Beeman, 53, has been the subject of campus probes for allegedly inflating crime statistics on federal grant applications and misappropriating money for personal uses.

She was arrested Dec. 10 and charged with nine felonies related to her alleged misuse of funds from educational and outreach programs meant to prevent sexual violence, the university said in a news release.

UC Davis police contended Beeman embezzled thousands of dollars by asking for travel reimbursements and mileage to attend meetings that never took place.

The university returned more than $100,000 to the U.S. Justice Department after finding that unallowable expenses were charged to a violence prevention grant Beeman administered, officials said.

Beeman spent 16 years at the university before retiring in June 2009.

In September 2009, UC Davis announced Beeman had inflated the number of forcible sex offenses that took place on campus in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in reports required by federal law.

The university revised the figures in 2009, reducing by more than half the number of incidents reported for each year.

UC Davis' crime reporting had come into question before. A Bee story in 2001 reported that Beeman had written a grant application in 1999 stating that as many as 700 students at UC Davis were victims of rape or attempted rape each year.

At the same time, the university's reports to the federal government said assaults on campus were practically nonexistent.

The criminal charges against Beeman stem from her handling of program funds, not from her alleged misreporting of crime statistics.

Source:click here

We are already well aware that the natural ability of women to tell lies is already written in too many studies for me to list here and why would I even bother since you are already well aware as well as witnesses. But the scale at which they carry out this ability is just mindboggling to say the least, to try and destroy someone's life out of sheer malice is really something else that most of us cannot even fathom let alone. condone or ever encourage..

Here is an update from the FRS site regarding the DSK trial that we have already been lied to and exaggerated about, by feminists ofcourse, who stands the most to gain for spreading the malice..

Comments by K..

How do you tell a Feminist is lying? Her lips are moving. The truth about the egregious extent of deliberate and continuous deceit by the Maid is revealed in the following document. When the Prosecutors cannot get a straight story, when it changes multiple times, when an electronic card swipe disputes the accuser's story, as the DA you are screwed. When she admits lying to the Grand Jury, when Feminist Lawyers know this and deliberately lie to the public. They are Nifonging another Dominant Male. It does not matter that there is zero proof, that the facts dispute the Accuser's story. They want an accusation to mean automatic guilty verdict. Screw them.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Women's advocates do disservice to rape victims by telling them that justice was not served in the DSK case
FRS Reveals What's In the Motion to Dismiss: It's Eye-Opening

This is a post intended for rape victims. Although this blog gives voice to victims of wrongful rape charges, we also want rape victims to be able to seek healing and justice. A close a family member of mine was a victim of a brutal sexual assault. We do not harbor rapists at FRS nor do we advocate for them to elude justice.
To all victims of sexual assault we say this: do not -- we repeat -- do not allow the decision by New York County prosecutors to dismiss the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn ("DSK") to dissuade you from reporting that you've been raped.

You are being terribly misled if you listen to the persons or groups who suggest that the DSK case sends a "very bad message to women vulnerable to sexual abuse" that rape victims have to be "perfect" in order to get justice. It is most distressing to read the following: ". . . for many feminists and victims' advocates, the victory for Strauss-Kahn is a defeat for women who have been sexually assaulted or raped, and who may already have been nervous about coming forward." See here.
By failing to tell the whole story, and by publicly insisting that women can't get justice unless they are "perfect," those victims' advocates, themselves, are improperly discouraging rape victims from coming forward.

The accuser in the DSK case, whose name is Niasfatou Diallo, wasn't just not perfect; according to the very prosecutors who arrested and charged DSK (and allowed him to experience a humiliating and high profile "perp walk"), she was "persistently" and "inexplicably" untruthful to prosecutors. But don't believe me -- read the motion to dismiss that was filed by prosecutors. I suspect that very few, if any, of the persons who are alarming rape victims have read it. See here: We are going to explain it, below. We suspect it will be eye-opening for a lot of people.
In their motion, the prosecutors make clear: "That an individual has lied in the past or committed criminal acts does not necessarily render them unbelievable to us as prosecutors, or keep us from putting them on the witness stand at trial." But the prosecutors explained that Diallo's case was different: ". . . the nature and number of the complainant's falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt . . . ." They explained that Diallo's "credibility cannot withstand the most basic evaluation. [She] has provided shifting and inconsistent versions of events surrounding the alleged assault, and as a result, we cannot be sufficiently certain of what happened."

The lesson, as shown below, is that in rape cases, which often hinge heavily or even entirely on credibility, rape victims need to be completely honest with prosecutors. I am aware of many rape cases brought to trial where the accuser was herself accused of making prior false rape claims, but this did not dissuade the prosecutor from bringing the rape case to trial. Having an imperfect victim does not normally preclude charges from being brought to trial. But lying to the prosecutor, whose job it is to try to weave a credible narrative for the trier of fact, will.According to the motion to dismiss: "In virtually every substantive interview with prosecutors, despite entreaties to simply be truthful, [Diallo] has not been truthful, on matters great and small . . . . Over the course of two interviews, for example, [she] gave a vivid, highly-detailed, and convincing account of having been raped in her native country, which she now admits was entirely false."

Diallo's "longstanding pattern of untruthfulness" includes some false statements under oath about this case to the grand jury, which would have been revealed at any trial. Diallo admitted that she lied to the grand jury about her activities in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident. And it wasn't even limited to that. Diallo "displayed a repeated lack of candor about a wide range of additional topics concerning her history, background, present circumstances, and personal relationships." She has been "persistently" and "inexplicably" untruthful to prosecutors, the motion said.

Let's focus on one. Diallo gave prosecutors "irreconcilable accounts" of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident. From May 14 to June 28, Diallo told prosecutors that after the incident, she immediately fled DSK's suite at Room 2806 of the Sofitel Hotel near Times Square and went to the far end of the 28th floor hallway. She claims she spit out semen on the carpet of the hallway.

On June 28, however, she admitted that she had lied under oath to the grand jury and that she had been untruthful with prosecutors on material points about this incident. For the first time, she admitted that immediately after the incident, she went to another room, room 2820, to finish cleaning it. She detailed her activities in cleaning in that other room. Then, she said, she returned to DSK's room and began to clean it as well. Then, she happened to encounter her supervisor when she went to a linen closet to retrieve supplies.

Prosecutors checked out the electronic swipe records and determined she was only in room 2820 for a very short time -- less than a minute -- and could not have engaged in the cleaning activities she detailed.

On July 27, her story changed again. This time, she said she had cleaned the other room, room 2820, earlier in the day, not after the alleged assault. She said that after the alleged incident, she ran into 2820 only momentarily to retrieve cleaning supplies. And, importantly, she denied that she told the same prosecutors a different version of the story on June 28, as noted above. That latter denial caused the prosecutors to call her credibility into question on a most fundamental level. (The suggestion from the motion is that they lost all faith in her.) Prosecutors said they had no confidence as to whether Diallo would tell the truth on this issue at trial, which is highly problematic. They simply didn't know what to believe.Diallo also lied to prosecutors about being gang raped in Guinea. Again, much misinformation about this lie have been floating around the press. On May 30, she told prosecutors a powerful, emotional, and convincing account of being gang raped in the presence of her 2-year-old daughter. But on June 8 and 9, she admitted "that she had entirely fabricated the attack." Asked why she had lied, she told prosecutors that she had relied on the incident in her application for asylum (in fact, she had not), and besides, she said, her prior statement to prosecutors wasn't under oath.
Have you read enough yet?

Wait, she's not finished. Then, she admitted that she had learned the gang rape tale by memorizing a fictional rape recounted on a cassette tape because she intended to use it when she sought asylum. But she decided not to use the tale in her written asylum application.
Prosecutors found it fatal that Diallo had lied with with the same conviction about the alleged gang rape in Guinea that she employed to describe the alleged incident at issue. On June 9 and 28, she insisted again that she had been raped in other incidents in Guinea, but prosecutors had no way to investigate these alleged incidents.

Beyond that there were other credibility problems. She repeatedly committed fraud in seeking low income housing. Moreover, she had a telephone discussion with her alleged fiance about financially profiting from the DSK incident. Despite insisting she did not want to benefit financially from the case, she later filed a civil action for money damages.

In addition, the motion painstakingly details the fact that there is no physical evidence of forcible compulsion or lack of consent.
The prosecutor, the motion explains, has an obligation not just to the "victim" but to society. He has a duty to seek justice, not just win cases. His or her obligations are bottomed on the "fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent [person] than to let a guilty [person] go free." While charges may be brought on probable cause, felony prosecutors in New York County have a policy of only bringing cases to trial where they are personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, they were not so convinced.
My summary can't do justice to the motion. The cumulative effect of a cavalcade of lies, both big and small, under oath and not, and especially the lies told to the prosecutor whose job it is to present a credible narrative, was overwhelming.
To suggest that the charges were dismissed because Diallo is not a "perfect" victim is a gross and puerile distortion of reality and can only dissuade rape victims with legitimate claims from coming forward. To better serve both rape victims and the presumptively innocent accused of heinous sex crimes, we need to move the discourse to a more mature level.

It is well to note that no one else, aside from women's advocates, are spreading the view that justice was not served here. There is, in fact, a widespread international consensus among objective observers -- observers who do not speak regularly on gender issues and have no axe to grind in the matter -- that the sexual assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were properly dismissed. That consensus was generated not by any sympathy for Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who is by no means a sympathetic figure, nor by antipathy for his accuser's gender, race, or ethnicity, but because it is painfully self-evident that the charges simply are not sustainable. Many thoughtful observers, including feminist Naomi Wolf and a host of serious commentators in the European community, viewed with alarm American law enforcement's zealousness in bringing the charges. Those who condemn the dismissal of these charges voice a position that is so extreme and discordant with fundamental values cherished by our jurisprudence, and that strays so far from the mainstream of serious and reasoned thought, that they have lost any rightful claim to participate in the public discourse about the serious issues relating to sexual assault.
The prosecution of sexual assault raises a host of complex issues that require the nuanced balancing of critical and delicate interests: we must, on the one hand, strive to punish malefactors, and on the other, insure that the innocent are not punished with the guilty. The balancing of those two imperatives is difficult enough in the rape milieu without injecting childish and shrill politicization into the discourse.
False rape accusers should not come forward, eveyone with any sense agrees with that. But by any measure, justice for DSK should not stop rape victims from coming forward. Those who suggest otherwise are hurting rape victims.

Link to the Motion: http://www.nytimes.c...smiss-case.html

Posted from the False Rape Society web site.

We have concentrated some energy on this misandric female and it would appear to have born out the right affect. Kellett has to go and go she will, one way or the other. Male haters like her have no place on this planet and I would imagine that she will be the first of many..

For all you male haters out there. you are now on notice..

AVfM News Release: Filler Case


Contact: Paul Elam, A Voice for Men
P.O. Box301172

Bar Harbor Maine prosecutor faces disbarment for prosecuting innocent men for rape
A Bar Harbor Maine prosecutor faces historic proceedings after the state Board of Overseers of the Bar Counsel issues a rare recommendation of finding probable cause of prosecutorial misconduct following a 7 month long investigation.  Assistant district attorney Mary N. Kellett has been accused of prosecuting dozens of men for sex crimes even when evidence of their innocence was established.  Several prosecuted men were accused by their wives or girlfriends in the course of their divorce or child custody disputes.  The complaints investigated by the Bar Counsel Scott Davis cited witness and evidence tampering and presentation of false facts and evidence before the Court by prosecutor Mary N. Kellett.
The misconduct first came to light in the case of Vladek Filler, a husband accused of sexual misconduct by his estranged wife during their divorce and child custody battle in the Bar Harbor area[1].  Filler won and maintained sole custody of his children during two criminal prosecutions for spousal rape and the prosecutor’s appeal to the Supreme Court[2].
Renowned private investigator TJ Ward of the Natalie Halloway Aruba case conducted a two year investigation of the Filler rape case and called it a “fabrication,” publicly criticizing prosecutor Mary Kellett’s conduct[3].  The Maine Supreme Judicial Court followed with a decision noting prosecutor’s misconduct in the case[4], and numerous complaints to the State of Maine’s Board of Overseers of the Bar followed[5].
The Filler case shed light on numerous prosecutions of innocent men[6] in this small New England community which have been dubbed “The modern day Salem witch trials”[7].  Even on the eve of Board of Overseers Commission meeting concerning prosecutor Mary Kellett’s misconduct, new charges surface of witness tampering and misinforming the Court.  The misconduct resulted in a mistrial and in the office of Attorney General’s office publicly pointing at prosecutor Mary Kellett[8].  A Voice for Men, an advocacy organization, is calling for disbarment of attorney Mary Kellett by the Board of Overseers of the Bar, and for her immediate suspension in the interim by the Hancock County District Attorney Carletta Bassano.
For more information contact Paul Elam of A Voice for Men at
# # #

Written by Robert O'Hara

I have received one of these emails and found it in the spam folder which would make anyone suspicious. She was ofcourse a lovely, even stunning Russian lass who would volunteer to furnish real life content to all my wet dreams and she ofcourse was appropriately dressed in a negligee, suspenders and lying on a bear rug. I figure that any female who looked like that must have an ulterior motive as she would be beating the guys off daily..

So Anastasha told me how lonely she was and how she was looking for love in all the wrong places. How she lived in the country with her grandmother and had to battle daily to scratch a living (the bear rug would pay for six months supply of food) and that life was so hard. Now what could possibly be the motive I did not have to ask myself..
Money is ofcourse, that sexual lubricant that appears to work as it has always done and it would appear that the general female population of the western world has that same itch that refuses to heal or reduce and only one salve can fix..

Finding a Foreign Wife – Internet Foreign Dating, Does it Work?

, , ,
russian-dating-scams-online-bridesIf you’re an older gent like me, maybe you’ve also decided that dating is tiring. It’s also a big waste of money.
American women seem mostly to be materialistic. If you don’t own a home and a relatively new car, or can’t provide them with “stuff,” you’re out. It’s “Take me, show me, buy me.”
Nowadays, girlfriends seem like no more than expensive pets. At least a pet doesn’t nag or cheat on you. They don’t eat as much, and don’t mind eating in and watching a DVD instead of going out to dinner and a movie. Of course, a pet isn’t satisfying in other ways a girlfriend would be.
So, as I started to come to the conclusion a pet wasn’t enough. But, what to do?
I began to consider foreign cultures for dating.
Now I know that even for close-by women, Yahoo personals are a gamble. The photos are usually old. You’re also lucky if a woman doesn’t turn out to be a guy! Yahoo does no screening for scammers. If someone complains, they might cut off the account, but it’s virtually impossible to call or email a human at Yahoo to complain. Yahoo doesn’t dirty its hands by direct contact with their dirty old customers.
About this time, I got an email from an attractive Russian lady via Yahoo. I started to really search for any pitfalls of foreign dating on-line. It seemed no more risky than any other on-line dating. Just be cautious about sending anyone money, the sites warned.
This lady, Natasha, seemed quite safe and a strong possibility. She already had a ticket to the US, and had friends here. She said she was only checking along her proposed travel route for people to meet.
The only question mark, at first, was that she was 28 and interested to meet me, a 60 year old man. However, she was just talking friendship. European cultures don’t stigmatize age as much as we do. So, I thought, why not?
We began to correspond daily. She seemed to like my sense of humor and appreciate my dry outlook on things in general. She seemed well educated, too. Her sexy but tasteful photos didn’t hurt, either.
The anti-scam sites, such as had lists of warning signs. They especially emphasized not to believe anyone who asked for money or proclaimed love after a few emails. They also warned against much younger women interested in older men. They admit that a difference of 15 years isn’t unusual for even a very classy Russian woman. So, I was on my toes, but not very suspicious.
Well, at least I was primed for the other foot to fall. The day “Natasha” was supposed to leave for the US, there was a problem. She had stayed in contact, saying she’d made it to Moscow for the flight here. However, surprise,surprise, she’d lost her US visa. She needed about $900 to quickly get another one. Even naive I knew by this time a visa was not nearly so expensive.
I started browsing the photos of known scammers on and – sure enough: there was “Natasha’s” photo; with another name, of course! She had several names, in fact.
The site’s notes on her showed many, many men had sent her money to replace her “lost” visa or obtain medical care for her mother. One of her photos showed a passport and visa with yet another name!
I decided to have some fun with Natasha. I sent her an email expressing my concern at her plight. I told her “I think I have the solution. I’ll get back to you later today.” She begged me to hurry, as she’d miss her flight.
Later, I did send her another email: “Natasha, here’s the solution to all your problems! I found a passport and visa on line with your photo and other needed information already on it! All you have to do is print this out and show it to the authorities. It will prove you already have the required documents!”
I attached a pdf of the phony paperwork I’d found on line. Do I need to tell you she never responded again?
The only sad part is the long list of men she’d scammed before. Oh, and the fact that I was still without a girlfriend.
I continued researching. I got another email. This Ukrainian lady, Ekaterina, sounded nice and very educated. She was closer to my age, and seemed to eagerly answer my emails promptly and with a lot of detail. The only thing that puzzled me was that the answers seemed a bit stilted. Ekaterina seemed to key off a word I’d use in a sentence, but reply to it obliquely. Well, that could be the translator, or her own limited English. She certainly spoke better English than I did Russian.
About this time I found out that there are computer programmers, not all of them Russian, who create “fuzzy logic” programs which can respond to conversation. The programs troll email addresses, until they get a response. The program itself can pick up on gender, general age range, education, and other factors. They respond in kind, according to a formula.
By a certain point, the program will become “infatuated” with the man at the other end… I’m guessing they also are programmed to work on a woman respondent.
This is what the scam sites warn about: Be wary of someone getting too romantic too early. This is just not done, even by a desperate Russian woman, as long as she has, or wants to display some amount of class.
Once a respondent goes past this point, the human scammer takes over, weaving a web to get money. There is even a Russian name for Americans who fall for the program: “Frogs.”
A big tip-off to a scam is a request to send money via Western Union. No other way will do for a scammer. He can pick up the money at any office, and leave no trace. Western Union’s site even has a stern warning about this. Such cheating must be wide-spread… and WU must have been sued a few times.
So, I was duly warned.
Sure enough, the conversation turned to money. By this time I was bored, so I just gave a rude brush-off answer, calling the programmer by his presumed name: “Boris, Ivan, or whoever you really are.”

This really is a turn up in the adventures relating to Russian Roulette of child Support. How much affect would this law have if it was passed everywhere in the world. There would be a reduced level of fighting over who would own the kids and the moms would not be that ready to lie or make false abuse accusations just to insure they receive endless child support payments along with their vaginamony. I would imagine that they would gladly hand the child/ren over as their worth in gold just deteriorated..

It would indeed be interesting to see the response if this law was ever introduced in the USA..

High court puts pressure on divorced parents to work
Father holding child
Germany's Federal Court of Justice has put more pressure on divorced single parents to work full time and place their children in daycare, ruling they have no right to child support after the child's third birthday.

Divorced single parents in Germany have no legal right to child support after their child turns three if the parent is capable of working full time, Germany's supreme court ruled on Tuesday.
The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe found that the right to financial support from an ex-partner only exists when the parent's concrete circumstances prevent him or her from holding a full-time job.
Taking care of the child was also found not to be a full-time job when child care services are available after the primary school day, which in Germany usually ends at lunch time.
The Federal Justice Ministry said it was reviewing the ruling.
Daycare a good optionThe case was brought by a single mother whose daughter was entering the third grade. The mother was working part-time and receiving monthly payments of 440 euros from her ex-husband. The man filed a complaint, saying that because of a change in divorce law he no longer was obliged to pay child support.Supreme court buildingThe high court ruling overturned lower court rulings in favor of the motherAn appellate court in Dusseldorf ruled against the ex-husband, saying that it would be too burdensome for the mother to have to work full-time and take care of the child. The child had lived with a foster family for two years, and forcing the mother to switch from part-time to full-time work would overwhelm the family, the court said.
The high court reversed that ruling, saying that there was no convincing reason why the mother could not place her daughter in child care in the afternoon, or why a full-time job would be a "greater-than-necessary burden" for the mother. If she has no evidence why she cannot work full-time, then she must work as much as her ex-husband who does not take care of the child.
Ingeborg Rakete-Dombek, chairwoman of the family law working group in the German Bar Association, said the decision means that parents who want more than three years of child support will have to prove their child has a psychological need for the parent to take care of him or her.
She added that the ruling could be problematic because it gives courts the power to judge a parent's "cheapness."
"What comes out in individual cases, or what is determined to be "fair and cheap," is difficult to predict," she said.
Author: Andrew Bowen (dapd, dpa)
Editor: Michael Lawton

The multi-purpose Master Card for Single Mums and their Children..

No waiting time and no limit on extractions. Apply Harriet Harman and fellow feminist for demonstration..

S.A.V.E. is an organisation we all should get behind and support in every way possible as they are fighting the same sexism,misandry and bias that we are..

So as part of the request is that you spread the message that misandry (male hate) will no longer be acceptable behaviour or tolerated. Make every effort to expose this program where ever you can, blogs, sites, Facebook, twitter etc. Let's give this some major exposure and as Paul often states FTSU (F*ck their shit up)

S.A.V.E. launches C.A.M.P. program
On July 11 Catherine Becker of California drugged her husband, lashed him to a bed, severed his penis, and threw it into a garbage disposal. Becker coolly explained to the responding officers, “He deserved it.” 
Sharon Osburne of ABC’s The Talk made light of the assault. Osbourne described the incident as “hysterical” and boasted to her national audience, “It’s quite fabulous.” 
Others callously blamed the victim. “When you cross a woman, all is fair,” remarked TV personality Wendy Williams.The most common response of the national media, however, was to ignore the gruesome attack.But what if the perpetrator had been a male and the victim a female — the reaction would have been totally different: Alarming newscasts, agonized editorials, campus marches, and stern demands for harsh criminal sanctions. 
Relying on rapid media response using mainstream media, social media, radio, and other channels, the Countering Abuse Misinformation Project – CAMP – will work to bring an end to this pernicious double-standard.SAVE is launching CAMP on Monday, August 22. SAVE will be inviting persons to make comments to online newspaper articles, write letters to the editor, and so forth. An orientation call will be held Tuesday, Aug. 23 at 9pm Eastern time. If you would like to participate in this history-making effort, contact Teri Stoddard at .

Conversing with an esteemed member of the MRM does have distinct advantages, Especially when discussing topics and issues of interest and that always leads to issues that are so obvious as you wonder how the hell you missed it.

The bleeding obvious point that Amfortas raised was the fact that the riots in Britain could be placed quite correctly at the feet of Harriet Harman, professional male hater and feminist, whose Labor government decided that aiding and abetting single mothers with copious payments was just the thing as it is part of the feminist wet-dream to exclude Fathers and give sole ownership of children to the mother without holding her to account for the irresponsibility of her offspring..

We have recently seen a video of a mother of 11 kids, yep, eleven kids, all to a selection of fathers, she took offense when she was asked how she felt about her hoodlum offspring behaving in that fashion (may of been either male or female), she responded with the claim that it was the government's fault. She soundly shirked her responsibility as a parent and put the blame for her children's criminal behaviour and activity on an institution that pays it money and encourages that type of stupidity,  maybe in return one might expect some accountability, but not in the PC Britain of today..

The Men's Movement has been saying exactly that,  it will be the inevitable outcome if you take dads out of the family equation. Stupidity is not just feminist Harriet Harman's speciality but it's the general ingrained practice practised extensively by feminists. We still hear it today and consistently that same ridiculous family destroying statement that women can raise kids on their own because they swallowed the feminist mantra of "don't need no man". Well, you might think that is a "you go girl" high five moment but tell that to your teenage daughters or sons as they drag them off to jail for drug running,  Stealing, gang association, destroying public property as they just did in Britain. Tell them the reason Dad is not around is because you were being ignorant and stupid, you assumed that you could do it all by yourself just to appease your fellow feminist's ego, but where are they now ?

Fatherlessness, violence and the British malaise
by Bill Muehlenberg
August 14, 2011
The London riots have simply reconfirmed and graphically illustrated what the social sciences have been telling us for a half century now: when we allow society to disregard the institution of marriage and in fact assault the institution of family, we are asking for – and will get – trouble.
The social science evidence on this is as overwhelming as it is clear: by every indicator, children will be worse off when not raised in a biological two-parent family. They will be more likely to do less well at school, to become involved in drugs, to commit suicide, to have a range of mental and psychological problems, and to get involved in gangs and criminal activity.
This has been documented so thoroughly now that only an ideologue who is pushing agendas can deny the evidence. Let me here just offer the smallest sampling of research data on this. These are just a few bits of the available evidence.
In an important book on the subject, Francis Ianni found that most gang members in America come from female-headed households. And a study of British communities in the American Journal of Sociology by Sampson and Groves found a direct statistical link between single parenthood and virtually every major type of crime, including mugging, violence against strangers, car theft and burglary. 

Feminists specifically planned this course of action and we (MRM) kept warning and shouting that if you destroy marriage, you will destroy the structure of society..
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan
If you are wondering who Morgan is just Google that member of the feminasty movement..
"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." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
So feminists are to blame but they will never put their hand up to acknowledge that fact as they will do everything they can to place the blame somewhere else because they know if people find that to be the case, things will change. The main stream media, or most of it, refuse to even credit the riots as a byproduct of Fatherless homes as they too follow the same feminist doctrine..

feminist Harman
Thank goodness some journalists are still awake..

Quadrant Online
Melanie Philips
Goodbye to Enlightenment.
One of them, Harriet Harman, was on TV last night preposterously blaming cuts in educational allowances, of all things, for the fact that teenagers and pre-pubescent children have been torching and looting shops and robbing and murdering people in the streets. It was Harman, of course, who was one of the principal forces behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers as the only progressive position. Yet here she is, faced with the Hobbesian scenes of violent anarchy which are the result of those policies, still parroting the same old claptrap and still totally incapable of acknowledging the terrible damage to individuals, social destruction and de-civilisation she has helped wreak.

Just in case you are wondering how corrupt the judiciary is in Australia as well as everywhere else and how feminists have infiltrated it than here is the optimum example. Why not rub out and erase the Father off the birth certificate and give that right to a lesbian. To you and I, this is incomprehensible but to feminists, the radical feminists who we can state are mostly male hating lesbians is without argument. We have witnessed so many laws introduced to favour the privileged sex as to make them even more toxic than they are already. It will get to the stage where no one will want a bar of them in the fear that even sneezing in the same elevator would be considered as either assault or sexual abuse. But they will not stop there while men sit on their hands and do nothing. Evil will grow because of it. They want every male to be a non-entity, no right, no claim to law and definitely no power whatsoever whenever a member of the opposite sex is involved..
Miranda Devine
Saturday, August 20, 2011
At a time when the problem of fatherless children has been rammed home by feral youth rioting in London, we saw last week an example of how the state has actively sought to exclude fathers from their children’s lives.
The case in the NSW District Court of sperm donor John Williams*, whose name has been deleted from his 10-year-old daughter’s birth certificate in favour of the biological mother’s estranged lesbian partner, has made news around the world.
Judge Stephen Walmsley acknowledged the deep attachment between father and daughter, and expressed “considerable sympathy” for Williams, 58.
But his hands were tied. He had to comply with a retrospective amendment to the Status of Children Act in 2008 by then NSW attorney-general John Hatzistergos which asserted the parental rights of lesbian couples over a biological father.
Even though Williams had been an enthusiastic part-time father who loved his daughter and had contributed tens of thousands of dollars to her upkeep, he was legally cut out. Now the little girl officially has two mothers, but no father.
Williams hasn’t seen his daughter since April 14 and is contemplating life without her.
“I’m told by the law that she’s no longer my daughter and I’m no longer her father,” he says. “I’m a stable influence on my daughter. But the law’s all in favour of the non-biological lesbian mother.”
The saga began in 2000, when Williams, a gay, single, successful real estate agent, decided he wanted a child and “heir”.
He placed an advertisement in a gay magazine: “Sperm Donour (sic) Professional male mid 40s would like to meet lesbian lady to view of producing a child. Full health details available involvement and financial assistance offered.”
The lesbian couple who answered his ad had coincidentally placed an advert for a sperm donor in another gay magazine at the same time. “Lesbian couple seeks donor, view to being “uncle” figure to child. No financial obligation.”
So, as Williams wrote to them, they were writing to Williams, and the deal was sealed almost before they met.
He travelled more than an hour from his inner-city Sydney home to ejaculate into a large syringe in their spare room, before “quickly” exiting the house while the women attempted insemination. After about four attempts, they were successful.
Williams was involved in the pregnancy, at least financially. By the time the baby was born he had spent almost $10,000 on the midwife, on weekly naturopathic and chiropractic treatments and shiatsu massages for the birth mother.
But relations with the women grew testy over their frequent requests for money. Six weeks before the baby was due in August 2001, both women had given up work, and Williams questioned why they were spending between $135 and $155 a week on alternative health therapies.
Although Williams tried to become involved with the baby, and his 88-year-old mother lent the women her Rover car, his relationship with them continued to deteriorate.
When his daughter was one, he went to the Family Court and won the right to see her every second Saturday for five hours, and on Fathers’ Day, Christmas and school holidays. He also paid $150 a week in maintenance and even bought a house near her school to make visits easier. Williams estimates he has spent $50,000 in legal fees trying to retain a meaningful relationship with his daughter, now 10.
He resented the control the women placed on his visits, in part because of his daughter’s restricted diet of vegan meals every two hours.
One email from the non-biological mother sets out the child’s food routine. On waking she is to be given Chinese herbs and “homeopathic cell salts Acidophilus mixed with filtered water half an hour before breakfast. Breakfast is noodles cooked with kombu seaweed in water first in bowl full (cooled down) with hatcho miso and phyt-aloe supplement mixed to a soup in filtered water, 1.4 tsp miso mixed with one capsule phyt-aloe powder, mix to a paste with a little filtered water (not heated) and then add more cool water to make 3/4 cup. Corn thin with cashew nut butter and 1/4 ambrotose powder mixed into it.”
Obsessive though it appears, the list of instructions does show that the little girl was well loved and that her mothers put an enormous amount of thought into every aspect of her care.
Williams’ partner of two years, writes in an affidavit that the girl’s “time spent socialising with [Williams] is severely restricted by bizarre diet restrictions”.
But he adds that “all three parents are very loving and well meaning”.
Williams, in a letter before the court, also compliments the two women as “wonderful” parents.
Even after the lesbian couple split up in 2006, the three households had managed to keep up a workable custody sharing arrangement.
But it was the law that came between them. Williams says as soon as the law was introduced to parliament in 2008, “I knew [the women] were planning legal action to have me eliminated”.
The non-biological mother wrote to Williams last year asking him to remove his name from his daughter’s birth certificate.
“I am not wishing for your relationship with [the child] to change in any way. You always will be her biological donor.”
Williams was furious, writing back: “I take offence of this description. As far as I’m concerned I am and always will be [her] father.”
The relationship soon become so poisonous that Williams returned a letter to her solicitor with “See you in Court bitch” scrawled across it.
He hasn’t seen his daughter since April 14. And after last week’s court decision he feels he has been officially banished from her life.
The amendment to the Status of Children Act that was quietly passed through the parliament three years ago was social engineering at its most potent.
What it said, for the first time, was that in defiance of biological reality, the legal rights of a non-related lesbian in a relationship with the child’s biological mother trumped the rights of the biological father.
Even if that father had a committed relationship to the
child, he could be cut out as if he never existed.
The inevitable consequences of this injustice are clear in Williams’ case. Whose interests does it serve to alienate a father from his daughter by law? Certainly not the child’s.
* Name changed for legal reasons