Natasha Walker has an Epiphany..

Natasha Walter
but I didn't realise there were so many people reading my journalism who felt so strongly and personally antagonistic towards feminism and female writers."

Here we have another naysayer like Laurie Penny (lying feminist and imitation journalist) who appears to be somewhat taken aback by people actually disliking the "F" word plus stating an aversion to it's enablers. It has always amazed me how feminists live so deep inside their own manufactured bubble that they are completely astounded to find out the bleeding obvious, when they finally surface in the real world. One does not have to state much these days on the web, in any article, in order to get the occasional lunatic, I have plenty of them in my trash bin, where they belong but I am hardly going to curl up in the corner and sulk just because someone has an ardent desire to demonstrate they have not taken their meds. It's life and it's the way it goes. Walk through any city and you will be confronted or you will witness their actions without fail. But with feminists, who are apparently a lot more sensitive than normal people, find their response to be closer to an apoplexy rather than taking the typical response of "so what", one expects that type of behaviour and it's not solely aimed at the femininastie movement but I can understand why it does. It is also for this reason why there is a delete button...

Meanwhile, editors of sites such as "the Guardian" are quite happy to erase any comments that are not feminist friendly in the fear that the general public may actually find out the truth. It's akin to Pravda of the old days, if it's feminism, it must be and has to be projected as being "good" for all..

In this day and age, the feminist experiment has affected a lot more people and by doing so, screwed up a lot more lives as members of both sexes line up to ensure feminists fully comprehend that unadulterated loathing people generally have against a doctrine that is not only experimental but has not even been studied or subjected to analysis or possible outcomes, never tested for it's detrimental effect against society, it is all just assumed. Yet the experiment continues, just like it did in Europe all those years back, complete with false promises and accompanied lies and misinformation. It's akin to some lunatic nation in the past who wanted to produce the perfect athlete and dosed them up with so many drugs that the outcome was nowhere near what they expected. Feminism on the other hand requires no drug, just a level of stupidity, ignorance and an ability to denounce one's normal human behaviour..

But onwards they trek and scream they do. Life according to them is just so unfair. Why are people not loving us as all, what we are really doing is totally changing their lives and restructuring their sex without any consideration to that outcome or even bothering to ask them if they wanted that in the first place. I mean, really, what is there not to like about a feminist ?

I will leave you to fill out the obvious response to the question but meanwhile, as feminist wallow in their own level of stupidity, they have gathered together and decided that it's only the poor "victim queens" who are being abused and denigrated. It's always about the "women" have you noticed, always. One would have to remind them that feminised manginas (male enablers for female supremacy) do actually have their own award, well here they do, but ofcourse that is not part on their mindset for as far as they are concerned, they really don't exist at all..

1 in 4 rape...Oh yawn, let me sleep..

Being a compulsive lying feminist must have it's moments I would imagine. Those moments bearing reality could only be present while in a horizontal position, while the brain is engaged in the rem status. Even while in that state it would still not be guaranteed..

One of Feminism's greatest lies is the 1 in 4 rape epidemic that never actually seems to appear. One would imagine that local hospitals and doctor's surgeries would be filled with all those imaginary victims as we already know that nothing would stop any member of the opposite sex complaining, suing, demanding more protection, being escorted by security back to their accommodation at night, demanding that all male students be removed from the campus and declaring an "all wimmyn world" at Universities just to overcome that epidemic. Just think of it. A class of fifty students at 70% female would have eight female students at anytime having been raped. So a Uni. with 5,000 students (full or part time) would have (70% female students) eight hundred and seventy five female students raped at anytime according to feminists. Even if we take their claim seriously where they state that only 10% of all rapes are reported then that total would multiply out to One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five..

Common sense being absent from the feminist arsenal, would dictate that there is no hope in hell the privileged princesses would even remotely tolerate that but they do not mind tolerating the lie apparently..

Deflating the Date Rape Scare:
A Look At Campus Police Records

Guest article by	Michael P. Wright
	Scientific Social Research
	Norman, Oklahoma

Mr Wright has apparently had a good look at this farcical statement that the feminists wish list contains..

Our information about the survey comes from a critical review of it by Christina Hoff Sommers, associate professor of philosophy at Clark University. According to Sommers, the survey had been the subject of a 1985 MS magazine report by Mary Koss, who was chosen by MS to direct it. Koss and her team interviewed about three thousand college women, randomly selected. For purposes of tabulating results, a respondent was counted as a "rape victim" if she answered "yes" to any of several questions, including this one:

Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn't

want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?

Any woman who ever had the experience of sharing alcohol, having sex with a man, and later regretting it for any reason could answer "yes" to this question. By counting "yes" answers to this as affirmative evidence, Koss was able to reach the conclusion that a total of 27.5 percent of the respondents had been victims of rape or attempted rape. Interestingly, many of those she counted as victims did not see it that way themselves. Only about a quarter of the so-called victims in this survey labeled what happened to them as rape. About half described the incidents as "miscommunication."

Aahhh yes, that is exactly how feminists went about obtaining the result they were after. It's those loaded questions, akin to "have you stopped beating your dog" type of loaded questions as the outcome or answer is totally irrelevant. They get the answer they want regardless..

The problem is that the "1-in-4" chant bears little relationship to reality. A review of OU enrolment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. That's a little less alarming than 1-in-4. The remainder of this article describes the methodology for arriving at this estimate.
The first step was to call Neal Stone of the OU Police Department (OUPD), and ask how many on-campus rapes have been reported for the year. He answered two rapes for the first ten months of calendar year 1996. On a 12-month basis, this would convert to an annual rate of 2.4 rapes.
The Oklahoma Daily article reported that from 70% to 80% of all rapes are "acquaintance rapes." Stone was quoted saying that only 10% of these are reported. Accepting 10% as an estimate of the reporting rate, the true number of OU annual rapes would be 24, which is 10 times 2.4.
The next step was to project how many female members of the 1996 freshman class could be expected to be raped in the course of a 6-year undergraduate career, if the 1-in-4 claim is true. For this it was necessary to estimate the average annual size, over the 6-year period, of the entering female cohort for 1996, after adjusting for expected drop-outs. After Provost Emeritus J.R. Morris provided drop-out rates, this table was constructed:

Fall 96	Freshmen women:	1904
Year 2	Retention:	1409
Year 3	Retention:	1323
Year 6	Retention:	967

For the six years, the average size of the cohort would be about 1400. A freshman female operating on uncritical acceptance of the 1-in-4 claim would calculate that 350 members of her class will be rape victims during their college experience. Over 6 years, the average annual number of rapes expected by her would be 58 for the 1996 first-year group (350 / 6).
The next step is to compare the expectation derived from reliance on the 1-in-4 claim to that indicated by local evidence supplied by the OUPD. After adjusting for under-reporting, from 1996 data we accept 24 as the estimated annual number of OU campus rapes. Since the analysis is based on a 6-year undergraduate career, members of the 1996 freshman class can expect to be victimized at the rate of 4 per year (24/6).

 Link to the remainder..

Someone Stole this from my phone, Honest.

Here we have an example of a lawsuit that was going to be so obvious that it was just a matter of waiting for someone who still had a pair to actually stand up and be counted. This type of sexist activity is happening in every College and University in the western world and we have ONE single male brave enough to stand up against it. Makes everyone else look like a bunch of cowardly wimps doesn't it. Seeing as no one has made any effort maybe throw him a few bucks to meet expenses..

Man suing gender studies department for 'teaching sexism'.

Tom Martin began studying a Masters degree at the Gender Institute of The London School of Economics (LSE) in the 2009/10 term but withdrew after only six weeks, complaining the curriculum discriminated against men.
The elite university's own internal investigation found 'no evidence of discrimination', but Tom, unsatisfied with their conclusion, has filed 200 pages of evidence, in a damages claim at the Central London County Court, for 'sex discrimination, breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation, and breach of The Gender Equality Duty Act'.
Tom says "sex-discriminatory learning materials were ruled out by the university's own regulations, yet the core texts we had to read before each class, contained lots of anti-male discrimination and bias heavily focussing on and exaggerating women's issues, whilst blaming men, and ignoring men's issues. There was no warning of this sexist agenda in the prospectus."
The university have filed their defence. The case is likely to be heard over the next two or three months. 
Tom has paid for and received expert legal advise from a specialist education lawyer, and a specialist education barrister, who believe his case has a strong chance of success.
Tom has no more money left, will be representing himself in court, but still needs a further £1050 to pay for the one-off court hearing fee, and more urgently, a further £110 to pay for submitting initial questions in court.
Now is your opportunity, to encourage gender and all other academic fields, to cut out the hate, and become more welcoming to men and men's equality issues.

Thank you for all support! Tom can be contacted directly, at: sexismbusters@hotmail.com

Imagine a war between the sexes and the men finally turn up. 

One cannot deny the fact that when the feminasty movement first reared it's head in the early sixties they found a willing and compliant sex who were quite happy to help women achieve their goals and aims. Little did we realise that the feminist movement would actually behaved as women generally do and that is that they never know when to stop, give up or even declare that maybe they had gone too far. They are destroying the same sex who have helped them to begin with and put put no limitations on their demands or any type of sunset clause either. They have to be forced to be stopped or they will just keep on going until the entire world is poisoned by their insanity.

Will they stop or back off ?

In your dreams. John Williams coins the appropriate response in one of his songs "why me and them like cheese and chalk"..

The problem feminists face right now is that in their ranks they had male soldiers, helping their cause. You can imagine it in a scene from any old movie as soldiers break rank and wander into the opposing position. As more and more soldiers side with the MRM, feminists tried the blame  and shame technique and that did not work as well as before. So, out came the finger pointing and malice, endless tirades and threat, those were ignored. Now we have the reduced squad of feminist malcontents looking at each other with fear in their eyes, knowing full well what the outcome of the next battle will be and that they are not on the winning side. So they now make suggestions about a possible compromise (chivalry), they reduce their endless harping and finger pointing (people are sick to death of that) and ofcourse we wait while they start their last determined effort to stay afloat, one last desperate ditch, one final attempt at saving their hate movement from total annihilation. Guess what that will be ?

Waiting..

One has to enjoy reading how the opposite sex just repeatedly make complete liars out of feminists, the feminist movement as well as any promotion they have forced onto the public about their totally artificial angelic status. They tried to apply it to all women by casting them in the role of being endless and relentless victims of everything under the sun. The feminist manginas have been busy propelling that catch phrase as well but for ulterior motives ofcourse. Their aim is targeted more below the waistline, they even take the time to boast about that as often as they can..
The girls ofcourse have been trained to think that they can get away with just about anything as they possess the magic "V" which has a very high trading component as well as a social exchange rate, not unlike the Euro or an open ocean oil exploration license, but the magic "V"is more mobile and comes with it's own carrier and operator, batteries not included though. Perfect really, when you think about it.


The only problem apart from demonstrating how feminists just cannot get anything right is that they refuse to knuckle down and demonstrate just how saintly they really are by indulging in a range of activities which makes Hannibal Lecter appear to be a novice with learner plates stapled to his torso..


Why just this year alone we have witnessed such exiting events as a female being jailed for Genocide in Africa which included instructing the troops to rape all the women before they killed them, they frolicked in the riots in England both rich little princesses and poor, murdering and maiming loved ones such as children of any age as well as other relatives, consistently make false rape/sexual/assault claims as that activity rose exponentially and female teachers are still sending naked pictures of themselves to their charges for free before forcibly raping or just bonking em silly. I might be correct in yelling the feminist mantra of "you go girl".. 


The crime rate by women in England has risen by 255% (Google it) over the last ten years while the other sex has been reduced considerably although the media does not spread that around, bad for business you know. Still the divorce rate continues at the high level while she cleans up with the assistance of the compliant courts and also helping them set free any recalcitrant female whenever possible even though the PP (pussy pass) has been overused and is starting to show signs of wear and fraying at the edges. But not to be deterred, there is still a good part of the year left to fill, so why wait..

PLYMOUTH, Mass. -- Four female students were allegedly caught threatening to launch a Columbine-style attack on their school. Criminal charges could be filed against the teenagers.The profanity laced post read, “We gutta go on a rampage and kill every [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] that exists. Just shoot ‘em up it’ll be like Columbine all over again accept its allll [expletive] an [expletive].”The same student at Plymouth North High School went on to comment, “Haha just look at a [expletive] in her eyes and pull out a gun thad be a funny sight to see.”School officials said the four girls, ages 14 to 17, went on Facebook in the last few days and made serious threats. Police said at least one of the students mentioned Columbine -- but these suspects would have been toddlers when Columbine happened 12.5 years ago.By Thursday, a criminal investigation was underway and school officials had taken action.Students at Plymouth North High School couldn’t believe what they had read online.“They were going to shoot all the girls. They were going to take their blood, take the blood after they shot them and rub them over their body and then have a slip and slide with it,” said Andrew Gallant, who read the Facebook threats.

And the feminists dared us to think differently, why butter would melt in their sweet, loving mouths and anyone who says otherwise is a misogynist, blah, sexist, blah, hates women, blah, etc. blah..
Maybe they were just mucking about but heh!, do you really want to ignore it?

Next..

WASHINGTON -- An 18-year-old Bowie State University student is dead, and her roommate is in police custody after an argument escalated.Maryland State Police identify the victim of the stabbing as Dominique T. Frazier, 18, of D.C.Police won't identify the 19-year-old District Heights woman who is in custody until she is charged."Around midnight the suspect turned herself into Prince George's County Police. She's been turned over to Maryland State Police, and we expect her to be charged later today," Maryland State Police spokesman Greg Shipley tells WTOP.The roommate turned herself in four hours after police responded to the university's Christa McAuliffe Residential Community building in the 14000 block of Jericho Park Road.When Bowie State University police officers arrived at the apartment building, they found the victim unconscious in the second floor hallway, bleeding from the upper torso.Frazier was pronounced dead at Prince George's Hospital Center at 8:44 p.m. No one else was injured."State Police investigators are obtaining a search warrant for the suite in the residence community and will be conducting a search of that room and the area where the crime occurred later this morning," Shipley says.

Oh no, school/cyber/thingy bullying. The favourite subject today to keep the funds flowing in..
What would the odds be on these females getting off with just another purile warning or some pathetic community wall scrubbing weekend ?..

 Mom Arrested For Egging On Schoolyard Fight Caught on Tape Speaks Out
The Long Island woman arrested on charges she encouraged two 12-year-old girls, one of them her own daughter, to fight outside a local school is speaking out, saying she allowed the fight to protect her daughter.

“Nobody is doing anything, and they keep doing these hurtful, hurtful things,” the woman, 32-year-old Daphne Melin, told New York’s ABC 7 of the cyber bulling she claims was inflicted on her daughter. “They harass her in school.”The fight started on Facebook, where Melin claims her daughter was harassed and threatened by up to 10 young girls, and then played out the old-fashioned way, on a schoolyard near William Floyd Elementary School in Shirley, N.Y., the afternoon of Sept. 11. Melin was released on bail and will be arraigned Dec. 1, police said. She could face up to one year in state prison. 

So, the ever lying feminists should be hiding their heads in shame, if they were capable of performing such a response..

Sheriff: Daughter shoots dad in neck in El Paso County

 A 19-year-old woman has been arrested for shooting her father in the neck with a pistol.The El Paso County Sheriff's Office was called at about 4 a.m., to a home on the 500 block of Iris Drive, by a woman who reported that "her father was just accidentally shot," according to a sheriff's media release.When deputies arrived they found 47-year-old Gary Vorhis suffering from a "single gunshot wound to his neck."

And finally the pièce de résistance..

On camera: Woman attacks judge in court

You reap what you abuse..

There would have been occasions in the past when either your partner or girlfriend would have stated after a conversation with a member of her sex that "she is so fake" "she is such a phony" or something similar along those lines. You would have wondered how or where the hell that came from because you just had a normal conversation with a female who you interpreted as being, you know, alright. That is where the confusion rears and that's where one must pay attention to the experts as it's the experts who not only recognise that type of fraudulent behaviour or tactic because they practice it themselves. I must confess to being stunned in my early youth by those exact words by a potential future squeeze, who may have been of the opinion that those observations demanded explanation or it may have been just another ploy to divert my attention, who knows..

Women can and do recognise that type of behaviour in other women and it would be wise to move on as they commence that practise when they are young and work on refining it from there onwards.

The reason I mention the above is because there are two small ripple feminists by the name of Marcotte and Valenti who have been severely severed by their own, for precisely the same reason. Not for competition with the opposite sex as their audience have a preference for their own sex but a general dressing down and a bitchy walloping for their inane and stupefying commentary on topics and subjects of which they have no expertise or an ounce credibility. Their claim to fame is relentless male bashing also their interpretation of human behaviour via the tainted, deeply flawed, myopic, feminist nonsense can only be viewed as a wish list rather than anything practical or even required. Many of their own have castigated and soundly rejected their endless rantings for being precisely that. Here is a Marcotte example..

A lot of us feminists who came up online have been promoting a model of sexuality called “enthusiastic consent”, and I think that one thing that could strengthen this is tackling the market model of heterosexuality.  Because, to put on my Twisty Faster hat, if we cast men as buyers and women as sellers, that means that women are assumed to be in a perpetual state of consent just as that gallon of milk at the store is assumed to be on sale for anyone who can cobble together the $5 to buy it.  As long as the market model of heterosexuality is in play, the notion that sex should be a mutual exchange between two individuals will not make so much sense to people. …I actually would say that my ideal is a world where everyone is kind of selling a little, but no one is cast as a buyer.  I think that people’s friendships work this way, in fact.  People shouldn’t feel entitled to have the time or affection of others, but instead should assume the responsibility of being charming enough to have people give it to them of their own free will. I do see a turn towards this in our culture somewhat, with men actually starting to think a little harder about being what women want instead of just meeting the metaphorical price tag that they are socialized to think is hanging off women.  We just have a long way to go.”

Marcotte is in denial mode as she tries to shift blame from feminism for lowering the cost or value of sex for women and reducing it to such a degree that women are now either forced to give it up on demand or find some cats to keep her company. Marcotte lives in denial that human biology and human behavioral patterns are established over thousands of years and her trying to wish it away just does not work and neither does forcing dysfunctional feminist doctrine down everyone's throat. Feminism has clearly harmed women in more ways than one. First they spread the lie that they can have it all, then came the "get pregnant at 40" lie (which NOW (Nat.Org.ofWitches) denied funding for) and now we have the denial that female sexuality is but an equal opportunity trade-off option but in reality it is what women are basically all about. Take away that option from females and it's lowers their status, lower the female status and you end up with an individual who has no power to wheel and deal her way to what she would like or wants. Not a great loss you may say but what happens now is that women will have to settle for what they can get rather then choose what they want..

“His new research, published in The Journal of Social Psychology earlier this summer, used two data sets on 37 countries, including an international online sex survey of 317,000 people and data specific to gender equity and related subjects. He found that countries ranked higher in gender equality also generally had more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, younger ages for first sex and greater tolerance/approval of premarital sex.

More information on a fine post on this topic here..

Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon weighs in, straddling the tightrope she’s been walking for a while now:
“This might seem like excellent news, just one more argument in favor of equality — and it is! But it also paints a mathematical, emotionless portrait of relations between the sexes.…The result is a world where women use sex to get what they want from men — whether it’s a free dinner or a lifetime commitment. It’s similar to an argument made by Mark Regnerus…who talked to me earlier this year about his belief that feminist advances have driven down the price of sex to an all-time low in the U.S. These are compelling theories and it’s hard to argue with the cold, hard facts that they present — but certainly economics alone can’t adequately explain the complexities and idiosyncrasies of sexual and romantic relationships.”

Yes ofcourse, economics alone does not explain it but it does go a long way in demonstrating that it actually exists. Even women have confessed that for the last 20 years or so. I am not really perplexed that women are loosing their power to manipulate men as they always have in the past but it does demonstrate once again that feminists have been lying to everyone and all are just fodder to their experiments..

Susan Walsh 

Of course economics can’t explain individual idiosyncratic relationships, and it’s not meant to. What it does explain is the correlation among feminism, relaxed sexual mores, and relationship commitment, which is the “price” of sex. This puts feminists in an uncomfortable bind – feminism has led to women getting less of what they want, in general. For women who proudly call themselves sluts this is not necessarily problematic, in that they don’t appear to want what most women want, i.e. emotionally intimate relationship sex. Still, it means that feminism is now relevant primarily to a very small slice of the sisterhood.

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..

Each and every mantra or doctrinal claim included in the Feminist arsenal can be cited as either being blatantly dishonest, exaggerated or a downright lie. Here is one of those downright lies that feminists have been perpetrating for so long that making people believe otherwise or convincing people about the truth will be an uphill battle as feminists will fight this tooth and nail as it would put an end to their falsehood about "all women are victims" claim. A claim that has generated copious laws and unlimited funding thrown into their coffers to continue their fascist, male hating methodology without restriction or opposition from any of those elite who were elected to protect the people. They failed and continue to do so..Vote them out..

The Centers for Disease Control recently funded a major study of heterosexual relationships throughout the U.S. and found: "Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases," and both sexes suffered significant injuries.http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 The same study also found: "More women than men (25% versus 11%) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women" and "while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25% of the time) than were women (20% of the time)."http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a Men are less likely to report it (which makes crime data unreliable), but almost 300 studies now confirm "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners," as California State University Professor Martin Fiebert shows in his online bibliography at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm For example, a 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n andhttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf When children witness either parent hit the other, regardless of how severe or minor, it becomes a model for them to follow. Domestic violence is an intergenerational cycle, and we'll never stop that cycle without being honest about it rather than following the politically correct gender paradigm that has been totally refuted by serious researchers like Professor Don Dutton of the University of British Columbia and many others.
This Canadian government report also recognizes the above data:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/pdfs/fv-intime_e.pdf

Using taxpayers dollars to achieve it, I could not go past this particular video on a discussion with one of the Authors of "The Flipside of Feminism" and the interviewer is ofcourse a feminist and that surfaces quite clearly. But Suzanne Venker points out that feminists HATED women who wanted to become Moms and have children, they hated the idea that women would automatically opt for a married life with a partner of their choosing and settle down and do what they do. This to the feminists was incomprehensible, it was blasphemy and only heretics would even consider that. They totally discouraged that via abusive articles, lectures as well as relentlessly arguing it via the pro-feminist media both newspapers and television just like today,  they needed to convince any female who was contemplating that option that it was not on. As a result of that brain rinsing that women swallowed we have an endless amount of women now howling about the fact that now they are over forty, they were lied to by feminists and now, those feminists, really don't give a damn. You wallowed in their lies and now you pay the price. Simple really..
This same poison is spread throughout the education system as feminists continue to indoctrinate college students and get in early with their male hating doctrines to ensure their message is spread far and wide. If in doubt, have a read of the garbage they print or support or encourage students to be active in, all paid for by the public purse. We are paying feminists to destroy society and then be expected to just sit back and enjoy it..

Jessica Valenti demonstrates clearly what it takes to be loathed not just by the guys and gals in the MRM but also   the general population whom she mistakenly targets, she manages to alienate even the women whom she hopes to influence via it's compliance to Third Noddy Feminism (it cannot be termed a wave as it's compliance to the male hating rhetoric and it's dyslexic, dysfunctional  doctrine and mantras of the past is a taken)..

Valenti's constant mouthing the rampant lies of that hate movement appears to be alienating precisely the audience she is trying to indoctrinate with her cognitive dissonance. So hypocritical is this woman that it could not face life without having at least one male for company even though one has to question his sex, how could any "man" ever consider partnering any female who's sole intent is to destroy his credibility as a human being. You figure it out, it's beyond my capability..

Could that be a new term that deserves to be instigated by any chance, "Manginaism" a male follower of feminist women, who has buried his common sense and logic by blithely capitulating his manhood or any pretence thereof to any female in the hope of achieving her favour and acceptance..

Alienating all and sundry appears to be irrelevant to Valenti as it rages and rants about issues that are neither bound by fact rather than feminist fiction (like the million prostitutes heading for the super bowl weekend and the City's major asking where were they going to be housed?) or requires confirmation as fact as is apparently just an inconvenience for her as a story as far as a feminists like Valenti is concerned is more important by being fictional and fictitious rather than that pesky factual thingy rearing it's denied interference..

Valenti's dream like state can be summed up by it's self delusional incomprehensible ranting which can only be relegated to the nonsense folder but it appears that the Guardian and the Huffpost are not interested in facts, only feminist fiction to feed it's "preaching to the choir" audience..

But alienate all and sundry appears to be one of her limited talents..

The black sisters even hate it..

So there I was, reading this one part of the book, Jessica is talking eugenics, and how these three poor black sisters got sterilized against their will, tsk, tsk. Then goes on to say that, see, feminism is about more than abortion and birth control....so let's move on to talk about abortion and birth control now, shall we?
I'm wondering if those few sentences were added in after Nubian asked her if the book was for white women only. It sure looks like an afterthought that anything involving POC was in that book.

Other women join in to criticise this dysfunctional female and one must wonder if she is only ever preaching to the choir as I have yet to come across a "non"-third Noddy Feminist who actually agrees or even considers her myopic views to be even slightly legitimate or even remotely helpful..

Donna said...
That's what I mean RenEv! Also, it's one thing to talk informally on your blog or amongst your friends, but the amount of gratuitous profanity? It doesn't seem to have a point other than to say, see, I'm cool because I swear. Well, my 14 yr old thinks that. My 16 yr old has already gotten over that idea. I wonder how many more years it will take Jessica?
The message I was taking away from that book is: Kiddies, it's ok to do anything you want. Fucking like bunnies and swearing like longshore men: That's what feminism is all about!
Well here's an excerpt:
"That's where feminism comes in. Seriously. Feminism says that you
have a right to enjoy yourself. An obligation, even. Young women need
to get past the bullshit, scoff at the shame tactics, and get back to
the hard work of getting off"

Here we have a comment from another former admirer in New York, even though a lesbian, cannot come to grips with Valenti's behaviour or the nonsense it promotes in print..

Lesbian. visual learner. enigma. woman (no link except what level of abuse they get up to).

Girlifying Women
Back in my teenage days in New York City, everyone wanted to go to raves, techno music-fueled dance parties where drugs were abundant. I know, the image of your feminist author(Ed..Valenti) dancing around with glowsticks doesn’t exactly inspire confidence or gravitas

Generation X have already written her off by their attitude and actions..

Generation X : Shove Feminism up Your A...

Here we have a full and comprehensive account on Valenti, whose nascent advice lecturing fails by the wayside as they treat Valenti to how others views her own from of narcissus..

From "a Guy Thing".. Valenti’s frustration with the so called male dominated institutions of the United States are clearly over exaggerated by glib examples of what she thinks is rampant in our society. Feminism is nothing more than an over representation of the 80 / 20 rule and the use of anecdotal evidence to represent that all men run around grinding their sexual organs on unwilling females, and if they are not physically doing it they are thinking about it. In my opinion, Valenti like all feminists over exaggerate some form of disenfranchisement they experienced in life and write it off that all men have done it and women should wake up and feel the same way as they do.

But ofcourse the best article on Jessica Valenti is the one on AVfM..

A letter to Jessica Valenti

The flawed thinking behind calls for further equality legislation.

Oh yes. As life goes on then more feminist lies become unstuck. Certainly puts paid to this little saying..

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”–Thomas Jefferson

Thomas was obviously was well aware of that fact. So we have this marvellous bit of work and in pdf form for you to scrutinize.
Now lets see if this author has any credibility, has any credentials.tick.
Cites her own sex, tick,
Assists in denouncing the feminasties and their lies, tick.
Three out of three, not bad..

THE AUTHOR
Catherine Hakim is a Senior Research Fellow in the London
 School of Economics. She has written extensively on women’s
 employment issues, including Key Issues in Women’s Work. Her
new book, Erotic Capital: a new theory of social interaction in
everyday life, will be published by Penguin in 2011.

We have been faced with the relentless raging by feminist demanding that women, according to their organs, should be automatically installed into the top job just because, they are..

I will list a few more facts from this study and leave you to decide the bleeding obvious..

1. INTRODUCTION
Equal opportunities policies have been successful in the UK,
stimulating massive changes over the past 30 years and
transforming women’s lives. Women today have more choices
than men, including real choices between a focus on family
work and/or paid employment. For the first time in history
women in developed societies are free to take up any
occupation or career on the same basis as men. In 2005, the
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) celebrated these
changes shortly before it was merged into the new Equality and
Human Rights Commission.
In Then and Now, the EOC set out how life has changed for
women. The fertility rate fell from 2.37 in 1971 to 1.78 in 2004.
Average gross household income almost doubled from £324
per week in 1970 to £552 per week in 2002/3 and disposable
income rose by a similar amount. In 1970, two-thirds of students
in higher education were male. By 2003, over half were female.
However changes in female employment have been relatively
small. Among women of working age, six out of ten had a job in
1975, compared to seven out of ten in 2005. The increase in
female employment has been primarily in part-time jobs – not
2
only in the UK, but across much of western Europe. Women’s
full-time employment rate has remained constant, hovering
between 30% and 40%, about one-third of the age group since
at least 1850 in Britain, similar to many other European
countries.1 Across western Europe, full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment rates2 remain around 50% for women and 75% for
men. It is only in the Nordic and post-socialist countries, where
public policy has pushed women into paid work for decades,
that the female FTE employment rate rises to around two-thirds
of the 15-64 years age group, still well below rates for men (see
Table 1). Even this is illusory. Swedish economists have shown
that Sweden and the US are almost identical in women’s
average actual hours of paid work and household work, even
though Swedish women appear to have labour force
participation rates 20% higher than in the US.3 On average,
working wives still contribute only one-third of household
income, husbands contribute two-thirds. When wives without
jobs are included in the analysis, the overall contribution of
wives is even smaller.4

Employment patterns among graduates are no so different, according to a
March 2010 report in The Economist. For example a study of MBA graduates
of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business by Marianne
Bertrand and her colleagues found that 10 to 16 years after graduating, in
2009, around half of those with children were working full-time, one-quarter
were working part-time, and one-quarter had left the workforce to become
full-time mothers and homemakers. Vere 2007 also shows that even
graduate women have realised that ‘having it all’ does not work in practice
for many.

Women and Work Commission report chose not to recommend
further legislation to promote gender equality, opting instead for
moral exhortation, models of good practice and other advocacy.
Harriet Harman ignored this to ensure that the 2009 Equalities
Bill included prescriptions for action. The main purpose of the
Bill was to synthesise and harmonise equal opportunities laws
across all the relevant social groups and criteria (sex, age,
ethnic group, religion, disability and sexual orientation). However
Harman insisted it should also include new obligations on
employers, most notably compulsory gender pay audits for
public bodies and companies, and a strong push for employers
to use positive action (in effect, positive discrimination) in favour
of women, so as to make business ‘more representative

Hat tip to Feckblog..

Barbarossaaaa has a few words to say about Comic Con as the feminasties have found a place where Dads and Sons go together to enjoy an afternoon or night looking at some of their favourite comics, it's not for me but I can understand someone enjoying it. It really is a huge industry full of some very talented (graphic) artists and writers..

So as usual, feminists hate the idea of men and boys congregating without their permission, how dare they enjoy themselves without out their childish and immature interference..

I'll let B tell the story with his usual, panache..

Sluts and Manginas demonstrating just that..

You can feel the desperation of feminists by their inane actions. For the last couple of months they offered the olive branch to the MRM in the hope that they could bushwack it with their hysteria and inconsistent lying, threats and vacant theories. Then we have Marcotte and Valenti raging hysterical on all type of drivel and even trying their hand at "giving advice to men" on relationships, can you believe that, two veracious toothless feminist Chihuahuas recommending to their most hated and vilified group that they should remove their testicles and become just like the manginas that occupy some loathed position in the feminist hegemony, serving those privileged princesses. Tell me you're joking..

But desperation surfaces gradually and constantly as more and more join in to demonstrate clearly what that hate movement is all about. Even more desperation surfaces with the likes of Hymowitz who could not wait to cast all men into one basket while failing to criticise her own sex even just a little but following the feminist mantra of "women have reached perfection" which made her entire book just another feminist joke. Just another feminised irrelevancy that only feminists can..

So it continues as more jump on the "let's cain the piss out of those arrogant lying screech merchants" and give them back what they have been dishing out for so long. It really is joyous to watch and read..

The Ms. Magazine antics elicited this rejoinder from columnist Jenn Taylor: “What better way to expose portrayals of women as irrational whiners and hysterical bitches than by whining irrationally and bitching hysterically?”

Could not have said that better myself..

Tweaking the Nose of Radical Feminism
Carey Roberts

Two weeks ago Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chair, met her match in one Rep. Allen West. It seems that Wasserman Schultz waited until West left the House floor, then cut loose with a liberal jeremiad for the congressman’s support of the GOP-supported Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
Apprised of the incident, the former Lieutenant Colonel fired back, calling her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the House of Representatives…If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face.”
It wasn’t the first time the libber-turned-congresswoman saw her grandstanding tactics backfire. A couple months ago Wasserman Schultz accused House Republicans seeking to cut off taxpayer abortion funds with waging a “war on women.”
In the past, the slightest suggestion of a GOP “war on women” would be enough to bring out the white flag a-flutter. But this time the stiff-spined GOP refused to be buffaloed by the high-octane rhetoric. Within days a group of Republican women fired back, calling Wasserman Schultz’s demagoguery “baseless” and “inaccurate.”
For years, feminists have succeeded in dictating the parameters and vocabulary of the gender debate. By trotting out a sympathetic victim, playing on lawmaker chivalry, or resorting to outright falsehoods, feminists have been able to maintain hegemony over the public discourse. Politicians, newspaper editors, even university presidents learned to toe the feminist line, or else become tagged with the “anti-woman” moniker.
All that changed on February 18. That’s the day the U.S. House of Representatives’ continuing resolution bill scrapped the funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.
In short order, revenue-pinched state legislatures took up the same refrain. Planned Parenthood funding cuts were approved in Indiana, Kansas, and North Carolina. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed HB 1210, prohibiting abortion providers from receiving state funds.
Another sacred cow of radical feminism is the near-automatic award of child custody to a divorcing woman. The fact that children who lose contact with their loving fathers are far more likely to drop out of school and get in trouble with the law doesn’t seem to register with feminist logic (forgive the oxymoron, if you will).
But in recent weeks, a bevy of Republican presidential candidates, including Herman Cain and Gary Johnson, lined up to pronounce the current system deeply flawed. Newt Gingrich castigated the “extreme anti-male bias” of family courts.
Another gem in the feminist diadem is the Violence Against Women Act, which is used as a slush fund by domestic violence groups to support lobbying efforts for a broad array of radical causes. But two weeks ago, House Judiciary Committee member Ted Poe vowed to make the law gender neutral. “I certainly agree with equal protection under the law. And maybe a name change is in order,” the Texas congressman explained.
And it’s not just politicians who are poking holes in the feminist catechism of gender victimhood.
Following its embarrassing overtime loss to the Japanese women’s soccer team, Bryant Gumbel of HBO Sports revealed the double-standard that permeates sports reporting these days. “Had a men’s team turned in a similar performance,” Gumbel commented, “papers and pundits nationwide would have had a field day assailing the players, criticizing the coach, and demanding widespread changes to a men’s national team that flat-out choked.”
Then the cheeky “Everything I Do Is Wrong” campaign by the California Milk Processor Board that lampooned clueless men and hormone-addled women. The campaign triggered the wrath of the feminist Politburo, with Ms. Magazine demanding an immediate end to the “sexist” campaign.
The Ms. Magazine antics elicited this rejoinder from columnist Jenn Taylor: “What better way to expose portrayals of women as irrational whiners and hysterical bitches than by whining irrationally and bitching hysterically?”
It gets worse.
It’s one thing when conservative knuckle-draggers delight in the excesses of feminism. But when a fellow liberal debunks a feminist sacred cow, that’s hitting below the belt!
That’s exactly what the current issue of Time magazine does – it puts to the lie the shibboleth that working women pull a second shift when they come home, facing a pile of dirty laundry and shrieking kids, as dad lounges on the porch to watch the Dodgers game. According to Ruth Davis Konigsberg, “Quantitatively speaking, we have no grounds to stand on. And it’s time that women — myself included — admit it and move on.”
It’s getting harder and harder for the gender guerillas to play the victim card. Things are looking grim

This story surfaced like some type of revelation and ofcourse with a "female" victim involved plus the ongoing fake claims of the world being drenched with Rohypnol, which every feminist was convinced to be a conspiracy that all men were being supplied it as their desperation levels were so high that they needed it just to get some sex, they ofcourse forgot to add that women were generally bending over backwards and offering a quickie with every McDonalds burger, would you like a hump with that..

So that combinations went free-fall as the Main Stream Media does not mind screaming load and long when the woman is a supposed victim, the usual "find the victim" methodology as a precondition on any article was paramount as they played the feminists tune.(refer the Spin Sisters in the 1990's)..

So, and as usual, the bitch was lying. Why would someone lie about something that serious, only a female can answer it and they haven't yet. Not the real reason anyway. Oh sure, we have had the morning after the night before, where she wakes up in bed with someone she does not know and the whole regret issues whelms forth and justification must take place in her mind and screw the consequences on the other person..

No wonder we have a site like "American Women mostly Suck", the "mostly" was just them being sensitive..

MEDIA: HALLIBURTON PAID DICK CHENEY TO COMMIT RAPE IN IRAN
August 3, 2011

A front-page story by James Risen in The New York Times on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008, reported on a "troubling trend" of sexual assaults committed by American employees of military contractors in Iraq. The centerpiece of his story was Jamie Leigh Jones, who claimed to have been brutally gang-raped in 2005 while working in the Green Zone. 
(Risen also interviewed other women claiming to have been sexually assaulted in Iraq and -- for journalistic balance -- their attorneys.) 
Jones famously claimed that days after arriving in Iraq with KBR, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, she had been drugged and gang-raped by fellow employees and then held at machine-gunpoint in a tiny shipping container by KBR managers, with no food or water for 24 hours, as retaliation for reporting the rape. 
You may have heard about Jones' sensational allegations –- invariably reported as fact -- on ABC's "20/20"; CNN; CBS News' "The Early Show," MSNBC, National Public Radio, in every major U.S. newspaper and international media. 
All she had to do was mention the words "rape" and "Halliburton," and the automatons went wild! 
Jones told her tale before congressional committees, on numerous TV shows -- and in a book she is actually writing, titled: "The Jamie Leigh Story: How My Rape in Iraq and Cover-up Made Me a Crusader for Justice." (Scheduled for release the third Tuesday after never.) 
Then-senator Barack Obama demanded a State Department investigation into Jones' claims. 
But no one jumped on Jones' story with more self-righteousness than Sen. Al Franken. He used her story to jam through a grandstandy "anti-rape" amendment to an appropriations bill prohibiting defense contractors from including mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts, thus depriving mountebank trial lawyers like John Edwards from collecting massive damages awards from illiterate jurors. 
The 30 Republican senators who voted against Franken's pro-trial lawyer amendment were promptly denounced as "pro-rape" across the Internet, on liberal talk radio and in mass phone calls to their offices. 
And then a few weeks ago, the Times ran a microscopic, one-paragraph Associated Press story on page 13 of a Saturday paper, reporting that a jury looked at the facts and found that ... Jones made the whole story up. 
Maybe the Republican senators should have sponsored a no-false-rape-allegation bill for defense contractor employees. 
When the time came to put up or shut up, Jones' "gang-rape" claim simply disappeared. DNA evidence showed she'd had sex with one only man, and he claimed it was consensual. 
In fact, the whole crime disappeared: After an investigation, no criminal charges were brought. 
Instead, Jones' lawyer brought a civil suit against KBR and its employees -- with a much lower burden of proof -- alleging only a routine he-said, she-said date-rape case. 
Jones' claim that she had been drugged with Rohypnol was demolished by tests taken by a female military doctor the day after the alleged attack. Rohypnol is detectable for 72 hours, but there was no trace of it, or any "date rape" drug, in her system. 
Jones said the attack was so brutal that her breast implants were ruptured and her pectoral muscles torn, requiring massive reconstructive surgery. This was contradicted not only by the female doctor who examined her the next day, but also by her own plastic surgeon back in Houston. 
Her claim that KBR management had held her at gunpoint in a shipping container vanished when it turned out she had only remembered that part of the story two years after it supposedly happened (coincidentally, just as the media frenzy began). 
Perhaps the Rohypnol made her forget something else: KBR employees, including security guards, don't even carry guns, much less machine guns. 
Having showcased Jones' original, false accusation in a 1,500-word article splashed across its front page, as soon as her story unraveled, the Times stared at its shoes and said nothing. In another six months, liberals will once again be citing Jones' case as evidence of the "troubling trend" of sexual assaults among military contractors. 
If only Jones had accused Bill Clinton or any member of the Kennedy family of rape, the mainstream media might have treated her allegations with a little more skepticism. But she accused employees of a company with a tertiary, long-ago, six-degrees-of-separation relationship with Dick Cheney. This was no time for journalistic integrity. 
Still, wasn't it the tiniest bit suspicious that Jones claimed KBR management responded to her rape claim by locking her in a shipping container? 
Why would a company that already had a PR problem stick its neck out to protect accused rapists? Isn't it more likely that a corporation would sell out even innocent employees accused of rape? Wouldn't it have occurred to them that she'd eventually get back to the U.S.? 
From the beginning, Jones' story was that she woke up remembering nothing of the night before ... and then suddenly realized she must have been slipped the "date rape" drug Rohypnol, beaten and gang-raped! 
How do you go from total amnesia to deciding that you were the star of your own Lifetime made-for-TV movie? I don't remember offhand what I was doing last Tuesday, but this does not automatically lead me to assume I was gang-raped. 
Even before leaving for Iraq with KBR at the age of 20, Jones had made rape accusations against two other men. A few years earlier, she told a doctor her boyfriend had raped her, and right before leaving for Iraq she accused a KBR supervisor of raping her. There was no evidence she was raped in Iraq other than her word -- and she was already 0-for-2 on rape allegations. 
Just a few years after humiliating themselves over the Duke lacrosse case, it's nice to see the media weren't the least bit hesitant about leaping on another ludicrous rape claim. 
Perhaps liberals were slipped Rohypnol, and that's why they can't remember that not every woman claiming she was raped is always telling the truth. 
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

One of the few commentators in the Aus. media who doesn't stand for the feminist propaganda and the usual agitprop they mouth..

The point of the discussion (about 3/4 of the way through the broadcast) shows how feminists always claim that any criticism aimed at women is due to their sex, which is a total lie. They are criticised because they are liars, incompetent and should not hold the positions they do. Kirner, Gillard and Nixon are all feminists and they are just a pathetic lot of rent seeking scum whose only claim to fame is ensuring their income is sustained in any which way they can while demonstrating their inability to do the job at hand..

Andrew Bolt
Andrew Bolt's columns appear in Melbourne's Herald Sun, Sydney's Daily Telegraph and Adelaide's Advertiser. He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10’s The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am and 4.30pm. He appears on Melbourne’s MTR 1377 each weekday at 8am. His book 'Still Not Sorry' was released in 2006.
On our MTR 1377 show today:
- Former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner blames sexism for the criticism of Julia Gillard and Chrstine Nixon. She’s got to be kidding.