Latest Posts
Showing posts with label sexism affect of feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism affect of feminism. Show all posts

Feminism Destroys Your Moral Compass..

Winner - Hugo Schwyzer
I do believe the feminasty movement are still annoyed over the fact that we forced them to change the named "Women's Studies" program to "Gender Studies" which ofcouse did not make an iota of difference to their male bashing, male hating agenda, they had originally installed.
The same cretins are still involved in that misnomer and occasionally, the odd named individual or three, rears their sexist, morally corrupted head and endeavours to gestate another inane thought process that only other morally corrupt feminist could possibly comprehend.
Schwyzer, (the winner of our famous Mangina Award for morally corrupt male feminists who sold their soul and their own sex out for poon) once again demonstrates beyond doubt why he is paid to promote these mindless, delusional, inane thought processes as he would find it impossible to sell that load of drivel for cash. Always good to rely on the taxpayers dollars for your rent seeking malfeasance..

The article penned by Schwyzer is about accidental rape. One has to wonder what he has been up to to warrant such a title. Feminists have already introduced a plethora of interpretations to the "R" word, so what's another one..
RapeMarital RapeDate RapeAccidental RapeEye Rape (i.e. thought rape)

Bill at The Spearhead sums up this recalcitrant nicely in this complimentary article..

Hugo Schwyzer on Consent

by W.F. PRICE on SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
In giving Hugo Schwyzer a platform, the Good Men Project has lost whatever credibility it may have had. Although Schwyzer stirs up some controversy and thus garners pageviews, his questionable personal morality and willingness to collaborate in deception have already tainted the publication. Founder Tom Matlack, on the other hand, strikes me as a fairly sincere person who just happens to be incorrect about some things.
Sincerity, however, is not Schwyzer’s forté. In an article that enraged many an MRA, he argued that it doesn’t really matter whose kid you’re bringing up — “…it is love, not sperm, that makes a great dad.” In the article he reveals that he may have fathered a child with a woman, and then collaborated with her to deceive the other man she was sleeping with at the time into thinking the child was his. This is a disgusting thing to do to both the other man and the child, and a sneaky way to disguise parental irresponsibility and selfishness as some sort of noble act. I accuse Schwyzer of insincerity because I’m pretty sure he’ll ask for a DNA test if he gets socked with a paternity suit for years of back child support some years down the line (assuming the story is true). I can see him in front of a judge arguing: “your honor, it was just my sperm, and that doesn’t mean anything…” I’d fork over some cash to sit in on that hearing.
He later defended that piece by saying that guys who felt differently about a child upon learning that he or she was fathered by another man are “contemptible,” and then proceeded to shamelessly excuse himself for his act of deception because the woman he conspired with was “not in an exclusive relationship when she last slept with me.” Well, duh.
In his latest piece, Schwyzer touches upon the issue of “accidental rape.” From a legal standpoint, this could be an interesting issue, because fudging the notion of consent has resulted in prosecutions where there is no clear indication of mens rea — usually a requirement for a crime to have occurred (in fact, I think statutory rape is one of the very few crimes where mens rea is not required). However, rather than clarify the issue, Schwyzer further muddies the waters by offering a deceptive etymology for the word consent:
The root of consent is the Latin consentire, which means “with feeling.” Consent is not just about words “no” or “yes”—it’s about the unambiguous presence of desire.
This is sleight of hand. The Latin root sentire means “to feel” or “to hear,” but it does not mean emotion or desire, as in “I feel sad,” or “I feel horny,” so much as it means “to think” (e.g. “sentire cum ecclesia” — to think with the church). A more accurate translation would probably be “to perceive.” In any event, Latin terms generally entered the English legal lexicon through French or the church. Given the fact that the word “sentient” (conscious, perceptive) also derives from sentire, it can safely be assumed that the meaning of the term consent is much closer to “accept with awareness” than it is to “agree with ‘the unambiguous presence of desire.’” For example, I consented to a search of my car at the border on Sunday, but I certainly wasn’t overcome by desire at the prospect.
In fact, what Schwyzer is describing is not consent at all. We already have a word for it: assent. If feminists want to change the standard for rape to sex without assent, they should be honest about that, but I don’t think it would work, because the term consent has just enough neutrality to it to be acceptable to the ordinary female sensibility, which recoils from the idea of “assenting” to sex, because that’s just too slutty.
Semantics aside, the article is just another example of Hugo’s disingenuous hand-wringing over the finer points of female sentiment. As a “gender studies” teacher, he is paid to do that, so no surprise there, but what we must keep in mind is that what Mr. Schwyzer is propounding could have some very nasty blowback, including inducing one of his young female students to say that she had been “raped” because she didn’t enthusiastically assent to sex and (in retrospect, of course) realized that she only reluctantly went along with it (i.e. consented). After her friends convince her to call the cops and the boy’s name is dragged through the mud in the press, maybe the poor sap will be “lucky” enough to avoid prison.
Would such a scenario bother him? To answer that, we need only ask whether it would bother a man who has no moral qualms about hiding the fact that another man may be raising his child from both the man and his child. This man demonstrates that claiming to act on behalf of women is the perfect cover for utter scum, and that’s exactly what we should expect to find in gender study departments across the land. “Good men” my ass.

Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men..

Three courageous people fighting the feminist lies and distortions regarding domestic violence. These are people who cannot be ignored and hopefully will have some affect on the blatant sexism and anti-male bias those DV programs now exhibit. The main example that comes to mind is VAWA ofcourse which basically indicates and as the title states, is only interested in Violence against women and that is the only sex who are victims as far as they are concerned and all men and boys can just put up with the abuse their female partners or mothers dish out more often than not, apparently..Link to more on this article which contains six pages in total..Page 2 , Page 3 , Page 4 , Page 5 , Page 6 ..

Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men  
by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., and Erin Pizzey

Abstract
People hit and abuse family members because they can. In today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, law enforcement, courts, and feminist propaganda, women are openly given permission to hit men. Presently 25%-30% of all intimate violence is exclusively female on male. "Primary aggressor" laws usually result in arrest of the male and ignore research showing 50% of domestic assaults are mutual combat. The woman is thus encouraged to abuse her partner further until finally he will take no more. Such provocation of the human male is dangerous.
Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their fist or an object.
There is no support in the present data for the hypothesis that women use violence only in self defense. Three common reasons women give for male abuse are: to resolve the argument; to respond to family crisis; and to " stop him bothering me." Male abuse of a woman, requiring self defense, is one of the less-frequently stated reasons by women for their assaults.
Our research shows that a gender-balanced approach to domestic violence is essential in order to reduce both the frequency and severity of such incidents for both men and women. Present laws and practices appear to commonly have the opposite effect.

Why do women hit men?
Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly: "People hit and abuse family members because they can." And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist doctrine, women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as "domestic violence." We are fighting a losing war against family violence until society withdraws permission from women to hit their intimate partners. The problem and causes of female violence must also be recognized and addressed.
It has been suggested that female assaults on males are almost always for reasons of self-defense. Outside of studies that come from clinical samples of women who seek services in domestic violence centers and social service agencies we have not found evidence to support that hypothesis.
Fiebert and Gonzales (1997) have looked at the reasons why women assault from a sample of 978 college women in California. Within a 5-year period, 20%, or 285 of the women surveyed admitted to physical aggression against their male partners. 
There does not seem to be any support in the available data for the feminist proposition that women only use violence against men in self defense. The most-common reasons the women in the Fiebert and Gonzales (1997) study gave for assaulting their male partners included:
• My partner wasn't sensitive to my needs.• I wished to gain my partner's attention.• My partner was not listening to me.
The factor of the male being abusive to the woman was one of the less-frequently stated reasons for the female's assault. 
Fiebert and Gonzales (1997) also asked for more profound reasons as to why the woman had assaulted her male partner. The five leading reasons the women gave to that query were:
• I believe that men can readily protect themselves so I don't worry when I become physically aggressive (24%).• I have found that most men have been trained not to hit a woman and therefore I am not fearful of retaliation from my partner (19%).• I believe if women truly are equal to men then women should be able to physically express anger at men (13%).• I learned when growing up that I could be physically aggressive toward my brother and he would not fight back (12%).• I sometimes find when I express my anger physically I become turned on sexually (8%).
In two Australian studies (Sarantakos, 1998, 1999), the most common type of male behaviour that resulted in abuse was a minor violation of household rules.
In Sarantakos' studies the three most common reasons women gave for abuse of their male partners were:
• To resolve the argument.• To respond to family crisis.• To "Stop him bothering me!" 
We are aware of two studies that have asked the questions of assault context and self-defense in the general population.
An English study by Carrado et al. (1996), summarized in Table 2, suggests that ~80% of assaults by wives on their husbands were for reasons other than self-defense. Items C and F in Table 2 were identified as clear examples of self-defense. Note that multiple reasons are often given for the same assault.



Men Witnessing the Bitches Sexist Double Standards..

Apparently it okay for women to mutilate any man but try that in reverse and your feet won't even touch the ground on your way to the slammer..
The Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology site has listed four separate videos about the Talk program, where a bunch of obnoxious, mindless bitches all sat around and laughed about a mutilated male together with the female audience joining in like it was some type of comedy program..

To most males, their child like behaviour was and is the last straw, the final example that clearly demonstrated how low females have bottomed out. Any male watching that program would have winced in pain as that offence was personal..

Here is a video which I think soundly demonstrates where men are in their thinking about the feminazy and how hypocritical women  have become in general, applying their double standards. It's not pretty and it definitely ain't PC..

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology