Slut Feminism: I See What You Did There..

I must admit that when I originally read that feminists had a preference to being called sluts, It was somewhat of a "say what" situation for me. I mean, why would anyone want to be called a swear word and why pick that particular one when there are so many to choose from. One would have imagined using a kinder, less erotic or gentler version, rather than one that drags up a particular set of offensive behaviours, as well as a lifestyle or an alomost horizontal activity..

In order to be able to use the word correctly and use it in it's proper context. We should have a look at it's meaning before we apply it to those much maligned members of that hate movement. The last thing they need, I would imagine, is another term or description that explains their behaviour a lot more succinctly than the word feminist actually does, they have already abused that one as to have no particular meaning at all apart from undertaking lunatic behaviour that is..

My own laptop dictionary describes it as the following -

slut |slət|
noun
a slovenly or promiscuous woman.

A rather limited explanation but my thesaurus waxes lyrical -

slut
noun
she dressed like a slut and didn't act much better: promiscuous woman, prostitute, whore; informal tart, floozy, tramp, hooker, hustler; dated scarlet woman, loose woman, hussy, trollop; archaic harlot, strumpet, wanton.

In other words it really does explain the activities of well indoctrinated feminists. They should really adopt it..

Now I am even more confused than before. What are feminists really saying or getting at, when they say they are reclaiming the word "SLUT". I was not aware that it had somehow been lost, or even lost it's meaning or it's explanation or it's way. Reclaiming anything always meant what the dutch did to increase their land size..

What are the girls going to call each other now when they are competing for favours ? Naughty !
Sandra is such a "naughty" girl while she was trying to steal my boyfriend. It's just not the same, it looses it's meaning and just does not roll off the tongue as that magic put-down always did..

To my way of thinking, feminists wanted that word to be used without it's obvious and varied connotations and also to loose it's meaning or expressiveness. They wanted it to be able to be used without it being offensive. Am I right ?

So they do not want to reclaim it but re-adjust it's meaning, deconstruct and reconstruct, like they want to do with everything else without it having any additional benefit or advantage. Good luck with that..

So why are they complaining about that term being used ? Fluke (I prefer Flake), a 30 year old female slut-feminist was intentionally and especially wheeled out for the occasion, was offended when Limbaugh called her a slut, she was offended ?. Hang on a minute, WHAT!!

Feminism and cognitive dissonance wander hand in hand like twins, of this we are already well aware and here we have another one of the endless unrelenting examples that we come across on a daily basis. It's like the door joke, being reborn, reincarnated. When is a door not a door ? When it's ajar, get it "a jar", har, har, har. That is almost as funny as asking "When is a feminist a slut, the answer would be "When she demands it". But hang on a minute, didn't we just cover that. I get that sense of dejavu setting in..

Ten Steps to Feminist Hypocrisy..

It has come to the stage in the battle of the sexes where something positive will have to be done soon as all I can see is a build up of anger and total frustration. These types of responses and reactions will not be minimised unless some positive actions are taken to stop the discrimination and the hate program that feminists have fomented now for decades.
It would appear that we are finally at some tipping point, where either action is taken to reduce the sexism, discrimination and bias against men and boys or action will be taken at ensuring that the road back to some level of equality will be almost impossible..

The frustration level is out there for all to witness and feminists are still at the grate, prodding and poking the embers of that fire without relenting or reducing their malice and toxicity levels.

1. Men tell feminists that western laws strip males of their civil rights.
2. Feminists ask for proof.
3. Men provide proof.
4. Feminists change the subject.
5. Feminists ignore the facts.
6. Feminists laugh at the idea of male plight.
7. Unbiased men and women see this and research the facts.
8. Men AND women tell feminists that western laws strip males of their civil rights.
9. Feminists realize their hypocrisy is being revealed.
10. Feminists offer to cooperate with Mens Rights Activists.

Something is going to break, sooner or later..

The Excommunication of Hugo Schwyzer..

Getting rid of the body and evidence, standard feminist coven practise.

The saga concerning Schwyzer really is a sad and sorry sight to behold. The sad part about all of this is that now the feminist hordes are just demonstrating what total hypocrites and sexists they really are. We have a so-called upper echelon member of the feminist hegemony, a male feminist, being castigated and marooned by the very church that he has attended for most of his life..

Schwyzer has spent years preaching the feminist doctrine, it's deconstruction theories. He even turned against his own sex in order to assimilate feminist aims and goals and apply them in real life. A task that is ofcourse impossible as feminist theories are based on assumptions and lies. Try living a lie and it will sooner than later, catch up with you. Schwyzer's mistake was to confess some wrongdoings, for which he was hoping to achieve some or any level of forgiveness. He was hoping that if he opened up and confessed his sins that the feminist church would expunge his past evils, he would pay for indulgences and move onto greener pastures..

What Hugo failed to comprehend a few simple things that he should have known right from the start. In order for forgiveness to be given, the feminist congregation he appealed to would have to have some level of compassion, (error number one), some indications of dignity within themselves,(error number two) some level of honour that had to be upheld(error number three) and a contriteness that the flock would have to share(error number four). They had to actually have some original level of compassion for it to be overcome..

He forgot about the mentality of the gathered assassins who had already determined that there must be someone who must pay in order for their order to continue. They decided that the transgression was just too wicked to be ignored and the price must be paid..

Remove Schwyzer, he is a male.

Imagine for a moment if Hugo had of been a Hugeena, how proud feminists would have been at her efforts. At her "power" to overcome what must have been a totally evil situation. Imagine the praise and glory she would have received from the same bunch of feminist hypocrites as they toss Schwyzer out because of his sex.Feminists will forgive anything female but a male is on borrowed time

We have stated all along that male feminists are only there at the whim of the "movement", while they prostrate themselves sufficiently and pay homage to their superior idols.

Out came the priesteses who consisted of same minded people as Hugo -

Here are some statement from Jill at the feministe site stating the obvious ofcourse..

Hugo to be banned from Feministe, link removed and comments denied..

Feministe is a community that centers on women and feminist thought..the decision to not link or promote Hugo’s work is one that all of the Feministe editors have agreed on.

.. I am committed to developing a feminist-centered and responsive, responsible community here, which means not linking or promoting Hugo.

No feminist has yet claimed any responsibility for the negative effects of the poison they spreead and promote which makes the above statement from feministe rather superfluous....

Also this comment regarding Feministe -

When I saw people were demanding Marcotte be banned from Feministe because she was friends with Schwyzer, that’s when I knew mob mentality had overtaken legitimate criticisms of Schwyzer.

What was that you were saying about building a "responsible Community" again Jill ?

So we have a group of people who are highly positioned and involved in the feminist hegemony and they are as follows -

Hugo Schwyzer who is a self confessed drug user, abuser and brags about having sex with young students. Regarded as one of the leading lights in the feminist movement who is aided and abetted by Amanda Marcotte, who of her own accord promotes hate and misandry..

We have -

Ginmar, who is on full disability and taking anti psychotic meds. she is a regular commenter on Feministe and feminists sites promoting the feminist hegemony and doctrine.

We also have

Male feminist Jeff (All MRA's are rapists) Fecke stabbing Schwyzer in the back in order to maintain some level of popularity, also prominant in the feminist hegemony pecking order.. "am going to find it awfully hard to link to him". One of Hugo's friends

And here we have another nail in Schwyzer's coffin or should that be another match for the pyre. Scarleteen (a sex education site) removing all of Hugo's articles and banning him completely..

Previously unknown information about this writer and his history has recently been made available to Scarleteen with which we have very serious conflicts, including conflict because Hugo chose not to disclose these things to us prior to working with us. For the benefit of the safe environment we always aim to create for our users, and in accordance with the ethics and practices of our organization as a whole, Scarleteen no longer wishes to be associated with him or his work, which is why his contribution was removed.

Seats will need to be booked as there will be a rush of bookings expected for the final removal of all rights and privileges, ofcourse..

20 Things I love about Women..

Sums up the feminist mindset perfectly..

Plenty of discussion regarding an article posted on the GMP site( it supposed to be the Good Men Project but it's aimed more at "what women want"or in this case "What Feminists Want"). A site that has been turned upside down when site co-founder, a Mr Matlock, was hurled to the wolves when he dared to question one of feminism's much loved mantras (all men are rapists)..

How DARE he, how dare any man stand up for all men by disagreeing with anything feminist. That topic has already been exposed here on this site and I am basically tired of it to be honest. But it is always refreshing to witness a minutiae of change on what was originally just another male hating feminist propaganda site, disguised as something meaningful and honest. That ofcourse would be an oxymoron as feminism and honesty should never be mentioned in the same sentence, let alone referred to it directly.

In the past, GMP had such notable vitriolic masturbators of the truth, as Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte and ofcourse the ever loathed and detested Hugo "I am a mangina/ male feminist"Schwyzer and between the lot of them, they ensured the hate and vitriol was heaped in successive articles. It truly was a site to loathe and detest, as the total hypocrisy from that site was as plain as day. It really just demonstrated how hypocritical and dysfunctional the feminist movement and doctrine really is, but the ongoing denial was there none the less..

Neely Steinberg loves you, as long as you don’t love yourself

Paul Elam from AVfM

Neely Steinberg, the relationship/dating columnist for Blast Magazine, has a lot of things she loves about men; Twenty, to be exact. She posted the complete list as part of an article over at the Good Men Project, an online publication that has, by a rather strange twist of events, begun to accommodate some actual defense of men in recent days, and in the process has alienated some people whose bread and butter resides in attacks on the same.

But before we rush to praise this newfound religion, we should take a moment to examine Steinberg’s ideas, especially as honest money says they echo the oft stated sentiments of GMP founder Tom Matlack, and his increasingly vocal shill, Lisa Hickey, regarding men and masculinity. I bring Tom into this because Steinberg’s piece is indicative of where I think Tom has wanted the GMP to go all along.

So what are the qualities in a man that makes Neely’s heart go all aflutter, and lifts it up on the wings of her womanly passion? Here’s her version of the testosterone top 20:

Along comes Neelie Steinberg, a well meaning relationship and dating columnists, to post an article about "20 Things I love About Men", apart from the lovely, cosy topic title, she explains how much she is tingled about the way men cater to herself specifically. Pedestal in place and with servitude policy in hand. Loved men for making "her" world complete without any reciprocation or even bothering with what women's responsibilities are in regards to that relationship. The entire article places her on the pedestal and all men serving obediently at her feet. That was primarily what she loved the most about men. They made her "feel" good and every segment on the list encompassed precisely why her admiration for men relied solely on, the fact that they are there to serve her and make her feel good and do all things for her , it borders on embarrassing and I'll ignore the narcism..

Here are the first ten..

I love when a man puts his hand on the small of a woman’s lower back, as if to say, I’m here for you if you need me.

I love when a man wipes away a woman’s tears or pushes a strand of her hair away from her face, tucking it lovingly behind her ear.

I love how millions of men go off to work every day and then come home after long work hours to share in the housework and child-rearing.

I love how men contribute hundreds of millions of dollars every year to charities in the U.S. and across the globe.

I love when a man makes us feel like women.

I love when a man waits patiently inside an elevator to let all the ladies out first.

I love how a man who would go to the ends of the earth for a woman he loves.

I love how a man who will rub his partner’s feet at the end of the day even though he’s had a hard day at work too.

I love the men who so bravely and willingly risk their lives in service to our country and to protect us all.

I love being Little Spoon.

In order to put things into perspective, we have an alternate version, we are for equality here even though feminists are not..

I love it when a woman gets out of the car to help change a tire.

I love it when a woman reaches for her purse to pay her way.

I love it when a woman hears “no” and accepts it with grace.

I love it when a woman takes responsibility for her own feelings, bad or good.

I love it when a woman embraces my need for things in my life that do not involve her.

I love it when a woman solves problems in a relationship with reason and fairness.

I love it when a woman takes responsibility for her mistakes and corrects them.

I love it when a woman stops trying to get validation for an idea that has no merit.

I love it when a woman realizes that equality comes with some burdens.

I love it when a woman recognizes that a “home” is a shared domain.

I love it when a woman is willing to get dirty and bruised and scraped up to get a job done.

I love it when a woman doesn’t know how to say, “You’re the man.”

I love it when a woman refuses to use tears to get her way.

I love it when a woman never says, “Speaking as a woman.”

I love it when a woman doesn’t confuse being shrill and cruel with being strong.

I love it when a woman has no expectation of me at all based on my being a man.

I love it when a woman has no expectations at all based on her being a woman.

I love it when a woman finds no one to blame for her problems but herself.

I love it when a woman recognizes that love is in what you give, not in what you take.

I love it when a woman understands that all these things are things that I love in men, too.

Carey Roberts : The Feminist Class Conscience..

The Greens - Marxist Enablers..

When McCarthy did the US a greater service than will ever be recognised. The Marxists/communists plague that he removed had to come up with another plan. A plan was hatched and it was one that would seek to benefit women only, destroy the family unit and destroy men's credibility, the one sex determined to hold it all together..
Communism and Marxism has always been linked to the feminist hegemony amidst denial and in some cases, incredulity. Fembots have never been known for their comprehension of history or even exploring what feminism's doctrine was all about. They were happy to just reap the rewards of all those extras that every government throws at them at every election just to ensure their vote..
Feminism is a corrupt organisation hiding under the guise of "equality". That false claim has been buried along with the fact that feminism as a doctrine, actually does not give a damn about either sex let alone, women, humans are just fodder for the cause. It will take a little bit longer for that revelation to dawn while they wallow in their newly found windfall..

Gillard, Feminist Enabler..

Achieving Feminist Class Consciousness

by Carey Roberts

Radical feminism can be traced back directly to Marxism-Leninism. The feminist ideology, framework, and utopian aspirations all have their origin in the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts012704.htm).

Sometime visit the Women and Marxism website (www.marxists.org/subject/women/). There you can read exactly what V.I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung had to say about women’s liberation.

Vladimir Lenin was the mastermind behind the early Soviet propaganda campaign. In his book The Birth of the Propaganda State, Peter Kenez concludes the Soviet state achieved its early successes because of the “ability of the political system to isolate the Russian people from information and ideas that would have undermined the message.”

And that message was the gospel of class consciousness. The Marxist mantra was repeated endlessly: the worker was exploited by the evil capitalist, and the peasant was oppressed by the greedy landowner.

This indoctrination strategy worked for several reasons. It motivated the workers and peasants. It channeled their anger towards the capitalists. And it vilified and demoralized the opponents of Communism.

Lenin also pushed the class consciousness theme in his speeches to women, but with a new twist. On the occasion of the 1921 International Working Women’s Day, Lenin proclaimed that women were doubly oppressed -- both because they were victims of capitalism, and because they were slaves “overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.” (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/04.htm)

“Drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking, and stultifying toil”? An apt description of life in the Gulag, perhaps, but not of housework in the relative comfort of the home.

But lack of historical accuracy did not deter the early feminists. Pick up a copy of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex or Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics. You will read exactly the same arguments: Men are the unending oppressors of women and marriage is a legalized form of slavery.

To achieve their vision of women’s liberation, the Matrons of Mischief pursued the age-old strategy of divide and conquer.

First, the Sisterhood canonized the strong, self-assured, independent woman. This ideal became government policy when the Clinton administration launched its “Girl Power” program and UNICEF later started its “Go Girl!” initiative. To this day, programs to prevent osteoporosis carry the slogan, “Strong Women, Strong Bones.”

But these campaigns carry an underlying message: “If you’re a strong woman, why would you ever need or want a man?”

And when the Marlboro Woman message didn’t completely sink in, feminists went to Plan B: male-bashing. Male chauvinist pig. Misogynist. Insensitive. Over-bearing. Abusive. Batterer. And many others.

At first, men thought the caricatures were funny. Then they tried to ignore them. But the end result has been to make men feel guilty and shameful.

The steady drum-beat of those inflammatory messages served to turn the battle of the sexes into a gender war.

The next step would be to conquer. And what was the target? Nothing less than the institution of marriage.

Robin Morgan, who would later become the editor of Ms. Magazine, referred to marriage as “A slavery-like practice.” Germaine Greer argued, “If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition, it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry.” Kate Millett extolled the destruction of the traditional family as “revolutionary or utopian.”

Persons who are interested in comprehending the scope of this relentless assault should peruse the Heritage Foundation report, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage (www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm).

So what is the ultimate objective of this campaign of feminist class consciousness? Surprisingly, feminists have made little effort to disguise their goal. In her book Red Feminism, Kate Weigand makes this stunning admission: “this book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism.” (http://print.google.com/print/doc?isbn=0801864895)

Subvert the gender system to overturn capitalism. Karl Marx would be pleased.

More Feminist Latent Dreamtime Theories..

This article from Heartiste fits very nicely into the topic I have been covering lately. The topic of interest is the way feminists enjoy nothing more than imagining that their defragmantisation of society, is subject to variation depending on the type of day they are currently having. It's an ideal fantasised doctrine that constantly flutters between lunacy and delusion, works in really well with the sex who invented it..

The other topic that I have come across is ofcourse the "sex issues", this has so much scope for feminist discussion as they can drag in any minutiae they like. But the bottom line as far as feminists are concerned and this includes those radical feminists, sex does and is a major topic for discussion as they play the games of scoring points and try to raise their credibility (an oxymoron, I know) on topics they feel should be covered and enhanced, the more imaginary it is, the better the topic. It never ending..

So we have more feminist drivel from Slate, one of the main-stayers of hypocrisy and latent dreamtime theorists..

Where's your P...

Feminist Self-Owned On Male Porn Star Theory

December 7, 2011 by Heartiste

Slate, that bastion of feminist mental gymnastics, has an article about some male porn star who appeals to women because he supposedly embodies nonthreatening boyishness.

In the winter issue of Good Magazine, Amanda Hess has a fascinating profile of James Deen, a young, handsome porn star who is becoming famous for actually appealing to women. Due to his boyish, slightly skate-punk aesthetic, naturally toned body, and ability to connect emotionally (or at least appear to) with his female co-stars, Deen has garnered a following of devoted young women in an industry that in most cases ignores them entirely. Hess explains that Deen’s school-boy charm is what makes him approachable—and sexy—to his female fans:
Deen has carved out a niche in the porn industry by looking like the one guy who doesn’t belong there. Scroll through L.A.’s top porn agency sites and you’ll find hundreds of pouty women ready to drop to their knees, but just a few dozen men available to have sex with them. These guys all have a familiar look—neck chains, frosted tips, unreasonable biceps, tribal tattoos. Deen looks like he was plucked from a particularly intellectual frat house.
Hess goes on to discuss why there aren’t more guys like Deen in the male porn-star stable, and her findings tell us just as much about male viewers’ hang-ups as they do about women’s erotic preferences. Part of the problem is that men (who largely control the porn industry) imagine that women want everything big—“Big arms. Big abs. Big dicks,” as Hess puts it—when what they really want is something a little less overwrought. One of Hess’ subjects described her attraction to Deen thusly: “He was almost like a guy that you would just hang out with at Hebrew school.”

What a robust theory from sex-positive feministland! A hardcore male porn star women love because he’s a caring, emotionally available niceguy. Except it isn’t true.

A number of commenters familiar with the field pointed out the factual problems with Hess’ theory.

You’ve got to be kidding. This guy, while lacking in tribal tattoos, makes up for it in being like every other incredibly raunchy porn star. As a normal heterosexual male, I’ve seen him in tons of porn (as there’s really only like 5 male porn stars, as the article says, and there [sic] in everything), and, past looks, he is in no way some sensual lovemaking hebrew camp dude. He does not stare longingly into their eyes and whispers in their ears. He chokes women, slaps them, does pretty degrading things to them. He fits perfectly into the stereotype of porn as a male-centric, women-as-objects display of power. If women actually watch him, If a women who did not like porn watched one of his, they would in no way find it any different, save the frosted tips, ect. This artice is really silly.
***
Do a google search or xvideos search for “pornstar punishment” with “James Deen” and you can see for yourself how well he “emotionally connects” with the women while he chokes them and slaps them. The article seems kind of funny after seeing that. Poorly researched.

Hilarity. Another crackpot feminist theory bites the dusty muff. It seems the truth is as it always was, particularly of women who love to watch male-oriented porn: chicks dig jerks, especially jerks who choke and slap them during “lovemaking”.

Why do feminists run like rats from a spotlight beam whenever they are confronted with the reality of female sexual nature and women’s preference to surrender to dominant men? What is it about that fact that sends them into paroxysms of nonsensical deconstructivism babble?

Steve Sailer has pithily remarked that the goal of feminist writers is to rearrange the world so that, come the revolution, ugly feminists will be desired by men. I have a corollary to that theory.

Feminists loathe the objectification of women because they know they don’t measure up as objects of desire.

The natural female desire to submit to a powerful man is especially galling to feminists, because it strikes at the heart of their conceit: that women can, and more importantly, *want* to scale the heights of achievement just like men do, and the only thing stopping them is misogyny and the patriarchy. If feminists were forced to acknowledge that most women have no such inclination, that in fact they prefer to support with their love and affection a worthy alpha male, they would have to face the unpleasant truth that they are a minority of masculinized freaks out of touch with the majority of their own sex. Outcasts are always fighting to make the rest of the world seem deluded and tyrannical.

That Slate article has another doozy of a theory about why there aren’t more James Deens in male-centric visual porn.

But the real obstacle to the proliferation of female-friendly male porn stars is, oddly, a rather nasty and subtle strain of homophobia, revealed in the following double-bind:
The straight male performer must be attractive enough to serve as a prop, but not so attractive that he becomes the object of desire.
Hess is spot on. Men need to see a penis in straight porn (presumably to stand in for their own), but not one that is attached to a guy who might be threateningly attractive, not to mention plausibly appealing to the woman involved. Maybe this insistence on a male blank slate (a kind of reverse objectification, when you think about it) makes it easier to project oneself onto the disembodied penis, but it also protects men from the potentially scary experience of being turned on by both partners of a heterosexual encounter—which, yes, does involve another dude. In other words, the bland interchangeability of the “unreasonable” looking men allows them to avoid confronting the terrifying specter of homosexuality.

Yup, homophobia is the reason why there aren’t feminist-approved male role models in porn.

Folks, you can’t make this shit up. Unless you’re a graduate of Columbia University.

Gay fabulosity is most likely biological in origin, so straight men are not going to be turned on by the penises pounding away in porn or the men attached to those penises, no matter how nonthreatening they look. Straight men watch porn because the sight of a hot babe’s body in the throes of sex, and the visual of various female orifices getting penetrated, is arousing. Straight men don’t like to see the faces of the male porn stars because it’s distracting from the action, and BONER KILLING.

The NewYorkBetaTimes, of all organs, even had a story about a study which proved that the sight of penises or men engaged in gay sex has no effect on the penile responses of straight male viewers. But I guess to the gatekeepers of the homophobia grievance flame, such inconvenient truths are mere speed bumps in the road to an ego-ensconcing distortion of reality.

I wonder if people realize that three quarters of mainstream internet websites would disappear overnight if a law mandated that no more than half of their content could be feelgood, made-up shit.

Valenti's Hypocrisy : Marries and Spawns..

Valenti and Her mangina Clone..

Let's have a small look at how feminism has destroyed normal human behaviour and the relationship between the sexes..

1. Women, regardless on how you view it, with either feminist goggles or their tunnel visioned myopic viewpoint. Women want babies, it's not going to be reconstructed which is why feminist hysteria has not tried or bothered. But they have tried to stop women from procreating as they have two problems with it.

a. Producing an offspring would allow the female to become a full time mother. Feminists have already demonstrated how much they loathe motherhood (yet and hypocritically, give birth to children themselves in a family situation aka feminist hysteric and professional hypocrite Jessica Valenti) and are trying to ensure that ALL children are dumped into the state's baby sitting service so they can control and segregate the sexes at will. Do not be disillusioned into believing that they actually give a damn. As far as radical feminists are concerned, your body is contaminated if you allow any sexual relationship with them loathed men. You are referred to as a "het" female, which already indicates your contamination level. They hate men that much..

b. Women flourish in a family situation where both parents are present. This is unarguable. Feminists encourage everything else but. Single mothers are the norm to such a degree that they are now regarded as "the family" and compensated by the feminist induced money trough via government largesse, which is ofcourse our hard earned tax dollars at work, to ensure this situation is ideal for the mother only. It is such a known fact that I do not even need to supply links or studies or facts, as you would have already worked all of this out already (skeptics can no longer deny it either). Feminists turn against their own whenever they promote abortions or single mothers as it is a doctrinal requirement and no face saving feminist will state otherwise for the fear of being rejected or facing ..

Valenti and spawn..

Valenti's hypocritical actions are to be marvelled at and demonstrates again what their end goal is. Here we have a feminist who promotes a male hating ideology, who's goal is to malign and denigrate all men so as to change their very being by turning them into pretend females, a character that women per se, do not want any part of. So we have Valenti who spends her entire time time malignng all things male. Gets married and has a "BABY" ,which feminists in general have been fighting against and promoting as not being a choice and instead promoted that being married was akin to being in prison, motherhood is a jail sentence and to be avoided by any and all means. It's what feminism promotes and demands of it's enablers. So what does hypocritical Valenti do ?
The exact opposite of what her doctrine promotes and encourages, this female who has been promoting in opposition, all along. They say one thing and do precisely the opposite. I know, it's simply amazing..

One wonders why this, now neutral, has any credibility left at all ?..

Flood, Duluth and Discrimination..

I have come across Flood (feminist female supremacist enabler) a few times in the past, even debated that feminist drone directly. His overall attitude towards fathers introduces a new meaning to cognitive dissonance. If one has had the displeasure of reading any of his biased, sexist and discriminatory ramblings, they would certainly agree.

I did spend a fair bit of time back then, motivating government departments, politicians and the media to introduce this service as nothing was in place for men or boys in Aus. The obvious sexism was there for all to witness as services available to women would outstrip the men's options by a thousand to one. Nothing much has changed there either..

This individual (Flood) was actually a reference on the female run (Alyson Miller, Chief Executive Office and predominantly run by the "jobs for the girls" club) Men's Help Line in Australia as part of the Aus. Gov. attempts at calming the Father Rights/MRA's attempts at putting something in place to reduce the appalling male suicide rate in Aus. Back then when it first started, the suicide rate was over 3,000 per year and nothing has changed as far as I am aware, as this feminised (femocrat) government is either too incompetent as it follows the feminist interpretations/deconstruction on human behaviour and victim (male) blaming methodology, which is ofcourse totally useless. It could even be demonstrated to have increased the suicide rate rather than making any difference at all. The incompetent methods recommended by female supremacists such as Flood only demonstrates what a farce the entire situation really is..

Indoctrination in the Duluth Model for continued harm

November 16, 2011

Greg Canning

Michael Flood – political indoctrination or education?
A student who knows I have an interest in domestic violence research recently forwarded me an email invitation she (and presumably all students on the James Cook University mailing list) had received, inviting her to a seminar “He hits, she hits: Assessing debates regarding men’s and women’s experiences of domestic violence.” An initial small glimmer of hope that the title might have implied the seminar would present an unbiased gender neutral approach to a controversial topic quickly dissolved upon reading the flyer. A major component of the stated aim of the seminar was to “assesses the political character and agendas of those groups involved in advocating for a gender-equal approach to domestic violence.” The presenter of the seminar Michael Flood, a purported expert in the field, appears to be locked in the seventies and still cites the discredited Duluth model as the preferred theoretical basis for addressing family violence.
A quick check of Flood’s CV revealed a recent article published in a journal called “Violence Against Women” http://vaw.sagepub.com, nope you wont find any non gendered view of reality there, the journal title conveys the ideology within.
Not unexpectedly feminist ideologues posing as academics choose such forums to expound on their male hatred and it would be hard to find a better example than this 2010 article “ ‘Fathers’ Rights’ and the Defense of Paternal Authority in Australia” . The central tenant of this opinion piece long on dogma and short on evidence is that men should be denied their democratic right to express opinions on issues such as false allegations of domestic violence, residency and contact with their children, and bias within the family court because by doing so, they are increasing “violence against women” and turning back the “significant advances of feminism.”
Implicit throughout the article is the false and unsubstantiated linkage of “violence against women” and “child abuse” as if they are one in the same thing, implying that any “fear” contrived by a mother automatically translates to a “risk” for the child. It beggars belief that one credentialed as a sociologist could be so illiterate of human nature. The overwhelming desire most fathers is to protect their children, they are expected to and would gladly if needed sacrifice their own lives to protect their children, and many have done so in the past. Such protective instincts come acutely into focus when a malicious and vindictive mother wants to enlist the states power to remove children from the safest environment, an intact family, to the environment that is well known to pose the highest risk for children of abuse, the mother headed household.
Flood insists that these evil fathers rights groups groups use typical rhetorical devices such as “an appeal to formal equality, a language of rights and entitlement, claims to victim status (and) the conflation of children’s and fathers’ interests.” The implication being that somehow none of these well abused feminist tactics should be used to counter the ideology who pioneered them. Kinda reminds me of the “fight fair” idea espoused to “perpetrators” of DV, which essentially says don’t ague with a women, thats domestic abuse!
Although Flood is dismayed that men’s rights groups have achieved such visibility, he accepts that “Painful experiences of divorce and separation, as well as experiences of family law, produce a steady stream of men who can be recruited into fathers’ rights groups.” But rather then offering any concern for the steady stream of dispossessed men or addressing the cause of their pain, or acknowledging the consequent suicide rates for men, he laments that such increased numbers of recruits may increase the political influence of mens groups.
In Floods’ words it is quite acceptable that “Women’s movements in Australia have had a distinctively high level of direct involvement in government policy making, with feminist bureaucrats or “femocrats” playing key roles,” but quite unacceptable that “ Fathers’ rights groups have become vocal opponents of feminist perspectives.” His sexist agenda clearly being that women’s voices should not only be heard but acted upon, while mens groups should not even have the right to speak.
Amongst the supposed achievements of feminism he notes, is making “violence in the home a criminal offence.” No mention is made that criminal assault and battery has always been an offence no matter where it takes place, rather the achievement of feminism was creating a new class of criminal out of men who dared disagree with women, at a time disagreement is most likely to occur, after a women unilaterally decides to end a relationship. The women then uses control and power tactics to enlist the abuse industries considerable resources to achieve their often stated threat to financially ruin their spouse and alienate him from their children. This is the real state sanctioned and aided domestic violence and if it was, as it should be, acknowledged as such men would account for the majority of victims of domestic abuse.

More on this article from AVfM..

Laurie Penny, Listen Up : You Reap What You Sow..

If someone had of told me that feminists were actually comedians I would have replied "you must be pullink my leg", feminists are to comedy what Obama is to equality. But on the odd occasion their antics do shine and could be misconstrued as comedy. Have a look at this little bit of humour..

Women bloggers call for a stop to 'hateful' trolling by misogynist men

See that, it's laughable. Here we have feminists demonstrating their usuall hypocrisy, raising an issue they "feel" is going to give them some mileage. Obviously this feminist has not bothered checking feminist sites, such as the previous sites listed here in previous articles. One such lovely feminist site calls for the extermination of all but 10% of the entire male population. That is just one example that comes to mind. Take a look at the misandry and hate mongering at such notable feminastie sites as feministing or take your own pick and view how those nasty feminists respond to anyone who dares even mention the following -

a. That women are more equal than others.
b. Suggest that maybe the female population has no limitation on it's demands..

..And watch the vitriol and male bashing reach a crescendo. I told you they were comedians, but it's one way only. While once again trying to raise the misandry level as feminists have been concentrating on for years, we once again witness that feminists just don't get it. Their doctrine has no escape clause that allows some type of boiling point apparatus to kick in, no sunset clause. Some level for measuring that they have gone way too far in their pursuit of additional and endless privileges for themselves and the entire female population at the cost of men and boys. They are apparently totally unaware of the fact that the HATE level Feminist have introduced into society is now coming back and biting them in the arse and as usual, they scream, VICTIM..

Feminists will now reap what they have sown and they will continue to do so while pursuing their endless misandric demands. Their refusal at accepting their own callous greed and refusal to accept that this is exactly what they themselves have created, will eventually, if ever, dawn on them. Probably not too soon from the look of this article promoted once again by that feminist mouth piece "the Guardian"..

"You reap what you sow", is not part of the feminists restructured thinking paradigm while they once again claim ignorance and falsely claim that they have done nothing wrong..

Meanwhile, let them moan, whinge and complain. This will continue and arc up ever further as they continue their attacks on man and boy. What else did those male haters expect ?

An award presentation to congratulate them for the destruction of society and the endless maligning of the male sex..
See, comedians..

No link to feminist victimhood princess..

Naomi Wolfe Busted..

Wolfe in 2007..

Feminist drone and all round hypocrite, got itself arrested for failing to follow police instructions when she was told to move on. As one of the "leaders" of the hate movement that is feminism always go out of their way to be role models as well as criminals. This just demonstrates once again that being normal or human does actually require some effort. Wolfe wrote some insignificant drivel that somehow sold a few copies as it was declared by the "girls club" that it was required reading because it made some obvious breathtaking issues about the beauty industry. Feminists hate the fashion industry as well as being the sex they are..

From the look of the photo to the right, it obviously does not exclude herself from the use of the products or the fashions. Neither did she have any issues living off it's profits..

Wolfe often criticised girls for dressing inconveniently and showing too much skin and thereby declaring that by doing would promote themselves as sex objects, gee eh!. However, Wolfe appears to be of the believe, as all self elevated feminists demand, that the sheeple should do as they are told and no do what they do..

I am at a loss to explain the slutfest mentality when one of their own suggested and promoted otherwise. But what would feminism be without hypocrisy..

More on Wolfe on the following ink..

Naomi Wolf: The Aging Denialist..

There always appear to be some mangina around who will put up with this privileged princess..

Naomi Wolf arrested at Occupy Wall Street protest in New York

She was detained after ignoring police warnings to stay off the street in front of the building and where a crowd of about 50 Occupy Wall Street protesters had gathered.
Wolf had been at the event, hosted by Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington and attended by a number of celebrities, including the reality TV star Kim Kardashian, who was presented with a "business leader" award.

Feminist Introduced Rape Law, Acquit Guilty, Jail Innocent..

Sanchez,feminist and hypocrite, queried on voter fraud..

She (Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif (above)) single-handedly helped prove, once and for all, the hypocrisy of the feminist movement when she scheduled a fund-raiser for Al Gore at the Playboy Mansion.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Caught in Multiple Scandals; Sex & Voter Fraud

Feminists have no problem whatsoever in introducing their own versions of what law should be in their own opinion and in the case of human rights or the independence documents, well, they are just a hindrance to their efforts at ensuring men are not only vilified but also falsely charged and jailed for something they were not aware of. This "rape law" introduced by feminists could have been introduced by other species pretending to be feminists, maybe it was..

Air Force Col. Don Christensen, called it “almost incomprehensible.”“If you had 100 monkeys with a typewriter, they’d probably come up with something like this,” Christensen declared during a 2009 aggravated sexual assault case.

And he could leave it there but more was required to clarify what level of brain dysfunction and damage those feminists were suffering from..

Christensen, the Air Force judge, said during a trial. “I just think it’s a prime example of what happens when legislation is influenced by what they see on ‘Oprah’ and what advocacy seekers propose, as opposed to what’s really necessary.”

‘Flawed’ New Rape Law Roils Military Justice System

WASHINGTON _ Six years ago, Congress tried cracking down on rape in the military. Prompted by disturbing reports of sexual assaults in military academies and war zones, lawmakers rewrote the rules. They wanted to protect victims and help prosecutors.Now it’s clear that the effort backfired.The politically attractive but poorly understood legal changes have incited courtroom confusion, judicial frustration and constitutional conflict. Extensive interviews and a McClatchy review of thousands of pages of court documents and internal studies find a congressionally caused crisis of military justice that few civilians know anything about.The rewritten sexual assault law puts judges “in an impossible position,” the top military appellate court warned.

Military lawyers find it “cumbersome and confusing,” a Pentagon task force noted. It leads to “unwarranted acquittals,” Defense Department officials added. And some judges call it unconstitutional.“The law is an abomination as it is now written,” said Charles Gittins, a former military judge advocate who’s now a defense attorney.Individual military judges likewise assail the new law. One, Marine Corps Lt. Col. Raymond Beal II, called it “horribly flawed.” Another, J.A. Maksym of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, blasted it as “poorly written, confusing and arguably absurd.” Yet another, Air Force Col. Don Christensen, called it “almost incomprehensible.”“If you had 100 monkeys with a typewriter, they’d probably come up with something like this,” Christensen declared during a 2009 aggravated sexual assault case.A Senate bill introduced in June and proposed by the Defense Department tries to fix the problems that the earlier congressional action created.

The bill is pending.The present law now under fire has particularly complicated trials that involve intoxicated victims and those who say they’ve been assaulted by acquaintances, two common allegations in the military. The confusion about the law can lead to injustice.Consider the case of a former Air Force enlisted man stationed at California’s Travis Air Force Base.Stephen Prather, 23, had been accused of aggravated sexual assault by an intoxicated guest of a party that Prather and his wife threw in October 2007.Prather said he and the guest had engaged in consensual sex. The woman, though, testified that she fell asleep and woke briefly to find Prather on top of her. When she awoke again, she said, she found semen on her underwear.Prather had raised the woman’s alleged consent as a defense. Prosecutors countered that the woman, whom court documents didn’t identify, was too intoxicated to give consent.

The problem was that the rewritten law had shifted the burden of proof involving consent, appeals court judges concluded. Prather, as the defendant, had the burden to prove that the alleged victim was capable of consenting. Under the Constitution, though, it’s the prosecution that’s supposed to shoulder the burden of proof.This “results in an unconstitutional burden shift to the accused,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said of the new law in its February 2011 decision dismissing Prather’s conviction.Prather already had served almost 11 months of a two-and-a-half year prison sentence. He’s awaiting his discharge papers.“I just want Congress to know this law has messed up a lot of people’s lives,” he said in a telephone interview from his home in Houston.“My wife left me. I can’t get a good job. I had to register as a sex offender. My life is ruined. All for something that should have never been a crime to begin with,” Prather added.Recently, the military decided not to re-prosecute Prather.

For other military defendants, the legal ambiguity will continue as challenges inundate appeals courts. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will review several challenges to the law in coming months.Meanwhile, sexual assaults in the military continue.More than 4 percent of active-duty women and almost 1 percent of active-duty men reported unwanted sexual contact in 2009, according to the latest annual study from the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.All told, the military services completed investigations of more than 3,200 suspects in sex-related crimes in fiscal year 2010. Of these, 16 percent faced court-martial.Heightened political scrutiny of the military’s handling of sexual misbehavior dates at least to the 1991 Tailhook affair, in which Navy aviators aggressively groped women at a convention in Las Vegas.Congressional involvement accelerated in early 2004, after reports of sexual assaults on female troops in Iraq.A year later, the Pentagon established an office dedicated to responding to and preventing sexual assault.

Lawmakers also directed the Pentagon to review the military’s laws, known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.In an 826-page report, the Pentagon ultimately advised that no changes were necessary. Congress thought otherwise and rewrote the sexual assault provisions as part of a fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill. The intention was clear: Lawmakers wanted to assist prosecutors and shield victims.Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., a key proponent of the changes, called them a “major step” in convicting rapists. Skeptics feared otherwise.“I’m not a member of Congress, and that’s their job to do what they think is necessary,” Christensen, the Air Force judge, said during a trial. “I just think it’s a prime example of what happens when legislation is influenced by what they see on ‘Oprah’ and what advocacy seekers propose, as opposed to what’s really necessary.”

Rape Culture, What Rape Culture ?

Nota rape culture, just a PC one ByJulia Fisher
Let’smake this perfectly clear: there is no rape culture at Yale.
IfYale had a rape culture, there would be students and faculty speakingin favor of rape. Rape would be a common practice; it would beroutine to hear someone talking about raping or being raped bysomeone last weekend. People would discuss what styles or methods ofrape they prefer. Obviously, the existence of a rape culture is afarcical idea. These things just don’t happen at Yale.

Thispost is really just one to rub salt into the wounds of the feminastiesas they suffer from a thousand cuts for their compulsive lying andevery time they do so, well. What can I say, BDSM is only around thecorner...

Fisherstates it correctly about the rape culture's non existence. Toeveryone else it does not exist but to feminists it's in plagueproportions and the reason they want that to be the case is ofcoursebleeding obvious. They demand the funds to stop a non-existent culture, they falsely instigated, they falsely cook the books just so they can lay long term claim to all that money andsecondly, they want to ensure that all men and boys are continuallyhumiliated and denigrated in the process while they manufacture those theoretical cases that only exists in their biased and sexistminds.

Thereare isolated incidents of rape, and that is surely a severe problem.Beyond the physical harm the victim suffers, rape erodes trust. Likeany crime, it arouses fear.
Rapefalls somewhere on a wide spectrum between murder and robbery. Thenumber of people who commit rape is a tiny percentage of thepopulation at large. The vast majority of people are notcriminals.
Whenwe talk about a rape culture, when we look at everyone as a potentialcriminal, and when we condemn different opinions as promoting rape,we create an environment of suspicion. This suspicion, like crime,erodes trust and arouses fear.

No one has ever denied that rape does not exist or never happens as to do that would not only be foolish as well as totally incorrect. It does happen and the appropriate punishment and assistance programs are in place to help and assist anyone faced with that ordeal.
The problem that has reared it's ugly head and which has made the issue just another feminist tragedy is that they are incapable of taking a realistic view, a comprehensive analysis and offer even the slightest positive input or answer to assist in reducing or rectifying this problem resorting only to slanging and insulting the male sex while females can continue their activity at will.
The fix part is the furthest from their minds as it is in their interest to keep the rape culture active and alive for as long as they can because they are far from interested in creating any positive outcomes, that would hinder their political and emotive advantage. They are quite happy to offer a few sacrifices as that will benefit them no end. More female fodder at the alter of feminist hypocrisy and what does it matter if a few or a hundred or more are sacrificed. So they loose a few in the process, who cares. Sacrifices must be made for the evil empire while the fodder lines up to be counted..

One must not forget the biggest of all hypocrites in the ranks of that hegemony. Those deranged females taking part in the "slutfest" marches would have to be awarded the "hypocrites of the year" award as never before has that level of hypocrisy ever been witnessed. Take for example the march in Oregon which was organised and attended by the lesbian crowd who have been recorded as being the most abusive females so far on the planet. Their record stands at triple the normal heterosexual couples amount for physical abuse, murder, suicide, illness and deaths, you name it and there they are "tongue in cheek", helping the sisters complain about an issue that does not exist or if it does, it is so minor as to not even be noticeable. Incredible..

Feminist Fodder with matching mentality.Rather watch paint dry.

The Reality Blog