Women are at least as violent as men but the evidence is being dismissed or ignored


Women are at least as violent as men but the evidence is being dismissed or
ignored
By Melanie Phillips

Mention feminism to most people and the reaction will probably be one of
faintly amused indifference. Some men may be irritated by feminist
rhetoric; some women might feel their agenda is a little extreme. But the
extent to which feminism in its most extreme form has embedded itself
within the institutions and thinking of Britain has simply not been grasped.

Feminism has become the unchallengeable orthodoxy in even the most
apparently conservative institutions, and drives forward the whole
programme of domestic social policy. Yet this orthodoxy is not based on
concepts of fairness or justice or social solidarity. It is based on
hostility towards men.

The idea that men oppress women, who therefore have every interest in
avoiding the marriage trap and must achieve independence from men at all
costs, may strike many as having little to do with everyday life. Yet it is
now the galvanic principle behind social, economic and legal policy-making.

Buried within this doctrine, though, is an even deeper assumption. Male
oppression of women is only made possible by the fact that men are
intrinsically predatory and violent, threatening both women and children
with rape or assault. Men are therefore the enemy - not just of women but
of humanity, the proper objects of fear and scorn.

This assumption runs through feminist thinking as a given. "Most violence,
most crime ... is not committed by human beings in general. It is committed
by men," wrote Jill Tweedie.

According to Marilyn French, men used violence both to threaten and
control, as well as actually harm: "As long as some men use physical force
to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do
suffices to threaten all women."

Moreover, it is marriage and family life that expose women most to male
violence. According to Gloria Steinem, "patriarchy requires violence or the
subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most
dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or
even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their
own home".

All this has been enough to turn the stomachs of some feminists,
particularly those who love husbands or sons. Novelist Maggie Gee said she
once thought the sex war was exciting, but had now concluded it went too
far. "Women are giving up on their relationships too quickly. Living with a
man I love very much, I keep thinking that all the generalisations about
men just aren't true."

These generalisations, however, are now the stuff of public policy. Male
violence against women, said the government in June 1999, was no longer
going to be "swept under the carpet". Virtually nobody questioned the
premise that men were invariably victimisers and women always their victims.

There is no doubt that some men are violent towards women; the evidence of
women's injuries is real enough. However, this is one side of the story
only. There is another side: the extent of women's violence against men and
children. That, though, is a story that almost every official body in
Britain and America has successfully suppressed.

There are now dozens of studies which show that women are as violent
towards their partners, if not more so, than men. Unlike most feminist
research, these studies ask men as well as women whether they have ever
been on the receiving end of violence from their partners. They are
therefore not only more balanced than studies which only ask about violence
against women, but are more reliable indicators than official statistics
which can be distorted by factors affecting the reporting rate - women
using claims of violence as a weapon in custody cases, for example, or men
who are too ashamed or embarrassed to reveal they have been abused.

Many people are likely to be astonished and sceptical about the conclusion
drawn by these reports. The idea that women are as violent as men is
counter-intuitive and simply disbelieved. So it is important to provide a
flavour of the scope and significance of their findings.

A 1994 British study by Michelle Carrado and others, for example,
interviewed 1,800 men and women with heterosexual partners. Some 11% of the
men but only 5% of the women said their current partner had committed acts
of violence towards them, ranging from pushing, through hitting, to
stabbing. Five per cent of married or cohabiting men reported two or more
acts of violence against them in a current relationship, compared with only
1% of women. A further 10% of men but 11% of women said they had committed
one of these violent acts.

Study after study shows women are not merely violent in self-defence but
strike the first blow in about half of all disputes. The American social
scientists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles reported from two large
national surveys that husbands and wives had assaulted each other at
approximately equal rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence
more frequently. Elsewhere, they found more wives than husbands were
severely violent towards their spouses.

Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that women initiate severe
violence more frequently than men. A survey of 1,037 young adults born
between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, found that 18.6% of young
women said they had perpetrated severe physical violence against their
partners, compared with 5.7% of young men. Three times more women than men
said they had kicked or bitten their partners, or hit them with their fists
or with an object.

In any event, the idea that women are never the instigators of violence is
demolished by the evidence about lesbians.

According to Claire Renzetti, violence in lesbian relationships occurs with
about the same frequency as in heterosexual relationships. Lesbian
batterers "display a terrifying ingenuity in their selection of abusive
tactics, frequently tailoring the abuse to the specific vulnerabilities of
their partners". Such abuse can be extremely violent, with women bitten,
kicked, punched, thrown down stairs, and assaulted with weapons including
guns, knives, whips and broken bottles.

It is true that most women who are the victims of violence suffer domestic
assaults. Yet the 1996 British Crime Survey reported that nearly one third
of the victims of domestic violence were men, and that nearly half of these
male victims were attacked by women. Moreover, if a woman starts a physical
fight with a man, even a mild slap might provoke him into retaliating, with
far worse consequences. Women who murder violent husbands may be treated
leniently because they were provoked; yet men who are violent against women
are never granted the same understanding. Provocation, it appears, is a
feminist issue.

Moreover, given the greater strength of men, it is particularly noteworthy
that so many women initiate violence against them. The fact is that men
hold back. The psychologist John Archer has noted that, among female
college students, 29% admitted initiating an assault on a male partner. Of
those women, half said they had no fear of retaliation or, since men could
easily defend themselves, they did not see their own physical aggression as
a problem. In other words, far from assuming that men are violent, women
take men's non-aggression for granted.

Archer went on to remark on the apparent restraint shown by many men in
western cultures. "We might speculate that to some extent a strong norm of
men not hitting women enables women to engage in physical aggression which
might otherwise not have occurred," he wrote. Male aggression, he
suggested, was a kind of default value associated with patriarchal structures.

When these are overridden, as they have been by modern secular liberal
values and by the emancipation of women, female aggression increases.
"These values will have greatest impact in a relationship that can be ended
by the woman at little cost, and where the rate of male aggression is low.
"We can speculate that these represent specific instances of a more general
set of circumstances entailing a relative change in the balance of power
between men and women."

In other words, as women have become independent of men, they have also
become more violent towards them - because men have become dispensable.
This unpalatable conclusion, however, has been completely overlooked in a
culture that believes infamy is the prerogative of the male.

Much to everyone's astonishment, the Home Office recently produced its own
evidence that domestic violence was not a male disease. In January 1999, it
reported that 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men aged 16 to 59 said they had
been physically assaulted by a current or former partner in the past year.
Women separated from their partners were most likely to be victims, with
22% assaulted at least once in 1995.

The public reaction to the Home Office research was almost complete
silence. The government, too, appeared impervious to its implications.
Shortly after it was published, the Home Secretary opened a domestic
violence court in Leeds that was founded on the explicit assumption that
only men were violent.

In June this year, the Cabinet Office women's unit launched a campaign to
"change the culture" that presented domestic violence as almost exclusively
a problem of male crime. It managed to omit another under-reported fact:
that most violence against children is committed by their mothers, not
their fathers. A study by the National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children revealed a few years ago that natural mothers, not
fathers, are most frequently the perpetrators of physical injury, emotional
abuse and neglect. This is not particularly surprising, since mothers
generally have much more daily contact than fathers with their children.
There was yet another notable omission: the women's unit material did not
differentiate between couples who were married and people who were living
together or had irregular lovers.

It therefore omitted a key fact: that the risk of violence increases
significantly for unmarried couples. The Home Office study itself observed
that marital separation was a "key risk factor". Only 12.6 in every 1,000
married women are victims of violence, compared with 43.9 in every 1,000
never-married women and 66.5 in every 1,000 divorced or separated women. As
husbands are replaced by partners and lovers, therefore, violence against
women increases. Marriage is a strong safety factor for women.

Yet this is not said. Instead, the opposite idea is fostered, that violence
against women typically takes place within marriage. In November 1998, the
women's unit announced a new initiative. Children were urged to report
violence against mothers and sisters. There was no mention of abuse against
fathers. Instead, a television advertisement showed a husband berating his
wife when she told him dinner would be late. That was the violence. It was
followed by a helpline number for children to call if a woman in their
house had been abused.

This fictional scenario illuminated some remarkable thinking by civil
servants and ministers. It had become acceptable, it thus appeared, for
children to inform on their fathers to teachers or "helplines" simply for
shouting at their mothers. Shouting was now to be classified as domestic
violence. If that is the case, then violence happens with enormous
frequency in families. Don't women sometimes shout at men?

There was another telling aspect of this advertisement. It featured an
"Oxo" middle-class nuclear family. The thinking behind this, according to
the then Scottish Office minister Helen Liddell, was that "domestic abuse
knows no boundaries of social class or social group". However, not only was
this scenario not violence, but the nuclear family is the least likely
setting for abuse of women or children. It was no accident, however, that
it was chosen. The married nuclear family has to be demonised because it is
said to be the vehicle for the oppression of women.

The outcome of all this is that it is now generally accepted that violence
is intrinsically male. This is a gravely distorted picture. It is true that
most recorded crime is committed by men. It does not follow, however, that
most men commit crime. Yet this is the false conclusion that has been
drawn, as the result of the suppression or distortion of the facts about
violence as well as the message that is constantly promulgated that
violence is a problem of masculinity. The evidence suggests that a quite
different conclusion should be drawn. This is surely that both women and
men are capable of aggression and violence, but that violent men, like
violent women, are not typical of their sex.

---

Extracted from The Sex Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered
Male, by Melanie Phillips.

Man ordered to help ex-wife who spent her divorce cash

The Times (Britain)
28 June 2007

Man ordered to help ex-wife who spent her divorce cash
By Helen Nugent

A wealthy retired builder was ordered to pay more money to the woman he
divorced nearly 30 years ago after a judge heard she had "fallen on hard
times", the Court of Appeal heard yesterday.

Dennis North, 70, married his first wife Jean, 61, in 1964 and they
divorced in 1978, a year after he found out that she was having an affair.

In 1981 he made a financial settlement with her, buying her a house and
investments. Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would be
able to live comfortably for the rest of her life, the judges were told.

But in 1999, she sold up and moved to Australia, and her capital dwindled
because of bad investments and because of what the court heard was a
lifestyle beyond her means.

Mr North, who lives in Derbyshire, was left to bring up their three
children and went on to remarry and have two more children. Since divorcing
his first wife, he had prospered and is now estimated to be worth between
£5 million and £11 million, the court was told.

A district judge agreed in April that her money troubles had nothing to do
with her former husband and that he had no further responsibility towards
her, but awarded her £202,000.

Mr North wants the Court of Appeal to quash the award. Philip Moor, QC,
representing him, told the panel of judges headed by Lord Justice Thorpe
that Mrs North had made no attempt to find a job since 1977, when she was 32.

When she sold all her assets and emigrated, she chose to live in an
expensive part of Sydney, he said. She is believed now to be living near Leeds.

"The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead
independent lives," he said. "The effect of the order is to give Mrs North
a second bite of the cherry."

Mr Moor said that the district judge had found that had Mrs North stayed in
England she would have been comfortably off for the rest of her life. He
added: "He then made a number of findings of fact as to the lifestyle
choice that had damaged Mrs North's financial position."

Mr Moor said that these included deciding not to work, to sell up and put
her money in bad investments, to live in Australia, where she had no
entitlement to state benefits, and to live in one of the most desirable
parts of Sydney.

He said that what the district judge had ordered was in reality for Mr
North "to make up the deficit" in Mrs North's reduced capital which had
been caused by her actions.

"The changes in financial positions of the parties since 1981 and the
differential between them that has arisen over the years cannot be relevant
given the findings of the district judge that Mr North should not bear
responsibility for Mrs North's position."

Deborah Bangay, QC, representing Mrs North, said that her former husband
had a continued responsibility for her client and that the district judge
had taken into account their differing situations. She said that it was not
Mrs North's fault that her investments had gone wrong. "She needed some
support and the district judge gave her a sum at the bottom end of the
spectrum," she said.

"This was not a second bite at the cherry but what are her reasonable
needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of
the former husband. It was an extraordinarily modest award set against his
wealth."

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett reserved their
ruling to a later date.

JUDGE THROWS OUT WOMAN'S HARASSMENT SUİT........YEAH....

"A Spanish judge has thrown out a woman's harassment suit against her ex-husband on the grounds she has a good education, arguing that had she really suffered abuse during their 16-year marriage she would have reported it right away or sought counseling. "Women's advocacy groups voiced outrage over Wednesday's ruling by a judge in the northern city of Valladolid, and Spain's ruling Socialist party asked a judicial oversight board to review it. "The plaintiff, a high school teacher whose name has not been released, filed the suit last month arguing that her husband subjected her to psychological harassment throughout their 16-year marriage. They separated three years ago. "Judge Jose Luis Chamorro, who heads a court specializing in gender violence cases, cast doubt on the woman's claims. "He said he found it 'surprising' that a woman with her level of education would put up with that alleged treatment for so many years without reporting it or seeing a psychiatrist, and 'curious' that she is filing suit now, years after the marriage fell apart. "Rocio Mielgo, president of the Association of Victims of Sexual Aggression and Mistreatment, said the ruling is unacceptable because it suggests that only 'if you are from a lower class or have little education can you be mistreated.' "The ruling Socialist party's top official on sexual equality issues, Maribel Montano, called the judge's arguments 'worrisome' and asked a body that acts as watchdog for the Spanish judicial system to review the sentence." On a certain, reductionist level, of course feminist women's advocate Mielgo is absolutely correct--certainly it is untrue that only "if you are from a lower class or have little education can you be mistreated." On a larger level, though, Judge Chamorro has a point. Chamorro has to try to navigate through the he said/she said to try to figure out the truth, in a case which is apparently without substantial witnesses and physical evidence. In doing so the factors he mentions--that an educated woman had supposedly put up with the alleged abuse for many years without reporting it or seeking any help, and is only filing suit years later--are perfectly legitimate factors to consider. "A Spanish judge has thrown out a woman's harassment suit against her ex-husband on the grounds she has a good education, arguing that had she really suffered abuse during their 16-year marriage she would have reported it right away or sought counseling. "Women's advocacy groups voiced outrage over Wednesday's ruling by a judge in the northern city of Valladolid, and Spain's ruling Socialist party asked a judicial oversight board to review it. "The plaintiff, a high school teacher whose name has not been released, filed the suit last month arguing that her husband subjected her to psychological harassment throughout their 16-year marriage. They separated three years ago. "Judge Jose Luis Chamorro, who heads a court specializing in gender violence cases, cast doubt on the woman's claims. "He said he found it 'surprising' that a woman with her level of education would put up with that alleged treatment for so many years without reporting it or seeing a psychiatrist, and 'curious' that she is filing suit now, years after the marriage fell apart. "Rocio Mielgo, president of the Association of Victims of Sexual Aggression and Mistreatment, said the ruling is unacceptable because it suggests that only 'if you are from a lower class or have little education can you be mistreated.' "The ruling Socialist party's top official on sexual equality issues, Maribel Montano, called the judge's arguments 'worrisome' and asked a body that acts as watchdog for the Spanish judicial system to review the sentence." On a certain, reductionist level, of course feminist women's advocate Mielgo is absolutely correct--certainly it is untrue that only "if you are from a lower class or have little education can you be mistreated." On a larger level, though, Judge Chamorro has a point. Chamorro has to try to navigate through the he said/she said to try to figure out the truth, in a case which is apparently without substantial witnesses and physical evidence. In doing so the factors he mentions--that an educated woman had supposedly put up with the alleged abuse for many years without reporting it or seeking any help, and is only filing suit years later--are perfectly legitimate factors to consider. "A Spanish judge has thrown out a woman's harassment suit against her ex-husband on the grounds she has a good education, arguing that had she really suffered abuse during their 16-year marriage she would have reported it right away or sought counseling. "Women's advocacy groups voiced outrage over Wednesday's ruling by a judge in the northern city of Valladolid, and Spain's ruling Socialist party asked a judicial oversight board to review it. "The plaintiff, a high school teacher whose name has not been released, filed the suit last month arguing that her husband subjected her to psychological harassment throughout their 16-year marriage. They separated three years ago. "Judge Jose Luis Chamorro, who heads a court specializing in gender violence cases, cast doubt on the woman's claims. "He said he found it 'surprising' that a woman with her level of education would put up with that alleged treatment for so many years without reporting it or seeing a psychiatrist, and 'curious' that she is filing suit now, years after the marriage fell apart. "Rocio Mielgo, president of the Association of Victims of Sexual Aggression and Mistreatment, said the ruling is unacceptable because it suggests that only 'if you are from a lower class or have little education can you be mistreated.' "The ruling Socialist party's top official on sexual equality issues, Maribel Montano, called the judge's arguments 'worrisome' and asked a body that acts as watchdog for the Spanish judicial system to review the sentence." On a certain, reductionist level, of course feminist women's advocate Mielgo is absolutely correct--certainly it is untrue that only "if you are from a lower class or have little education can you be mistreated." On a larger level, though, Judge Chamorro has a point. Chamorro has to try to navigate through the he said/she said to try to figure out the truth, in a case which is apparently without substantial witnesses and physical evidence. In doing so the factors he mentions--that an educated woman had supposedly put up with the alleged abuse for many years without reporting it or seeking any help, and is only filing suit years later--are perfectly legitimate factors to consider. AP.

Father denied justice by NZ courts, says UN

Father denied justice by NZ courts, says UN Thursday April 19, 2007 The United Nations has slammed the New Zealand legal system for denying justice to a man accused of abusing his children. The Government now has three months to explain itself to the international body and offer a solution to the man. Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis took the man's case to the UN's Human Rights Committee saying his client's right to a fair trial had been ignored by the Family and then the Appeal Courts. The man, who cannot be named due to the ongoing custody dispute, was accused in 2001 by his estranged wife of abusing his two daughters and then, later, abusing his son. Police investigated for nearly two years, but decided not to prosecute. The father was denied access to his daughters and the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal the decision. The man is still fighting for access to see his son in the Family Court. The committee found the lengthy proceedings violated the father's rights to a quick and fair trial in respect of his daughters and son. It regretted the Court of Appeal's "failure to understand and embrace international human rights". The very nature of custody proceedings concerning access of a divorced parent to their children required that the issues complained of should be dealt with speedily, the committee said. "The onus is thus on the State and the courts, the police, child welfare authorities and others, to be sufficiently well-resourced and structured and establish their priorities in order to ensure sufficiently prompt resolution of such proceedings and safeguard the Covenant rights of the parties," it said. The committee said that without a prompt hearing, the rights of non-custodial parents were in effect already decided. It added: "This is plainly unacceptable, and is a major failing as there is no level playing field, and it is well known that justice delayed is justice denied." They said they would "await with interest" what remedy the Government would be offering the father within a 90 day timeframe. Courts Minister Rick Barker said today the committee had informed the Government of its views. The committee had found the majority of the complainant' s allegations were inadmissible, or did not in fact constitute violations of the complainant' s rights, he said. It also found the original Family Court in 2003 had reached a "full and balanced" evaluation of the family's situation and the children's best interests based on testimony of the parties and expert advice. However, it did express the view that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was breached because of the length of time taken to conclude the proceedings. Mr Barker noted the committee's views were "non-binding" but said the Government would examine its findings and consider how to address these. The committee's views had been relayed to the relevant government agencies and the principal Family Court judge and the Government would respond to the committee within 90 days.

If chicks ruled the world, it would look much the same

THE WRY SIDE If chicks ruled the world, it would look much the same By Emma Tom If one more person says the world would be a better place if it was ruled by women, I'll scream. Loudly, with lots of unladylike grimaces and flying spit. Feminists are right to say chicks should fill about half the planet's leadership positions. But claiming this will result in a better, kinder, gentler globe is unmitigated crap, right up there with "I don't usually do this sort of thing on a first date" and (from Brazilian waxers) "it won't grow back for at least six weeks". Contrary to popular mythology, women are not the fairer sex. The harsh truth is that they can be as devious, vindictive and violent as the next man. One of history's most prolific killers was Erzsebet Bathory, a Hungarian countess who tortured and murdered hundreds of girls on her family estate in Transylvania in the 16th century. Bathory's modus operandi was to slit her victims' throats and bathe in their warm blood, sometimes after setting their pubes on fire. Very feminine. No doubt she would have loved a cup of tea and a little chitchat with Katherine Knight from rural NSW. This former abattoir worker was jailed for life in 2001 after stabbing her de facto partner 37 times and then skinning him, boiling his head and baking pieces of his buttocks with vegies. Very Country Women's Association. New research shows women are taking a leading role in terrorist attacks and blowing themselves up more often in suicide bombings. They're also stepping up their involvement in sex crimes, with a disturbing increase in the number of women teachers arrested for inappropriate relationships with kiddies. (If you're one of those sniggerers who reckons no sexual attention from a woman is ever unwanted by a bloke, put yourself in the place of the teenage boy gang raped with a rolling pin in Sydney in 2005 and imagine how you'd feel about the two girls charged over the attack. My guess is that it wouldn't be hubba-hubba. ) She-devils are starting young, too. In October 2005, an Australian psychologist told a conference that alpha females were embracing their inner bitches and female bullying was rampant in the nation's schools. In Bulgaria, several young women were injured in a bloody brawl between schoolgirls last October. These desperados used knuckledusters, chains and beer bottles to fight over the attentions of a spunky male peer. Far more serious was the case of the two West Australian teenagers sentenced to life imprisonment earlier this month for garrotting a 15-year-old friend. The pair slaughtered two kittens as practice and said they killed Eliza Jane Davis because it just felt right. She-thugs are starting young, but age certainly isn't slowing them down. In LA in mid-2005, two women in their 70s were arrested after allegedly befriending homeless men, taking out multiple life insurance policies and filing claims worth more than $US2.2 million when the transients died in mysterious hit-and-run accidents. It's hard to say whether nannas are becoming nastier or whether their nastiness is just getting more press. What's definite, however, is that continuing to claim that women occupy some higher moral ground is both outlandishly incorrect and extraordinarily unhelpful to the feminist cause. First, it gives chicks a false sense of superiority. Second, it means their exclusion from positions of power can be justified on the grounds that firm, male hands are required for the world's steering wheels: hands attached to leaders who don't blubber over lost kittens and get all thingy about their bum sizes during nuclear showdowns. Like men, women come in a range of colours, flavours and calibres. Some are paragons of states folkship, while others think its big and clever to pummel each other with nunchakus on the off-chance they score a date with the school heart-throb. If women ruled the world, it would not be a better place. Odds are it would look a whole lot like it does now, minus the irrational sexism that falsely elevates chicks morally while unfairly thwarting them logistically. Ironically enough, the key to women achieving more power may be owning up to the large numbers of the sistren who don't deserve it. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/ 0,20867,21777884 -12274,00.html The Australian 23 May 2007

Wife indicted after husband shoots and kills her lover in Texas....YEAH!!!

ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) -- Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson -- thinking quickly, if not clearly -- cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head. On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment -- against the wife, not the husband. In a case likely to reinforce the state's reputation for don't-mess-with-Texas justice, the grand jury declined to charge the husband with murder, the charge on which he was arrested by police... Tracy Roberson, 35, could get two to 20 years in prison in the slaying of Devin LaSalle, a 32-year-old UPS employee. Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston declined to comment on specifics of the case or the grand jury proceedings but said Texas law allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe at the time turns out not to be true." Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, `I would have shot the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife."' The December night before the shooting, Tracy Roberson sent LaSalle a text message that read in part, "Hi friend, come see me please! I need to feel your warm embrace!" according to court papers. LaSalle apparently agreed. Darrell Roberson, a 38-year-old employee of a real estate firm, discovered the two, his wife clad in a robe and underwear. When Tracy Roberson cried that she was being raped, LaSalle tried to drive away and her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said...

SAY "NO" TO THE FEMİNAZİS...

SAY "NO" TO THE FEMİNAZİS...

Most child abusers are women: report

http://news. ninemsn.com. au/article. aspx?id=77464 Most child abusers are women: report AAP Wednesday 11 April 2007 14:34 AEST Women are responsible for more than half of all child abuse cases in Queensland and are much more likely to neglect their children than men, a new report has found. The Child Protection Queensland 2005-06 Performance Report, released on Wednesday, also shows a spike in the number of deaths of children known to child welfare authorities, including death by suicide. The report shows there were 13,184 substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06. Women were responsible for 7,319 - or 55.5 per cent - of cases, and males for 5,846, or 44.3 per cent. However, the patterns of abuse were found to differ substantially between the sexes. In 2005-06, females were responsible for 80.2 per cent of all cases of neglect - 3,283 cases compared 799 cases for men. Women accounted for 46.8 per cent of all cases of emotional abuse, a total of 2,615 cases compared to 2,972 involving men. Women were also responsible for 48.9 per cent of all cases of physical abuse - 1,358 to compared to 1,412 for men. However, men were by far the greatest perpetrators of sexual abuse, responsible for 663 cases compared to only 63 by women, or 8.7 per cent. In only 19 of the 13,184 abuse cases it was not known whether the offender was male or female. Child Safety Minister Desley Boyle said the findings shattered society's image of the caring and devoted mother and the belief that men were more likely to abuse children. "We have an idealised image of mothers - that they feed their kids before themselves - but I'm sorry to say, it's not always true," Ms Boyle said. "Some mothers choose to spend their, albeit meagre, money on cigarettes and alcohol and give healthy food for their children a lower priority." Emotional harm was the most frequent type of substantiated harm in 2005-06, increasing from 39 per cent of all substantiated cases in 2004-05 to 42.4 per cent in 2005-06. Children living in single-parent families represented the largest proportion of children subject to substantiated cases, accounting for 38.1 per cent. Of the children subject to notifications in 2005-06, children aged under five comprised the largest proportion - more than one third. The report also found deaths of children known to the Department of Child Safety had risen. In 2005-06, 51 children or young people died - up from 37 the previous year. Six of those children were subject to child protection orders. Fourteen deaths were accidental, 18 were from natural causes and in three cases, the cause of death was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). The cause of death for five children was non-accidental and in four cases the cause of death was suicide. It is still not known how seven other children died. Ms Boyle also said the caseload figures per child safety officer had dropped from 32 cases to 21 cases at the end of 2006.
   
National Men’s Equality Congress Boys and the Boy Crisis July 13-14, 2007 in Washington, DC
http://www.trueequality.com/booklet/

How The Women's Movement Taught Women to Hate Men - By Erin Pizzey

We were sitting around a coffee table in my house, in Goldhawk Road, Hammersmith in London listening to a bossy woman wearing National Health round glasses and a long Indian skirt. She smelled of insense and to few baths. We were all nursing large gin and tonics which was the staple drink in the Women's Lib. Goldhawk Road weekly meetings. We were trying to follow her convoluted explanations about our 'role in society.' As far as I knew, I had a very simple role in society. I had always wanted to have lots of children, be happily married, and free to tend my house and garden and cook three course meals for my husband. 'What could possibly be wrong with that I asked?' 'Why,' she said angrily. 'Are so many married women deprived of the status of independent human beings?' The answer was; because marriage is based on the property concept, therefore it must be abolished. I looked at the other women in the group, Angela, a teacher had more idea of what was going on. She had trained as a teacher and was used to this confusing amount of jargon. 'What is wrong with owning a house?' I asked. I was obviously a hopeless brain drain. 'You,' she said turning on me. 'Live in a mink-lined trap,' her face was frozen with rage. I decided I'd better shut up and see what else I was getting wrong. 'Why are the mores of our society unfair to women?' was her next question. The answer to that was 'because men are natural oppressors.' This was not the time to confess to the fact that I had not only a son but seven adopted sons. Certainly, my daughter Cleo and I waged war in a family where two women were pitted gainst nine males. The most oppressive thing the boys ever did was to leave hair in the wash-basin and they could all cook, iron, sew and clean. The final question was even more confusing. 'Why is the love of a woman for a man, which involves her being the servant to his needs, lauded as 'her' greatest fulfillment?' The answer reduced the room to a puzzled silence. 'Er,' I asked are we talking about lesbians?' We were. 'We,' they always use the royal we ............... 'don't like men nor do we like hetrosexual women. If there is every to be any equality, marriage and the family must be abolished.' We sat there gawking like fish and she smiled a very satisfied smile and glared at me. I had followed the career of a journalist called Nancy Spain. She worked on 'SHE' magazine. Her radical lesbian ideas interested me and she was writing for the Guardian long before the Guardian Mafia of feminist journalists got going. She died in an aeroplane crash but left behind many of her acolyte's. These were the faces I saw in those early days of the feminist collectives. I went to work in the Women's Liberation Work Shop in Newport Street, off Shaftesbury Avenue. I also attended the first women's conferences and I was struck by the hundreds and hundreds of women claiming to be radical militant lesbians. The first women's conferences were destroyed by violent fisticuffs between these women and most of us were very afraid of them. As far as I was concerned these women did not speak for my gay friends anymore than the radical feminists spoke for all women in our country who were very happy at home with their husbands and their children. In reality, this was a very minor group of women who were only able to hurl abuse at heterosexual women and their families because they were white, middle class and had media jobs. Before very long they were employing each other and 'marginalizing' the men who tried to work along side them. Men, intimidated by their brutal, violent behavior, moved on and out of many jobs. According to these women all women were victims of men's violent behavior, any attempt for men to fight back met with behind scenes maneuvering and men LET IT HAPPEN. Fed up with the war, I decided to stay away from the in-fighting that dominated the women's liberation movement and turn my attention to helping in my own local community. I got a letter from the women's liberation office, throwing me out an banning me from attending any of the collectives. The so called women's liberation' movement spread like a cancer across the English chattering classes. I visited the houses of feminist women with my son who carried his action man toys. In their houses there was no vestige of anything 'boyish' at all. No Tonka trucks, no boys toys - nothing that could encourage a boy to think of himself as masculine. The whole idea of men and masculinity in those houses, we considered disgusting. We, the mothers, sat around the kitchen tables rearranging the world according to Marx. I, who had enjoyed men's company enormously, for the feeling that these women underneath all the political chatter, really disliked men. There was nothing sensual about their houses. They disliked cooking and if they had to cook for guests, it was not producing good food and wine that delighted their guests, but a rather rapid need to compete with each other. Was it, I wondered, an English middle class phenomenon? This dislike and need to sneer at men? Certainly their boys were confused and crying. There was no way I could interest my sons in dolls, not that I would want to try. Useless to tell these women that Marx never did anything to women. Was unkind to his family and refused to have women in the Politburo. The feminist gurus had done their job well and most of the women I knew complained about their awful lives. I couldn't see what was awful about having the freedom to do exactly what I pleased and when I pleased. Not for me the daily office rush. I pushed my pram around Shepherd's Bush Market loaded with other people's children and my own. I dreamed of finding a house where I could build a useful community centre in our midst. The dream materialized but with it, the awful certainty that if I attracted funds and publicity. I would hear the tramp of the man-hating feminists trying to oust me and take over. That is what happened, and the first little get together I ran to encourage other groups to open refuges was dominated by the lesbians and feminists who crowded into our little church hall and voted themselves into a national movement. We, horrified and unused to political manoeuvring, abstained. 'There isn't a working glass women among you,' one of my mothers yelled. This has always been the truth of this disastrous movement. Born in ivory tower academia, it had no relevance to women on the street. 'If only you were all lesbians, you would have no problems of violence,' we were told. We often had women beaten up by their female partners in our refuge. The worst beating I ever saw was between a vicar's daughter and her lover. All through my career, as a journalist, a writer and a social reformer, I have been hounded and bullied by feminist women and their coat trailing 'new men.' Any of us who have gone to all girl schools, particularly boarding schools, will verify the awful bullying and violence that goes on amongst the girls. For so many years women were tyrants behind their front doors. They were able to sexually abuse, batter and intimidate their children and their husbands now, with the advent of the women's movement, they moved out into the world. They took their aggressive, bullying and intimidating behavior with them. Talking with the men who were accused of abusing their women, I was aware of this movement with its wild and extravagant claims against men had fueled the flames of insecurity and anger in men. I watched horror stricken, as in home after home, I saw boys denied not only their access to their fathers, but also access to all that was normal and masculine in their lives. Our universities rushed into grasping funding for 'Women's Studies,'' Gender politics,' became the new way to brain wash women with very little education. By now the Politically Correct movement was beginning to hatch and a new form of 'mind control' was devised. Feminists became the new 'thought police.' The sudden promescuity of women came as a shock to me. The atmosphere of intense dislike for men and anything male lay like a miasma in so many English middle class houses. Overnight in the late sixties in England, confusion reigned. If feminists hated men so much why were so many of them sleeping with the enemy? I am the daughter of a diplomat born in China and it was my Amah who was the one to insist that myself and my twin sister be put out on the hill side. Failing to achieve that she wanted our feet bound. It was women in Africa who practised ritual circumcisions on their daughters. I knew that because I worked with missionaries in Africa. I was fighting a lost cause and what bothered me then and bothered me now, is that men made no attempt to defend themselves. By now the 'new man' was beginning to emerge and he was not a pretty sight. Parroting everything in the woman in his life was teaching, he could usually be found in woman's conferences running the creches and trying to looking 'caring.' Mostly he was stoned, confused and angry. Maybe because as far as I could see, the new feminists made no effort to share an equal relationship with their male partners. They saw themselves as 'superior beings.' The new men were expected to take their places a few steps behind their women and to do as they were told. Mostly, they had to accept the dictates of the dictators and quietly get on with the household chores and take care of the children. But what ever a new man did, he could never atone for the sins of other men. Any man who disobeyed his partner, was subjected to expulsion from the matrimonial home and in many cases, from a relationship with his children. Now, there were a legion of feminist lawyers and therapists to make their 'sisters' were fully supported in the battle to destroy men. Why did the relationship between men and women go so badly wrong? I think it goes back to my point about the choices men and women made in the sixties. Men were tired of their roles as 'macho men.' They were strangled in their uniforms of ties and suits. They had no choices in the late fifties but to take on a wife and children and the cost of a mortgage dangled around their necks. In the sixties they rebelled and wanted to take a less violent and domineering role in their lives. They turned to this romantic image of women as soft and gentle. They saw this image as an emotional life style denied to men. Women, however, rebelled against this image of themselves, indeed in so many cases it was a false image, and doomed the masculine concepts of authoritarian rule and aggression and even to wearing the hated suits and ties that men had discarded. Men, for so long, subjected themselves emotionally to women and hated women for their dependence. Women adopting male bullying and aggressive roles and still hating the fact that they need and want men in their lives. What needs to happen? First of all there has to be a carefully worked out and civilized dialogue that cannot be invaded by the extremes of the right or the left. Both men and women have been guilty of politicizing human relationships. Human relationships are not a matter of political solutions. Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags. The deep wounds between men and women will take time to heal. It is imperative that women who do not hate men and wish to live in peace with them, should be given space in newspapers and magazines to have their say. Films should be made about women who have made a success of their homes and their families. Bringing up a family requires a large degree of maturity. An ability to sublimate the personal needs and wishes until such time as the children are grown and have left the home. Later, those years of sacrifice will bring the parents such joy. Of course, there will be women who want to work and not have a family. As long as the women has clearly thought out her priorities there is no harm. Just lately my life is too full of nearly forty something women, who have had fulfilling careers but the biological clock is ticking and they are afraid. Now they decide they do want children and a father for their children - for many it is too late and the future, for them is not bright. Some women will be able to balance a home and a career. These women tend to be wealthy and can afford the help needed to bring up the children. Many women will be forced to go out to work against their will. This is because we live in a Western world where caring for children has become devalued and only work outside the house carries with it monitory compensation. I believe that love between men and women is the strongest relationship on this earth. For now, we have to fight to protect family life. Hopefully, as we move, into a new century, men and women can meet each other not only as equals, partners and friends but also as lovers.

Attention Men this could be you!

Owner of Pizzeria Refuses to Remove Deadbeat Dad Posters in Face of Fathers 4 Justice Demonstration

READ GLENN SACKS ARTİCLE AT: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=455


FRAUDSTER WOMAN LOSES İN COURT....YEAH!!!!!!!!

Lover must pay broker for claiming son was his By Amy Iggulden Last Updated: 1:57am BST 05/04/2007 A woman who deceived her stockbroker boyfriend into believing he was the father of her son was yesterday ordered to pay him more than £22,000 in damages. A High Court judge ruled that the woman, now 46, had made "fraudulent representations" to her boyfriend after lying to him for five years about a one-night stand. Judge Sir John Blofeld told the court in London that it was impossible to accept her as "a witness of truth". In the first known case of its kind to reach trial in Britain, he awarded the 63-year-old former stockbroker just over £22,400, including £7,500 to compensate him for the distress he suffered when he discovered the boy was not his. "I am satisfied she intended her fraudulent representations to be acted on by Mr A," the judge said. "As a result of those fraudulent representations, he suffered damage." He said the man was not motivated to sue by revenge, but by the strong feeling that he had been "taken for a ride". The couple - known only as Mr A and Miss B to protect the child - were sitting only feet apart as the judge dismissed Miss B's evidence as "inherently improbable". He had heard how they met at a City firm in autumn 1995, when she was Mr A's secretary. Miss B, then 34, already had a child with a 66-year-old man she worked with. She began a relationship with Mr A, then in his early 50s, in April 1996 but it was marred by squabbles. She also expressed deep distress at their unsatisfactory sex life, the judge was told. Only months later, she gave into an "overwhelming physical need" by picking up an anonymous man at a bar and taking him back to her flat to have unprotected sex, in November 1996. She had stopped taking the pill because the sex with her Mr A was so infrequent, she said. Two months later, however, she discovered she was pregnant while on holiday with Mr A in Israel. She reassured him that he was the father and told him she had always been faithful, even though she knew there was a 25 per cent chance he was not the father. Miss B then continued the fraud for five years as her boyfriend sung his "son" to sleep, paid more than £37,000 in nursery fees and took her and the boy on expensive holidays, the court heard. Throughout this time, Mr A, who is childless and unmarried, said he "fell in love" with the boy. But prompted by an episode about disputed paternity on the television soap EastEnders, and the fact that the boy's hair had grown blond, Mr A asked for reassurances from his girlfriend that he was the father. She told him more than 100 times that he definitely was, the judge heard. So when the couple split in summer 2002, Mr A asked for a parental contract to establish his rights as the boy's father. However in July, just before signing a cheque to cover £2,000 school fees, he received the "bombshell letter" from Miss B, demanding a paternity test which proved he was not the father. Mr A had told the court at an earlier hearing: "The discovery that I was not [the boy's] father broke my heart. I was eaten by despair. "By the time the boy was five, when the deception was revealed, he had a child's concept of a father. He wouldn't have had that if she had told me earlier. It would have been less harmful for him and me." Miss B, who said she genuinely believed Mr A was the father because they had slept together three times in the month that the child was conceived, said at the earlier hearing: "It is a great scar on my life. So, if it is any consolation, I am not happy." Mr A had sued Miss B for up to £100,000, but the judge did not allow him any damages for material costs incurred for the child because of Mr A's enjoyment of the relationship. But Mr A was entitled to £14,943 to cover holidays and meals. He was also awarded costs but the amount is still to be decided. From the Telegraph.co.uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/04/nfraud04.xml

Information, article and discussion about a recent report about DV experienced by men

You can download this report here: http://www.springer link.com/ content/a7q0032j 88817218/ fulltext. pdf

SAY "NO" TO A FEMALE HİTLER!!!

SAY "NO" TO A FEMALE HİTLER!!!

THE WORLD ACCORDİNG TO FEMİNİSTS

For nearly three decades the world got brainwashed into thinking that only men were the perpetrators at domestic violence.

The world got told that only men were rapist, molesters, paedophiles, and the feminists used all sort of adjectives under the sun to describe men, in a derogatory terms.

Thirty years is a long time, a generation of people under the feminists dictatorial system were born, only to understand the evil that it has created, and the way it has touched their lives, by ruining it.

Countless men paid the price with their lives as a result of feminists lies and deceits.

Since the advent of feminism, the domestic violence issue has turned into a multi billion dollars business on a worldwide scale. A plethora of various professionals are making a nice and comfortable living on the back of miserable men.

The divorce rate has reached such hights that, it is now almost unfashionable to ask whether a person is married, but, rather whether one is divorced or not!

Children from broken homes are roaming the streets, pillaging every conceivable thing, to feed their drug ravaged young and tender bodies.

Parental alienation is rife and used to keep the children from their loving fathers.

False allegations are churning and spitting apprehended violence orders in an un-imaginable numbers, to keep men from getting a fair and equitable asset distribution, during the divorce proceedings.

Excessive child support orders are creating a new breed of “nouveau pauvre” or “new poor” men, not having any chance to re-marry again, they find themselves in the marginal section of society and hence unable to re-build their lives, and in a state of gross despair, they decide to terminate their lives and sometimes take their children and ex wives, with them.

İn their zeal to support this totalitarian and marxist ideology, and for fear of retribution, our politicians are bending backwards, to please the feminists.

The religious books are being re-written to show God as either genderless or as woman. The sacro-saint religious rules are constantly being defied and arbitrarly broken, as in the case of apppointing feminist indoctrinated woman priests and gay theologians.

The “New World Order” is taking shape where, the definition of a family is now including gay and lesbians couples and where single parenthood, mainly single motherhood, is now actively promoted as the “inn thing”.

Hollywood and the media is turning out male hating and violence towards men into either comedies or novels or films.

Becoming a primary school teacher for men is frustratingly a taboo profession less they are labeled as paedophiles or child molesters. Thus, children in their early years are being deprived of a male role models.

The “Lace curtain” is ever vigilant about woman and feminist criticism and in constant fear that a weekly here or a newspaper there, might slip one or more such articles. Writers and commentators who dare to criticise feminists are prone to severe retribution and stygmatisation.

The term “Politically Correct” is ever exacerbating punishment for those brave enough to utter the word “hostess” instead of saying a “flight attendant”.

The ever increasing women work force participation and encroachment into traditional male work areas, are creating resentment for the lack of similar jobs given to men in the past. The “Affirmative Action” is covertly trying to say that “it’s ok to discriminate against men” and as if this wasn’t enough the feminists are trying to push and in some countries have introduced “Positive Discrimination in favor of women”. What I fail to understand is how a discrimination of any sort can be a positive one?

The discussion topic “equal pay for equal work” seem to be gathering steam as the gap between woman and man earnings are down to a narrow 8% in Australia, according to a report “woman in Australia 2007” just out.

The law has not escaped from the feminists tentacles either.

More and more women are now becoming criminals and by reason of either “insanity” or “provocation” or surprising as it may seem, because of simply being a “woman” they escape from being punished and in more cases than I care to remember, they are being set free!

I may continue to list countless other injustices, inequalities and unjust changes. Suffice to say that, these changes are hurting men worldwide and causing untold hardship and deaths.

What started as the “Women’s rights are human rights” or “Equal rights for women” protests and marches, turned-out to be a complete and utter, farsical, sour joke and a well choreographed lie.

The irrevocable truth is – Feminism wants total control of state and subjugate and marginilise men. This was their goal, and to a great extend they had a spectacular success,because, we men, BELİEVED them.

As a result of this belief, the world has changed for the worse and we men, are and have been in a defensive position ever since.

However, having said all that, we should now ponder very seriously as to what

extend, we as men, and the world at large, are going to do, to reverse this terminally dangerous trends, and what means and ways are we going to use to create a more just world for the future?

Yours in arms.

Harry Stanton


FEMİNİST LOGİC No:1

Never lose your ignorance; you cannot replace it.

FLASH...FLASH...YET ANOTHER DOMESTİC VİOLENCE CRAP İS DEBUNKED!

We have been inundated with all these Domestic Violence crap where it is, yep, you guessed it "always the women who suffers the most". How many times have we heard that crap? Despite the true data's showing to the contrary and contradicting these so-called "Statistics", they are either distorted, suppressed and/or completely ignored by the feminazis. Of course, the feminazi's wouldn't want to upset the "cash cow" of the millions that is given by using your hard earned dollars to what is now well and truly an entrenched industry. A multitude of women's agencies and feminazis disguised as so-called social workers, psychologists,lawyers,judges,police, are deriving income solely based on the Domestic Violence propaganda that is being churned out from the presses and so-called staticians. As if feminazis were not enough, we have also, men sympatizers of the feminazis who are hard at work trying to ponder to the feminazis wishes and distribute all of this crap! One of these sympatizers is our own (Australian) Michael Flood! Well, what can I say about him? The men's movement has got a dossier as thick as an encyclopaedia book on him. Tick the links below and find out how one of our own Greg Andresen has been able to take the truth word- by- word from this "man". İt makes a very interesting reading indeed! Greg has also debunked another "stats" and also, wrote to the Prime Minister of Australia office to ask the pertinent questions about the campaign of "Violence against women - Australia says No" and the reply he got from that office. Both of these documents are linked below. Go ahead tick these links and read and enlighten yourself as we need to expose this scam to the world. Yours in arms. Harry Stanton

Spanish Feminists furious over this photo

Spanish Feminists furious over this photo
The ad according to feminists depicts male violence. Yeah Right!!!

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish.

What we knew for a long time

What we knew for a long time

FEMİNİST LOGİC No:2

Reason is useless.Thinking gets you nowhere.

It is intuition that enables a feminist to put two and two together and come up with any answer that suits her.
Some feminists have such good memories that they can even remember things that never happened.

İF YOU WANT TO KEEP THİS AND ENJOY İT......STAY SİNGLE!

İF YOU WANT TO KEEP THİS AND ENJOY İT......STAY SİNGLE!

http://everyman.org/

Why is there a need to create a case against feminism?

The primary reason that feminism requires debunking is that feminism is not about women. It is not for women. Feminism is about power for, and the political agenda of a small group of people, mostly women, who use women for their pawns, very much as Hitler used the German people to gain his personal goals. The mainstream media has been the willing accomplices in the feminist takeover of our society and therefore as guilty as the feminists themselves for the harm that has been done.

Feminism is based upon a lie. There is a significant difference between men and women and feminism tries to ignore or attack that difference. Books like "Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus" document the differences in even the method of thinking and communicating that men and women have. Other differences include the female’s natural tendency to nurture that males just do not have. Children are in essential need of this nurturing, which feminism is intent on removing. Men are inherently more aggressive than women. These differences are real but feminism, because an admission of this reality would destroy their movement, refuses to see them. Since all of their claims are based upon a rejection of fact, feminism is destined to come to false conclusions. This has been clearly demonstrated over the thirty plus years that their philosophy has held sway in this country.

Feminism is a cruel religion. It is cruel to women. It places women into positions that women are not equipped to handle, and allows them to be abused, raped or murdered because of where they have gone. For example, the military is clearly an unsafe place for a woman, even in peacetime, but feminism is pushing as hard as it can to increase the numbers of women in this dangerous, and manly world. The results have already been unacceptably cruel, but the push is still on. The huge number of law suits by women who are harassed daily in the workplace, clearly demonstrate the inability of women to work along side men without ridged controls which were never required when men worked only with other men. Even with these controls in place, a woman is forever at risk. Feminists have no concern whatsoever for these women. Their only concern is for extending their power and furthering their philosophy.

Feminism is antagonistic to children in the extreme. Children get in the way of the feminist agenda. Whenever something gets in their way, feminists use the power of government to insure that the obstruction gets run over. The feminists are happiest when they can eliminate the problem of children early on, through abortion. If a baby is killed, it won't slow down a woman at work, and cannot possibly tie her down to a homemaker role. This makes feminists happy. If they fail in killing the children, they next attempt to push children into day-care centers, where mothers can avoid the time consuming task of actually raising the little nuisances. Feminism wants to rid women of any ties to children. This is devastating to the children, if not actually fatal.

Feminism is anti-man. Their "A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle," motto is clearly a declaration of war on the institution of marriage. Men have no role in the feminist world and are merely considered an obstacle to be overcome or removed. The role of husband is now filled only as a temporary position and that is the way feminism likes it. In fact, from the feminist point of view, it is a superfluous role that should be eliminated completely.

Feminism is not compatible with civilization. No civilization is possible without families. Families are where children learn civilized behavior. The weaker the families are, and the more temporary they are, the weaker and more likely to fail is the civilization. Feminism is a dagger aimed right at the heart of families. If that dagger is successfully placed, our civilization is over.
Locations of visitors to this page

Friday, March 2, 2007

Man cannot make sacrifice only his duty, but, everything that a woman makes is a sacrifice......Bullocks!!!


I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU............................

This from a young American guy who’s giving lots of food for thought.

Divorce and “sacrifices”
If you go through a modern divorce in the West, the sacrifices your wife made during the marriage is key to how much she’ll be given of your wealth, and with some blubbing, some twisting of facts, some feminist double-think and plenty of lies, the sacrifices she made will be blown out of all proportion.

Naturally, any sacrifices you make will be regarded as irrelevent. In fact they’ll be twisted round to be seen as benefits you obtained on the back of your wife. Earning £100,000 a year at the end of your marriage? That’s half thanks to your wife and she’s entitled to half of that from now on. Nevermind if you only earned that amount through slogging your guts out and half-dying of stress, or if you barely got to spend any of that without asking your wife’s permission, or if you only crawled your way up the career ladder to keep up with her ever inflating material demands. Doesn’t matter. Pay her £50,000 a year after the divorce until she marries some other sucker. Get a pay-raise? So does she. Pay up. Or else, motherfucker.

Take careers. Now a woman will talk about “sacrificing - sob - my career”, which is clearly bollocks, given that they marry to quit their hated jobs (why else do they never marry guys beneath them status-wise, and thus unable to support them?) Claiming they sacrifice their careers is just a way of establishing victim-status before the divorce courts.

However, even if we accept the laughable notion that a woman quitting working 40-hours a week in a dreary office to stay at home and be provided for by a man counts as a sacrifice, so what? Why should she be compensated in any way? The man has made a sacrifice by providing for both himself and her, and possibly kids too, in that he has given up the choice of working the minimum necessary to support only himself. He’s sacrificed a stress-free life of responsible for no-one but himself, and possibly plenty of weekends out with the lads that he now spends them doing overtime.

Yet this is irrelevant to many women and certainly to the divorce courts. A man doesn’t make “sacrifices”, he merely does his duty, and damn him if he doesn’t. No matter that a man has sacrificed anything, all that they take into account is what the woman has given up, and thus she ought to be compensated. Most ludicrious of all is the insane belief that working is actually fun, when in fact it’s rubbish and, for most men, a means to an end. The opposite notion is put forth in divorce courts. A wife who gave up her job has made a tremendous sacrifice and requires compensation. The husband who, after marriage and after his wife quit her job, had to go from working 35-hours a week to working twice that has somehow benefited! Having all that fun virtually living at the office whilst his poor wikkle wife drags herself to lunch at Starbucks with her fellow ladies of leisure. Therefore she should be compensated by being allowed to keep their her hom e and half of her husband’s future income to compensate her. What bollocks.

This is reversed when the genders are switched, naturally. In the rare instances that a man quits his job after marriage whilst his wife works harder to support them both and their kids, then he’s a lazy slacker who, should it come to divorce, will be tossed out of their her home and told to be grateful his wife supported him by slaving away at work all those years.

This is why you are badly fucked if you are dumb enough to get married in the Matriarchy. Everything your new wife gives up that she liked (and the stuff she disliked, but later claims to have liked) and everything she has to do that she disliked (and the stuff she liked, but later claims to have disliked) during the marriage is your fault and she will get compensation if/when the divorce comes.

It doesn’t matter if she nagged and manipulated you into marriage. All she has to do in make out how much she had to give up - her job, her freedom, her youth, fucking whatever - after “he pressed me into marriage” and the judge in the divorce court will almost be wiping a tear from his - or, God forbid, her - eye before seeing to it that she receives just compensation for all this “hardship and sacrifice” in the form of lots of assets and cash from you.

Don’t even bother pointing out any sacrifices you made, or that you didn’t actually like - nor benefited from - working extra hard after your wife quit her job. That doesn’t matter. You’re a man, and in the eyes of divorce courts, that means you don’t matter.

Women are virtually immune from accountability and responsibility in the Matriarchal divorce process. It doesn’t matter if she filed for divorce (60% to 90% of divorces are filed by women in the West) for little or no reason. It doesn’t matter if she fought tooth and nail to get custody of the kids, even making up false allegations of abuse to ensure she takes them away from you. The fact is that she’s now a divorcee and single mother, and the judge will declare it was obviously your fault for being a bad husband and making her leave you and lumbering her with raising two children on her own, and the full force of law will be bought home to ensure you don’t shirk your duty and responsibilities to support your (voluntarily ex-)wife and your children (who you have little or no right to see again.)

Marriage is slavery for women, remember? That’s the feminist line, and the feminist line rules in family courts these days. Nothing else. Justice? That went out with the Patriarchy.

In the view of the feminist nazis of divorce courts in the West, by marrying your wife you will have enslaved her and made her give up her precious freedom and career, and you will pay for all of this. You will pay, for a long time.

Stay single. Obviously.

from:http://www.menz.org.nz/
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

At men's expense