The popular website TechCrunch recently promoted more male discrimination in the workplace with its article "No Boys Allowed, Women Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just For Women". The article advertised the formation of a new accelerator program called Women Innovate Mobile (WIM). This program was founded by three business women. Its purpose is to give women high salary jobs in technology.
WIM will start off small, offering two to five new mobile technology companies funding of $18,000, plus mentoring, support, and free office space in New York during the course of its initial program. However, a female must be the founder and in control of the new company. WIM has already attracted support from Bank of America and Forbes.
WIM’s Managing Director said females "remain severely underrepresented among mentor-driven accelerator programs. That’s why we developed an accelerator program just for women-led mobile ventures.” WIM claim's their program will provide another alternative to help the United States build companies and jobs. What she didn't mention is that the high paying jobs will be mainly for women.
The WIM representative also didn't mention that females are severely underrepresented as child support payers. However, no business women have formed a program to promote more women paying child support to their ex husbands.
The workplace discrimination policies of WIM are strikingly similar to the anti male student polices of America's corporate world. In the US, large corporations such as Walmart, Home Depot, Starbucks, Pfizer, Coldwell Banker, JP Morgan, Prudential and The General Electric Company donate hundreds of thousand of dollars every year to education grant programs with the stipulation the student cannot be male. This is one of the primary reasons why women outnumber men in higher education. Females students have more financial aid available to them. WIM's long range intention is to reproduce in the workplace the gender biased policies of American education.
WIM represents classic feminist double standard. Gender based programs designed to promote women into high paying jobs are considered good and even promoted by media outlets like TechCrunch. However, gender based programs designed to promote men into high paying fields, such as Nursing, are considered discriminatory. Additionally, gender based programs designed to help men gain equal access to higher education are considered illegal. Lastly, feminist have no programs designed to advance women into low paying, dirty jobs such as trash collector - despite the fact women are very underrepresented in this field.
Feminist strategy is to hand women more high paying "cushy" jobs. The low paying, dirty jobs shall remain mostly male.
Although WIM is only one small company, others will no doubt follow using the same female chauvinist (i.e. feminist) logic.
Feminists continuously form groups which emphasize gender as the primary determining factor for advancement.
Jezebel: Daughters Are Better Than Sons
The women's website "Jezebel.com" (ranked by Alexa Internet as a popular site worldwide) recently advocated increasing parents preference for daughters and decreasing their desire for sons. (Note: There is no shortage of girls. Most western countries have slightly more women than men. In fact, most countries of the world are close to a 1:1 male/female ratio).
In its article titled "Can Parents Be Convinced To Want Baby Girls" Jezebel stated "Anya Kamenetz {writing for Fast Company Magazine} ponders whether the global preference for male children could be budged with a well-thought-out ad campaign touting the benefits of female children ...One ad, produced by a group of female ad executives, claims that baby girls are better at collaborating, communicating and empathizing and thus will be the leaders of tomorrow. Another claims that a baby boy is 76% more likely to set something his parents own ablaze."
Kamenetz remarked: "In the 21st century, there's a compelling case for girls as the equal— and, in some cases, optimal— gender for roles in leadership, innovation, and economic growth. Women excel in education, the most crucial factor in tomorrow's workforce and women are more likely to have a balanced, empathetic leadership style, better communication skills, a knack for fostering innovation through collaboration".
If women are such empathetic leaders then why do most female politicians support paternity fraud and its resulting exploitation of husbands? Also, notice how female executives cooperated to create an ad stereotyping children. Thats innovative leadership? Its more like narrow minded arrogance. Additionally,women excel in American schools largely as a result of the AAUW (a women's group) reorganizing education so that girls have more academic assistance, more financial aid and more classes designed to appeal to them rather than boys. What happened to women's alleged balanced leadership style? Lastly, the fact both Kamenetz and Jezebel consider females the "optimal gender" for roles in leadership clearly shows a gender bigoted mentality that is equivalent to 1920's Alabama thinking which viewed whites as the optimal race.
Jezebel also said the "US Justice Department states 91% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are men."
This appears to be a 1999 statistic calculated by the University of California. Additionally, very few men are actually rapists. Finally, 100% of paternity fraud is committed by women and the vast majority of rape fraud is also committed by women. These facts makes Jezebel's insinuation that women are good while men are bad a complete female chauvinist farce. Both men AND WOMEN commit bad acts.
Lastly, the website summarized its views of males as "one bad man is capable of covering a lot of ground and hurting a lot of people". True, but so can one bad woman.
The sexist writers of this website judge people on the basis of their gender rather than their actions. And the mass of women viewing the website are no better.
One comment on this article signifies the response of virtually every single female reader. "Yeah, I don't understand this at all. Because the fact is that boys are much more likely to bully, to use drugs, to be violent, to go to jail. People way over glamorize boys."
Jezebel's article intended to prove women - not men - are open minded, sympathetic and innovative leaders therefore daughters are better than sons. Instead, Jezebel proved some women are narrow minded, egotistical jackasses.
In its article titled "Can Parents Be Convinced To Want Baby Girls" Jezebel stated "Anya Kamenetz {writing for Fast Company Magazine} ponders whether the global preference for male children could be budged with a well-thought-out ad campaign touting the benefits of female children ...One ad, produced by a group of female ad executives, claims that baby girls are better at collaborating, communicating and empathizing and thus will be the leaders of tomorrow. Another claims that a baby boy is 76% more likely to set something his parents own ablaze."
Kamenetz remarked: "In the 21st century, there's a compelling case for girls as the equal— and, in some cases, optimal— gender for roles in leadership, innovation, and economic growth. Women excel in education, the most crucial factor in tomorrow's workforce and women are more likely to have a balanced, empathetic leadership style, better communication skills, a knack for fostering innovation through collaboration".
If women are such empathetic leaders then why do most female politicians support paternity fraud and its resulting exploitation of husbands? Also, notice how female executives cooperated to create an ad stereotyping children. Thats innovative leadership? Its more like narrow minded arrogance. Additionally,women excel in American schools largely as a result of the AAUW (a women's group) reorganizing education so that girls have more academic assistance, more financial aid and more classes designed to appeal to them rather than boys. What happened to women's alleged balanced leadership style? Lastly, the fact both Kamenetz and Jezebel consider females the "optimal gender" for roles in leadership clearly shows a gender bigoted mentality that is equivalent to 1920's Alabama thinking which viewed whites as the optimal race.
Jezebel also said the "US Justice Department states 91% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are men."
This appears to be a 1999 statistic calculated by the University of California. Additionally, very few men are actually rapists. Finally, 100% of paternity fraud is committed by women and the vast majority of rape fraud is also committed by women. These facts makes Jezebel's insinuation that women are good while men are bad a complete female chauvinist farce. Both men AND WOMEN commit bad acts.
Lastly, the website summarized its views of males as "one bad man is capable of covering a lot of ground and hurting a lot of people". True, but so can one bad woman.
The sexist writers of this website judge people on the basis of their gender rather than their actions. And the mass of women viewing the website are no better.
One comment on this article signifies the response of virtually every single female reader. "Yeah, I don't understand this at all. Because the fact is that boys are much more likely to bully, to use drugs, to be violent, to go to jail. People way over glamorize boys."
Jezebel's article intended to prove women - not men - are open minded, sympathetic and innovative leaders therefore daughters are better than sons. Instead, Jezebel proved some women are narrow minded, egotistical jackasses.
November 30, 2011
The Hypocrite Wife and Happiness
A new book "The Secret Lives of Wives" by Iris Krasnow is being touted as a guideline for happy marriages. The book has been promoted by outlets such as The Today Show, CBS, The Huffington Post, Psychology Today and many others. Its philosphy is based on female double standard.
For example, the book emphasizes a wife should establish a strong, separate identity from her husband. She should create her "own space” and have freewheeling adventures away from the family where she can act “unmom”. However, happy relationships do not require women permitting their husbands the same freedoms. He doesn't need freewheeling adventures nor his "own space". This is why a husband is often criticized as being neglectful whenever he does any activity independent of his wife.
Additionally, the book insists a woman maintain a tight circle of girlfriends. This allows her an escape hatch from the challenges of marriage. However the hypocritical guidelines see no marital benefit for a man maintaining his friendships. Many women considered it demeaning if he needed an escape valve.
The author also emphasizes a married woman should increase her contacts with other men. For example, Krasnow credits her close relationships with her male buddies for some of her marital stability. She says, though not sexual, another man is fun to talk or flirt with. He is somebody to email after having a fight with your husband. Having a male flirtation can strengthen the marriage. Krasnow calls them "boyfriends with boundaries".
However, in classic hypocrisy, husbands having "girlfriends with boundaries" are unnecessary for marital stability. Flirting with other women is not seen as a way of strengthening the relationship.
The book goes even further and presents women who claim cheating on your husband can improve the marriage. One stated “If you avoid getting caught, a little affair can perk up a marriage,”. Another stated “My husband is only capable of doing so much, and it’s not enough,”. A different cheating wife said "A husband is your costar and a rock in your life. But if you’re a multidimensional person, you need a lot of different colors on your palette.” Promoting this aspect of the book, The Huffington Post linked to an article discussing Susan Shapiro Barash, a gender studies professor at Marymount Manhattan College. Ms Barash believes a wife's affair "is always about what’s missing from a marriage." The affair is the husband's fault & Barash claims cheating can empower women, raise their self esteem and allow them to renegotiate their marriage.
However, if these women's husbands begin having affairs of their own, Barash judges it differently. She believes it insults women. This is the mentality of a NARROW MINDED, FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIG - in other words a feminist.
The cheating women presented by Krasnow have this same mindset. They justify their affairs using an array of excuses. However, these hypocrites still demand their husbands remain faithful. It is considered sacrilegious if these men begin having affairs of their own.
Krasnow's book is misnamed. A more accurate title for her book would have been "Why Men Dont Get Married". They don't want to waste their life with a hypocrite wife.
For example, the book emphasizes a wife should establish a strong, separate identity from her husband. She should create her "own space” and have freewheeling adventures away from the family where she can act “unmom”. However, happy relationships do not require women permitting their husbands the same freedoms. He doesn't need freewheeling adventures nor his "own space". This is why a husband is often criticized as being neglectful whenever he does any activity independent of his wife.
Additionally, the book insists a woman maintain a tight circle of girlfriends. This allows her an escape hatch from the challenges of marriage. However the hypocritical guidelines see no marital benefit for a man maintaining his friendships. Many women considered it demeaning if he needed an escape valve.
The author also emphasizes a married woman should increase her contacts with other men. For example, Krasnow credits her close relationships with her male buddies for some of her marital stability. She says, though not sexual, another man is fun to talk or flirt with. He is somebody to email after having a fight with your husband. Having a male flirtation can strengthen the marriage. Krasnow calls them "boyfriends with boundaries".
However, in classic hypocrisy, husbands having "girlfriends with boundaries" are unnecessary for marital stability. Flirting with other women is not seen as a way of strengthening the relationship.
The book goes even further and presents women who claim cheating on your husband can improve the marriage. One stated “If you avoid getting caught, a little affair can perk up a marriage,”. Another stated “My husband is only capable of doing so much, and it’s not enough,”. A different cheating wife said "A husband is your costar and a rock in your life. But if you’re a multidimensional person, you need a lot of different colors on your palette.” Promoting this aspect of the book, The Huffington Post linked to an article discussing Susan Shapiro Barash, a gender studies professor at Marymount Manhattan College. Ms Barash believes a wife's affair "is always about what’s missing from a marriage." The affair is the husband's fault & Barash claims cheating can empower women, raise their self esteem and allow them to renegotiate their marriage.
However, if these women's husbands begin having affairs of their own, Barash judges it differently. She believes it insults women. This is the mentality of a NARROW MINDED, FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIG - in other words a feminist.
The cheating women presented by Krasnow have this same mindset. They justify their affairs using an array of excuses. However, these hypocrites still demand their husbands remain faithful. It is considered sacrilegious if these men begin having affairs of their own.
Krasnow's book is misnamed. A more accurate title for her book would have been "Why Men Dont Get Married". They don't want to waste their life with a hypocrite wife.
October 24, 2011
Saskatoon Bars Cater to Feminist Hypocrisy
A feminist anti-rape poster campaign in Saskatoon bars, coordinated with police, is targeting young men and informing them that drunk or unconscious women can’t consent to sex. Therefore, men having sex with these women will be charged with rape.
One of the posters features a woman who is passed out drunk along with a caption that reads: "Just because she’s not saying no … doesn’t mean she’s saying yes". Feminist, Heather Pocock, of the Saskatoon Sexual Assault and Information Centre stated the ads are refreshing because they target the offender [men], not the victim [women]. “We need to continue to address the issues of sexual assault and consent publicly and where males in the largest offending age group will see the posters and take a good look at themselves and their attitudes and behaviors towards women,” added Ms. Pocock. The Saskatoon Police Service's Jean-Marc Voisard stated men will be "held accountable for their behavior".
Very few men go to bars hoping a woman becomes unconscious so he can have sex with her. It would be like having sex with a corpse - simply disgusting. This narrow minded poster clearly shows feminists have absolutely no understanding of men. Additionally, the idea a drunk woman and a drunk man having sex is rape because drunk women cant give consent is blatant feminist hypocrisy.
Some women go to bars, get drunk, have sex with drunk men, then sober up the next morning realizing the guy doesn’t have much money or he didn’t ski in the Swiss Alps or have countless other reasons why they now regret having had sex with him. The Saskatoon Sexual Assault Centre classifies these incidents as rape. They claim women are not responsible for their behavior while drunk. NOT HOLDING WOMEN ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF FEMINISM.
However, in classic hypocrisy, feminist claim men ARE responsible for their actions while they are drunk. Drunk men will be held accountable by the law for their sexual conduct.
Thus a drunk man is responsible for both his actions and the woman's actions.
To further emphasize the law's female chauvinist double standard, consider what happens when a man gets drunk and has sex with a fat girl. The next morning, he sobers up, looks at her and regrets he had sex with her. The Saskatoon police and Ms Pocock do not demand the fat girl be arrested on rape charges. Its tough luck for the guy if he regrets his actions. Ms Pocock is a female chauvinist bullshtter - in other words she is a feminist.
Additionally, her claim men's attitudes toward women need to change is a farce. What needs to change is feminist attitudes about women and their idea that women are all honest and good. Feminist also need to change their female chauvinist behavior toward men.
Convict actual rapists not men whom women latter regret having slept with.
Any Saskatoon man falsely accused of rape as a result of these hypocrite laws should sue not only the girl but also Ms. Pocock and her Saskatoon sexist organization.
One of the posters features a woman who is passed out drunk along with a caption that reads: "Just because she’s not saying no … doesn’t mean she’s saying yes". Feminist, Heather Pocock, of the Saskatoon Sexual Assault and Information Centre stated the ads are refreshing because they target the offender [men], not the victim [women]. “We need to continue to address the issues of sexual assault and consent publicly and where males in the largest offending age group will see the posters and take a good look at themselves and their attitudes and behaviors towards women,” added Ms. Pocock. The Saskatoon Police Service's Jean-Marc Voisard stated men will be "held accountable for their behavior".
Very few men go to bars hoping a woman becomes unconscious so he can have sex with her. It would be like having sex with a corpse - simply disgusting. This narrow minded poster clearly shows feminists have absolutely no understanding of men. Additionally, the idea a drunk woman and a drunk man having sex is rape because drunk women cant give consent is blatant feminist hypocrisy.
Some women go to bars, get drunk, have sex with drunk men, then sober up the next morning realizing the guy doesn’t have much money or he didn’t ski in the Swiss Alps or have countless other reasons why they now regret having had sex with him. The Saskatoon Sexual Assault Centre classifies these incidents as rape. They claim women are not responsible for their behavior while drunk. NOT HOLDING WOMEN ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF FEMINISM.
However, in classic hypocrisy, feminist claim men ARE responsible for their actions while they are drunk. Drunk men will be held accountable by the law for their sexual conduct.
Thus a drunk man is responsible for both his actions and the woman's actions.
To further emphasize the law's female chauvinist double standard, consider what happens when a man gets drunk and has sex with a fat girl. The next morning, he sobers up, looks at her and regrets he had sex with her. The Saskatoon police and Ms Pocock do not demand the fat girl be arrested on rape charges. Its tough luck for the guy if he regrets his actions. Ms Pocock is a female chauvinist bullshtter - in other words she is a feminist.
Additionally, her claim men's attitudes toward women need to change is a farce. What needs to change is feminist attitudes about women and their idea that women are all honest and good. Feminist also need to change their female chauvinist behavior toward men.
Convict actual rapists not men whom women latter regret having slept with.
Any Saskatoon man falsely accused of rape as a result of these hypocrite laws should sue not only the girl but also Ms. Pocock and her Saskatoon sexist organization.
October 12, 2011
East Georgia College and American Education
At East Georgia College (EGC), a teacher became entangled with America's feminist control educational policies. However, he fought back.
Professor Thomas Thibeault's ordeal started shortly after an August 5, 2009, faculty training session on the school's sexual harassment policy. During the session he asked, "What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious or, in this case, ridiculous?" Mary Smith, Vice President for Legal Affairs, who was conducting the session, replied that there was no such provision to protect the accused. Thibeault then responded "the policy itself is flawed."
Thibeault is correct. Leaving the falsely accused unprotected,the vast majority of them being men, displays a classic feminist mentality. It is the same mentality responsible for the US Deptartment of Education's recent guidelines stating only minimal evidence of sexual assault is needed in order to remove a man from college.
According to Thomas Thibeault’s complaint, the next day, Mary Smith began a retaliatory crusade against him. "Smith summoned numerous East Georgia College's faculty and staff members to her office and demanded that they provide information about their interactions with Thibeault during his tenure with EGC." Two days after the training session, Thibeault was called to the office of EGC president John Bryant Black for a meeting with Mary Smith. The Professor was told to resign. In a letter detailing the events of the meeting, Thibeault wrote that he was told by Black he “was a divisive force in the college at a time when the college needed unity.” Additionally, the president also threatened to make public Thibeault’s “long history of sexual harassment” if he did not. The professor was unaware of any sexual harassement complaints against him and refused to resign. The president then had the police escort him off the campus. Thibeault understood this to mean he was fired.
The professor however hit back. He enlisted the help of an organization called FIRE (Foundation for the Individual Rights in Education). FIRE made Thibeault's case public and demanded evidence of any wrong doing. As a result, in October 2009 president Black wrote "I have made the decision that the evidence does not warrant the charge of sexual harassment."
However, Black did not withdraw his punishment of Thibeault, and the school did not renew Thibeault's contract. On August 5, 2010, Thibeault filed a lawsuit against Black, Smith, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
In a settlement, recently agreed upon, East Georgia College will pay $50,000 to Professor Thomas Thibeault, provide him with a letter of reference, and the Board of Regents will purge all documents "relating to Thibeault's termination" from his personnel file and all work history records. The defendants also agreed not to discuss those documents with others.
This case shows the level of control feminist have over the American education system. They make policy and can get teachers fired. However, this case also shows the feminist can be beaten. They are not invincible.
Professor Thomas Thibeault's ordeal started shortly after an August 5, 2009, faculty training session on the school's sexual harassment policy. During the session he asked, "What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious or, in this case, ridiculous?" Mary Smith, Vice President for Legal Affairs, who was conducting the session, replied that there was no such provision to protect the accused. Thibeault then responded "the policy itself is flawed."
Thibeault is correct. Leaving the falsely accused unprotected,the vast majority of them being men, displays a classic feminist mentality. It is the same mentality responsible for the US Deptartment of Education's recent guidelines stating only minimal evidence of sexual assault is needed in order to remove a man from college.
According to Thomas Thibeault’s complaint, the next day, Mary Smith began a retaliatory crusade against him. "Smith summoned numerous East Georgia College's faculty and staff members to her office and demanded that they provide information about their interactions with Thibeault during his tenure with EGC." Two days after the training session, Thibeault was called to the office of EGC president John Bryant Black for a meeting with Mary Smith. The Professor was told to resign. In a letter detailing the events of the meeting, Thibeault wrote that he was told by Black he “was a divisive force in the college at a time when the college needed unity.” Additionally, the president also threatened to make public Thibeault’s “long history of sexual harassment” if he did not. The professor was unaware of any sexual harassement complaints against him and refused to resign. The president then had the police escort him off the campus. Thibeault understood this to mean he was fired.
The professor however hit back. He enlisted the help of an organization called FIRE (Foundation for the Individual Rights in Education). FIRE made Thibeault's case public and demanded evidence of any wrong doing. As a result, in October 2009 president Black wrote "I have made the decision that the evidence does not warrant the charge of sexual harassment."
However, Black did not withdraw his punishment of Thibeault, and the school did not renew Thibeault's contract. On August 5, 2010, Thibeault filed a lawsuit against Black, Smith, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
In a settlement, recently agreed upon, East Georgia College will pay $50,000 to Professor Thomas Thibeault, provide him with a letter of reference, and the Board of Regents will purge all documents "relating to Thibeault's termination" from his personnel file and all work history records. The defendants also agreed not to discuss those documents with others.
This case shows the level of control feminist have over the American education system. They make policy and can get teachers fired. However, this case also shows the feminist can be beaten. They are not invincible.
September 12, 2011
Montgomery County False Sexual Assault Claim
A Montgomery County, Texas woman called police claiming her male friend had sexually attacked her in his apartment.
Two officers were then sent to the apartment to investigate the incident. The women told the two officers that her 26-year-old male friend had sexually assaulted her. However, upon further investigation, the deputies watched a video recording the male had made that showed the woman telling him that she was calling the police because he was making her leave the apartment and she would tell the police he assaulted her. After the Montgomery County officers viewed this video, the woman was arrested. Her name has not been released.
What would have happened if this guy did NOT make the video? He would have most likely been wrongly arrested and spent an undetermined time in jail on false charges. Yet feminist continue to claim that women don’t lie about sex crimes.
Furthermore, the fact that the woman's name has not been released appears to indicate the Montgomery County court wants the incident out of public view so they can quietly either dismiss all charges or levy only a small fine. This woman made the false sexual assault complaint because she knew there would be only a small chance she would be punished.
In feminist America, women generally are not held accountable for their actions.
Consider the example of Joanne Baldwin. She was married to actor Dan Baldwin. Earlier this summer, Dan said police told him to take the couple's two children out of the house when the children witnessed Joanne punching him in the face. Additionally, Dan said his wife had watched a documentary on women who killed their husbands and quoted her as saying "'Now I know how to do it, I understand why they did it. You have been warned. Move out of this house or I am going to kill you."
She has received precisely no jail time for what in essence is a domestic violence incident. Additionally, the documentary on killing husbands, no doubt offered an array of excuses on why the wives should not be held accountable for their actions. (And these nitwits can't figure out why men increasingly avoid marriage).
Consider also the recent story of 28 year old wife Amanda Leann Kueht from Houston. She is a substance abuse counselor who was caught in a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy. Yet many Houston press commenters are stating she did nothing wrong and is a good person.
This wife cheats on her husband - WITH A MINOR- lies to her husband's face and demands he be faithful to her. Yet people claim she is good person. Imagine if the roles were reversed and it was discovered her husband was dating a 16 year old girl. Think he would be categorized as a good person?
In feminist America, women generally are not held accountable for their actions - definitely not to the same degree as men.
Two officers were then sent to the apartment to investigate the incident. The women told the two officers that her 26-year-old male friend had sexually assaulted her. However, upon further investigation, the deputies watched a video recording the male had made that showed the woman telling him that she was calling the police because he was making her leave the apartment and she would tell the police he assaulted her. After the Montgomery County officers viewed this video, the woman was arrested. Her name has not been released.
What would have happened if this guy did NOT make the video? He would have most likely been wrongly arrested and spent an undetermined time in jail on false charges. Yet feminist continue to claim that women don’t lie about sex crimes.
Furthermore, the fact that the woman's name has not been released appears to indicate the Montgomery County court wants the incident out of public view so they can quietly either dismiss all charges or levy only a small fine. This woman made the false sexual assault complaint because she knew there would be only a small chance she would be punished.
In feminist America, women generally are not held accountable for their actions.
Consider the example of Joanne Baldwin. She was married to actor Dan Baldwin. Earlier this summer, Dan said police told him to take the couple's two children out of the house when the children witnessed Joanne punching him in the face. Additionally, Dan said his wife had watched a documentary on women who killed their husbands and quoted her as saying "'Now I know how to do it, I understand why they did it. You have been warned. Move out of this house or I am going to kill you."
She has received precisely no jail time for what in essence is a domestic violence incident. Additionally, the documentary on killing husbands, no doubt offered an array of excuses on why the wives should not be held accountable for their actions. (And these nitwits can't figure out why men increasingly avoid marriage).
Consider also the recent story of 28 year old wife Amanda Leann Kueht from Houston. She is a substance abuse counselor who was caught in a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy. Yet many Houston press commenters are stating she did nothing wrong and is a good person.
This wife cheats on her husband - WITH A MINOR- lies to her husband's face and demands he be faithful to her. Yet people claim she is good person. Imagine if the roles were reversed and it was discovered her husband was dating a 16 year old girl. Think he would be categorized as a good person?
In feminist America, women generally are not held accountable for their actions - definitely not to the same degree as men.
August 15, 2011
US Military Integrity Wilting Under Feminism
The Associated Press stated a married Naval officer and a married female Army soldier had an inappropriate relationship. The naval officer was identified as Capt. Robert Gamberg.
Because of this relationship, the Navy has removed Gamberg from his post as the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier's second in command. Additionally, the Navy is now considering kicking him out of the service. Rear Adm. Ted Branch, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic, has recommended that Gamberg be required to show why he should be allowed to remain in the Navy.
However, the United States Military has refused to identify the married female soldier. The Navy said revealing her identity and any other parties involved would be "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
The US military command appears to be frightened of feminists.
One of the fundamental principals of feminism is that cheating wives should be held to a different accountability standard than cheating husbands. If the Navy revealed the wife's name than this principal would be violated.
An example of this accountability double standard was displayed during the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger affair. Media outlets such as Forbes, Associated Press, TIME, the Huffington Post and others described Schwarzenegger as just another philandering, womanizing husband and asked "How could he have had a child with another women?" "How could he have deceived his wife for so long?" Yet, the woman whom he had child with (Mildred Baena) was also married at the time. She had lied to her husband, telling him the child was his. Reports indicate her husband raised the child for 11 years believing the boy was his son. Only in 2008, during the divorce, did he find out he was lied to. THIS MAN WAS A VICTIM OF PATERNITY FRAUD. None of America's feminist media outlets had a problem with Mildred's cheating, lying and fraud. None of the female chauvinist reporters asked "How could SHE have deceived HER HUSBAND for so long". She was not held accountable.
The military's humiliating a cheating husband but shielding a cheating wife indicates the Department of Defense (DOD) is beginning to wilt under feminist pressure. The DOD is losing its sense of integrity and replacing it with chauvinistic double standards. How can a government institution charged with coordinating operations for the defense of the nation not even defend itself against feminism?
The DOD is becoming another government institution infiltrated by a chauvinistic and corrupt ideology. If feminism has not already negatively impacted the military's efficiency then it will do so in the near future.
Because of this relationship, the Navy has removed Gamberg from his post as the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier's second in command. Additionally, the Navy is now considering kicking him out of the service. Rear Adm. Ted Branch, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic, has recommended that Gamberg be required to show why he should be allowed to remain in the Navy.
However, the United States Military has refused to identify the married female soldier. The Navy said revealing her identity and any other parties involved would be "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
The US military command appears to be frightened of feminists.
One of the fundamental principals of feminism is that cheating wives should be held to a different accountability standard than cheating husbands. If the Navy revealed the wife's name than this principal would be violated.
An example of this accountability double standard was displayed during the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger affair. Media outlets such as Forbes, Associated Press, TIME, the Huffington Post and others described Schwarzenegger as just another philandering, womanizing husband and asked "How could he have had a child with another women?" "How could he have deceived his wife for so long?" Yet, the woman whom he had child with (Mildred Baena) was also married at the time. She had lied to her husband, telling him the child was his. Reports indicate her husband raised the child for 11 years believing the boy was his son. Only in 2008, during the divorce, did he find out he was lied to. THIS MAN WAS A VICTIM OF PATERNITY FRAUD. None of America's feminist media outlets had a problem with Mildred's cheating, lying and fraud. None of the female chauvinist reporters asked "How could SHE have deceived HER HUSBAND for so long". She was not held accountable.
The military's humiliating a cheating husband but shielding a cheating wife indicates the Department of Defense (DOD) is beginning to wilt under feminist pressure. The DOD is losing its sense of integrity and replacing it with chauvinistic double standards. How can a government institution charged with coordinating operations for the defense of the nation not even defend itself against feminism?
The DOD is becoming another government institution infiltrated by a chauvinistic and corrupt ideology. If feminism has not already negatively impacted the military's efficiency then it will do so in the near future.
July 15, 2011
Anti Male College Environment
The U.S. Department of Education has issued new guidelines on sexual violence to US colleges. These guidelines state only a “preponderance of the evidence" rather than "clear and convincing evidence" is needed for determining guilt in sexual assault. Preponderance is defined as a 51% chance an assault occurred. Thus if there is a 51% chance a male student is guilty, he can be kicked out of college.
These new guidelines will be in effect for the coming school year & and are primarily the work of assistant secretary for civil rights, Russlynn Ali. She is an avowed feminist. Ali has threatened to withhold federal funding to any school not following these instructions.
The new guidelines apply only to sexual harassment and sexual assault. They do not apply to false rape. Thus, conclusive evidence is NOT necessary for a man to be found guilty of sexual assault. However, conclusive evidence IS necessary for a woman to be found guilty of making a fraudulent rape claim. This double standard is magnified by the fact two researchers (Frank Zepezauer and Eugene Kanin), in separate studies, concluded 25% of rape complaints were fraudulent. (Note: Feminist claim rape fraud, if it exists, is no more than 2%. They claim lying is a male characteristic).
Ali stated "one in five [college] women are victims of completed or attempted sexual assault." According to Christina Hoff Sommers, Ali based her statistic on an internet survey which asked college women about their sexual experiences. Sommers said 'the researchers—not the women themselves—decided whether they [college women] had been assaulted." Sommers also stated the researchers used a wide ranging definition of sexual assault that included "attempted forced kissing" and female students having sex while they were drunk. Researchers considered the drunken state of male students as irrelevant. Therefore, if 2 drunk students have sex and the female latter regrets it, the incident is classified as sexual assault. The male student will be kicked out of college. HOWEVER, if its the male student who latter regrets having sex (for example with a fat girl) it is classified as nothing.
This study is based on chauvinistic double standards yet it will be the foundation for university disciplinary policies.
Furthermore, many states define sexual harassment as sexual assault. The definition of sexual harassment is lenient. For example it includes "inappropriate looking" or unwanted attention. In a college environment, if a fat or geeky male student looks at a female student, its deemed sexual harassment which in turn means its sexual assault. Under Ali's guidelines, school's can expel these men for sexual assault without conclusive evidence. However if a fat girl gives a male student unwanted attention its deemed as "her right" rather than harassment.
Ali is full of female chauvinist crap. (In other words she is a feminist).
If the Office of Civil Rights is so interested in campus safety, where is their regulations controlling egotistical muscle heads? These "gentlemen" often behave as if they own everybody. There is more likely to be an assault by a muscle head than there is a rape on campus. Yet the Office of Civil Rights is unconcerned. Could this be because muscle heads almost always attack male students rather than female students?
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S NEW GUIDELINES ARE SEXIST. They make it easier to kick men out of college and prevent them from obtaining a higher education. In fact many of the Department’s regulations are based entirely on sexual harassment definitions issued by a feminist group called the American Association of University Women (AAUW). The AAUW has caused boys as young as 4 years old to be accused of sexual harassment.
Ali's new guidelines, in conjunction with the AAUW's definitions help create a hostile college learning environment for males. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF TITLE IX.
In the coming year, male students which are fraudulently suspended as a result of these new rules should file a Title IX class action sex discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education. Russlynn Ali and the AAUW should be held accountable for their actions.
These new guidelines will be in effect for the coming school year & and are primarily the work of assistant secretary for civil rights, Russlynn Ali. She is an avowed feminist. Ali has threatened to withhold federal funding to any school not following these instructions.
The new guidelines apply only to sexual harassment and sexual assault. They do not apply to false rape. Thus, conclusive evidence is NOT necessary for a man to be found guilty of sexual assault. However, conclusive evidence IS necessary for a woman to be found guilty of making a fraudulent rape claim. This double standard is magnified by the fact two researchers (Frank Zepezauer and Eugene Kanin), in separate studies, concluded 25% of rape complaints were fraudulent. (Note: Feminist claim rape fraud, if it exists, is no more than 2%. They claim lying is a male characteristic).
Ali stated "one in five [college] women are victims of completed or attempted sexual assault." According to Christina Hoff Sommers, Ali based her statistic on an internet survey which asked college women about their sexual experiences. Sommers said 'the researchers—not the women themselves—decided whether they [college women] had been assaulted." Sommers also stated the researchers used a wide ranging definition of sexual assault that included "attempted forced kissing" and female students having sex while they were drunk. Researchers considered the drunken state of male students as irrelevant. Therefore, if 2 drunk students have sex and the female latter regrets it, the incident is classified as sexual assault. The male student will be kicked out of college. HOWEVER, if its the male student who latter regrets having sex (for example with a fat girl) it is classified as nothing.
This study is based on chauvinistic double standards yet it will be the foundation for university disciplinary policies.
Furthermore, many states define sexual harassment as sexual assault. The definition of sexual harassment is lenient. For example it includes "inappropriate looking" or unwanted attention. In a college environment, if a fat or geeky male student looks at a female student, its deemed sexual harassment which in turn means its sexual assault. Under Ali's guidelines, school's can expel these men for sexual assault without conclusive evidence. However if a fat girl gives a male student unwanted attention its deemed as "her right" rather than harassment.
Ali is full of female chauvinist crap. (In other words she is a feminist).
If the Office of Civil Rights is so interested in campus safety, where is their regulations controlling egotistical muscle heads? These "gentlemen" often behave as if they own everybody. There is more likely to be an assault by a muscle head than there is a rape on campus. Yet the Office of Civil Rights is unconcerned. Could this be because muscle heads almost always attack male students rather than female students?
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S NEW GUIDELINES ARE SEXIST. They make it easier to kick men out of college and prevent them from obtaining a higher education. In fact many of the Department’s regulations are based entirely on sexual harassment definitions issued by a feminist group called the American Association of University Women (AAUW). The AAUW has caused boys as young as 4 years old to be accused of sexual harassment.
Ali's new guidelines, in conjunction with the AAUW's definitions help create a hostile college learning environment for males. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF TITLE IX.
In the coming year, male students which are fraudulently suspended as a result of these new rules should file a Title IX class action sex discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education. Russlynn Ali and the AAUW should be held accountable for their actions.
June 15, 2011
Killer Moms and Feminism
The Huffington Post (an American news website) recently wrote an article titled "Mothers Who Kill Children". Its purpose was to promote a separate judicial standard for women. The article was based on research by feminist professors Michelle Oberman and Cheryl Meyer. These professors claim moms kill their children as a result of 1 of 5 circumstances:
As can be seen, most of these circumstances blame somebody other than the murdering mom.
The Huffington Post claimed these mothers are isolated in life and should be given sympathy. They quote Penn State professor Lita Linzer Schwartz who states "These women almost always feel alone, with a total lack of emotional support," and "Women need better treatment not only before, but after [their actions]. They get tormented in prison, when often what they need is psychological care." Schwartz also claimed women are rarely checked for mental illness after their crimes.
Notice that it is women (only) who should get treatment. There is no mention of fathers who kill their kids getting treatment. And, although female criminals are rarely checked for mental illness, neither are male criminals. The Huffington Post is promoting the idea justice should be based on gender not actions.
Schwartz continued "We see cases where the mother thinks the child would be better off in heaven than on this miserable earth,". The Post added 'for example [living] with an abusive father'. Oberman was then quoted "Almost all these women are not in their right minds (when they commit these acts),"
This is another way of saying moms should not be held to the same accountability standard as dads who kill their children. Mom is said to be ill but dad is said to be a murderer. This double standard has its roots in feminist philosophy. It is based on the feminist idea that women are all good and men are all rotten.
The Post then gives the example of Lashanda Armstrong, a mom who drove with her children into the Hudson River because her husband had cheated. Before she killed herself and her kids Armstrong is claimed to have said "If I'm going to die, you're all going to die with me." The Post claims women like Armstrong see themselves as a good mother performing a good deed. They quote Oberman "Once she decides she can't bear the pain anymore, she thinks,`what would a good mother do?'"
However in a previous article, the Huffington Post presented the James Harrison case completely different. Harrison was a dad who shot his kids & himself after the family learned the wife had been cheating and she was going to leave them for the other man. Harrision was presented as a control freak and murder who should be given no sympathy. His wife's aunt was interviewed and she emphasized Harrison was controlling. Harrison's relatives, however, were ignored. (In the Armstrong case, the wife's aunt was also interviewed while the husband's relatives were ignored. The Post concluded the Harrison article with a quote from a neighbor "God Bless the five little ones. God bring peace to Mom."
The Huffington Post is an example of how the American media subtly promotes a feminist two tiered judicial system. They write one article, based on a feminist study, use sympathetic quotes about a particular female criminal, and emphasize woman should be given help not punishment. They write another article, about a man who commits the same crime and portray him as a controlling thug who should be given punishment not help.
Judicial punishment should be based solely on an individual's actions. Gender is NOT relevant. Unfortunately, the media promotes the feminist idea of a two-tiered judicial system - one for men and a separate one for woman.
- an ignored pregnancy;
- abuse-related;
- neglect-related;
- assisted or coerced filicide (such as when a partner forces the killing);
- purposeful filicide with the mother acting alone.
As can be seen, most of these circumstances blame somebody other than the murdering mom.
The Huffington Post claimed these mothers are isolated in life and should be given sympathy. They quote Penn State professor Lita Linzer Schwartz who states "These women almost always feel alone, with a total lack of emotional support," and "Women need better treatment not only before, but after [their actions]. They get tormented in prison, when often what they need is psychological care." Schwartz also claimed women are rarely checked for mental illness after their crimes.
Notice that it is women (only) who should get treatment. There is no mention of fathers who kill their kids getting treatment. And, although female criminals are rarely checked for mental illness, neither are male criminals. The Huffington Post is promoting the idea justice should be based on gender not actions.
Schwartz continued "We see cases where the mother thinks the child would be better off in heaven than on this miserable earth,". The Post added 'for example [living] with an abusive father'. Oberman was then quoted "Almost all these women are not in their right minds (when they commit these acts),"
This is another way of saying moms should not be held to the same accountability standard as dads who kill their children. Mom is said to be ill but dad is said to be a murderer. This double standard has its roots in feminist philosophy. It is based on the feminist idea that women are all good and men are all rotten.
The Post then gives the example of Lashanda Armstrong, a mom who drove with her children into the Hudson River because her husband had cheated. Before she killed herself and her kids Armstrong is claimed to have said "If I'm going to die, you're all going to die with me." The Post claims women like Armstrong see themselves as a good mother performing a good deed. They quote Oberman "Once she decides she can't bear the pain anymore, she thinks,`what would a good mother do?'"
However in a previous article, the Huffington Post presented the James Harrison case completely different. Harrison was a dad who shot his kids & himself after the family learned the wife had been cheating and she was going to leave them for the other man. Harrision was presented as a control freak and murder who should be given no sympathy. His wife's aunt was interviewed and she emphasized Harrison was controlling. Harrison's relatives, however, were ignored. (In the Armstrong case, the wife's aunt was also interviewed while the husband's relatives were ignored. The Post concluded the Harrison article with a quote from a neighbor "God Bless the five little ones. God bring peace to Mom."
The Huffington Post is an example of how the American media subtly promotes a feminist two tiered judicial system. They write one article, based on a feminist study, use sympathetic quotes about a particular female criminal, and emphasize woman should be given help not punishment. They write another article, about a man who commits the same crime and portray him as a controlling thug who should be given punishment not help.
Judicial punishment should be based solely on an individual's actions. Gender is NOT relevant. Unfortunately, the media promotes the feminist idea of a two-tiered judicial system - one for men and a separate one for woman.
May 25, 2011
Colorado Teacher Sex Offender
In January, Courtney Bowles, 31, a Mountain View High School employee was discovered by a police officer, having sex with a 16 year old male student. Police say she and the boy were found naked in a car at Loveland Park in Colorado. Bowles was employed by the high school as an Instructional Coach. Supposedly, an Instructional Coach works with school teachers to improve their classroom instruction and interaction skills with students.
Despite the fact Prosecutor Renee Doak requested Bowles be sentenced to jail and despite the fact police were witness to the crime, Judge Stephen Howard ruled Bowles be set free. She will serve no jail time. Instead, Bowles must perform 80 hours of community service, serve 10 years on probation and register as a sex offender. She is also prohibited from seeing minors under the age of 18.
Although Bowles resigned from her high school job, her lawyer said she now has a new job. Thus, in essence, she received practically no punishment at all. Even her community sentence is puny - only 80 hours. This can be completed within two months while she works.
Explaining his light sentencing, Judge Howard stated "“she has already been adequately punished, and this will be an ongoing thing for many years."” He also said the 16-year-old caught having sex with Bowles asked the judge for the least punishment possible.
How has she already been adequately punished? Because she lost her teaching related career? Being removed from employment is standard punishment for every teacher caught having sex with underage students. Losing a job is rarely deemed as adequate punishment for sex offenders especially those cases involving male instructors. Additionally, in past cases involving male teachers, many 16 year old girls have requested leniency for the accused. Justices routinely brush these girls' request aside. Lastly Prosecutor Doak argued that the victim in the case has dealt with consequences, as well. "His life has been affected by this," she said. "His schooling has been affected by this. He feels like he's being treated differently and might have to change schools."
The outcome of the Courtney Bowles case is similar to the infamous Debra Lafave case.
Obviously, some judges remain stuck in an obsolete feminist / white knight philosophy. They adhere to the idea that women should not be held to the same accountability standards as men. They believe adult women should not be held fully responsible for their actions.
Courtney Bowles is married with two children. Her husband, understandably, has filed for a divorce.
Despite the fact Prosecutor Renee Doak requested Bowles be sentenced to jail and despite the fact police were witness to the crime, Judge Stephen Howard ruled Bowles be set free. She will serve no jail time. Instead, Bowles must perform 80 hours of community service, serve 10 years on probation and register as a sex offender. She is also prohibited from seeing minors under the age of 18.
Although Bowles resigned from her high school job, her lawyer said she now has a new job. Thus, in essence, she received practically no punishment at all. Even her community sentence is puny - only 80 hours. This can be completed within two months while she works.
Explaining his light sentencing, Judge Howard stated "“she has already been adequately punished, and this will be an ongoing thing for many years."” He also said the 16-year-old caught having sex with Bowles asked the judge for the least punishment possible.
How has she already been adequately punished? Because she lost her teaching related career? Being removed from employment is standard punishment for every teacher caught having sex with underage students. Losing a job is rarely deemed as adequate punishment for sex offenders especially those cases involving male instructors. Additionally, in past cases involving male teachers, many 16 year old girls have requested leniency for the accused. Justices routinely brush these girls' request aside. Lastly Prosecutor Doak argued that the victim in the case has dealt with consequences, as well. "His life has been affected by this," she said. "His schooling has been affected by this. He feels like he's being treated differently and might have to change schools."
The outcome of the Courtney Bowles case is similar to the infamous Debra Lafave case.
Obviously, some judges remain stuck in an obsolete feminist / white knight philosophy. They adhere to the idea that women should not be held to the same accountability standards as men. They believe adult women should not be held fully responsible for their actions.
Courtney Bowles is married with two children. Her husband, understandably, has filed for a divorce.
May 11, 2011
Wall Street Journal Advocates Eliminating Fraternities
The Wall Street Journal recently advocated eliminating college fraternities with its article titled "Shutter Fraternities for Young Women's Good".
The author, a feminist named Ms. Flanagan, claimed fraternities are dedicated to "providing [men] with a variety of he-man activities: drinking, drugging, ESPN watching and the sexual mistreatment of women."
If fraternities are such rape factories then why do girls constantly attend their house parties?. Also, if drinking is 'he-man' then why are sororities known for their drinking and partying. Additionally, according to a Psych Central article 'Dramatic Increase in Drinking Among Women College Students', binge drinking among female college students has risen by 40% in 25 years. A 2005 study published by the National Institute of Health concluded "membership in a fraternity or sorority is associated with considerably greater than average increases in heavy episodic drinking and annual marijuana use during college." Lastly, what’s wrong with watching ESPN?
The journalist then stated "A 2007 National Institute of Justice (NIS) study found that about one in five women are victims of sexual assault in college; almost all of those incidents go unreported."
If they were unreported then how did National Institute of Justice discover them? Additionally, I was unable to discover the 2007 study. However, the NIS did list a 2000 study titled "Extent and Nature of the Sexual Victimization of College Women" which stated "A survey of college women found that 2.8 percent of the sample had experienced either a completed rape (1.7 percent) or an attempted rape (1.1 percent)." Its hard to believe that sexual assaults against college women have risen to 20% in a mere 7 years.
The feminist author then claimed a fraternity prank by Delta Kappa Epsilon of Yale is another reason why these affiliations should be closed. She stated "a mob of pledges chanted 'No Means Yes! Yes Means Anal!' and other enlightening slogans. Can the mere presence of slur chanting fraternity men really create an environment that robs young women of equal opportunity to education? Yes, it can."
It is ironic a feminist claims fraternities deny women equal education opportunities when approximately 50% more women go to college than men. It is even more ironic considering the reason for this gender discrepancy is feminism.
A feminist group called the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) is responsible for the anti male culture throughout the American school system. Boys as young as 4 have been charged with sexual harassment and suspended. Think about that - a 4 year old boy! The NWLC demands all schools be financially liable for incidents deemed as sexual harassment. Since schools have no money to defend themselves against NWLC lawsuits, its easier to suspend little boys for any reason. Ultimately, boys learn to become detached from school and are less likely to advance into higher education. Another feminist group, the American Association of University Women has blocked every single attempted school reform designed to help increase boys performance & interest in school. They insist girls should remain the focus of education. This group also pressures corporations such as WalMart and Home Depot for donations to college grants which have the stipulation the student cannot be male.
IT IS FEMINISTS THAT CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ROBS YOUNG MEN OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATION.
Ms. Flanagan concluded "If you want to improve women's lives on campus, if you want to give them a fair shot at living and learning as freely as men, the first thing you could do is close down the fraternities."
Fraternities do not prevent women from obtaining an education. This is not to say all fraternity brothers are angels. Some are egotistical and arrogant. The same, however, can be said of sorority girls. One is not better than the other.
This Wall Street Journal article gives the average person insight into the feminist mindset. Their sexist philosphy of 'men ruin society' is clearly displayed.
The author, a feminist named Ms. Flanagan, claimed fraternities are dedicated to "providing [men] with a variety of he-man activities: drinking, drugging, ESPN watching and the sexual mistreatment of women."
If fraternities are such rape factories then why do girls constantly attend their house parties?. Also, if drinking is 'he-man' then why are sororities known for their drinking and partying. Additionally, according to a Psych Central article 'Dramatic Increase in Drinking Among Women College Students', binge drinking among female college students has risen by 40% in 25 years. A 2005 study published by the National Institute of Health concluded "membership in a fraternity or sorority is associated with considerably greater than average increases in heavy episodic drinking and annual marijuana use during college." Lastly, what’s wrong with watching ESPN?
The journalist then stated "A 2007 National Institute of Justice (NIS) study found that about one in five women are victims of sexual assault in college; almost all of those incidents go unreported."
If they were unreported then how did National Institute of Justice discover them? Additionally, I was unable to discover the 2007 study. However, the NIS did list a 2000 study titled "Extent and Nature of the Sexual Victimization of College Women" which stated "A survey of college women found that 2.8 percent of the sample had experienced either a completed rape (1.7 percent) or an attempted rape (1.1 percent)." Its hard to believe that sexual assaults against college women have risen to 20% in a mere 7 years.
The feminist author then claimed a fraternity prank by Delta Kappa Epsilon of Yale is another reason why these affiliations should be closed. She stated "a mob of pledges chanted 'No Means Yes! Yes Means Anal!' and other enlightening slogans. Can the mere presence of slur chanting fraternity men really create an environment that robs young women of equal opportunity to education? Yes, it can."
It is ironic a feminist claims fraternities deny women equal education opportunities when approximately 50% more women go to college than men. It is even more ironic considering the reason for this gender discrepancy is feminism.
A feminist group called the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) is responsible for the anti male culture throughout the American school system. Boys as young as 4 have been charged with sexual harassment and suspended. Think about that - a 4 year old boy! The NWLC demands all schools be financially liable for incidents deemed as sexual harassment. Since schools have no money to defend themselves against NWLC lawsuits, its easier to suspend little boys for any reason. Ultimately, boys learn to become detached from school and are less likely to advance into higher education. Another feminist group, the American Association of University Women has blocked every single attempted school reform designed to help increase boys performance & interest in school. They insist girls should remain the focus of education. This group also pressures corporations such as WalMart and Home Depot for donations to college grants which have the stipulation the student cannot be male.
IT IS FEMINISTS THAT CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ROBS YOUNG MEN OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATION.
Ms. Flanagan concluded "If you want to improve women's lives on campus, if you want to give them a fair shot at living and learning as freely as men, the first thing you could do is close down the fraternities."
Fraternities do not prevent women from obtaining an education. This is not to say all fraternity brothers are angels. Some are egotistical and arrogant. The same, however, can be said of sorority girls. One is not better than the other.
This Wall Street Journal article gives the average person insight into the feminist mindset. Their sexist philosphy of 'men ruin society' is clearly displayed.
April 26, 2011
Male Suicide, Marriage and Unemployment
In the US, the suicide rate for men is four times that of women. Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men according to National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Yet, little has been done to address the problem. "Men in the overall U.S. population just haven't been the focus of a lot of suicide-prevention efforts," stated Kerry L. Knox, Ph.D., director of the Canandaigua Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Based on studies by Thomas Joiner, Ph.D, a professor of psychology at Florida State University and Professor John Macdonald, Co director of the the Men's Health Information and Resource Centre (MHIRC) in Australia, it appears, the two primary reasons causing the majority of male suicides is marriage and unemployment.
Joiner estimates that "romantic disruptions" and other relationship issues trigger depressive episodes in about 75 percent of men between the ages of 20 and 40 who commit suicide. Macdonald stated "Many men are overwhelmed by social problems like unemployment, family break-ups and not having access to their children. When a number of these social factors come together, they can be enough to send a man over the edge and contemplate self-harm,". Additionally, MSNBC Health ('Male Suicide' 2008) states "Data going back decades shows that, like clockwork, economic downturns push more men over the brink — a fact that should concern us all now. Men draw much of their identity from their careers, and when unemployment rises, that underpinning falls away." Lastly Lisa Firestone, Ph.D., a suicide expert stated "Especially in their early 20s, guys can think, This one person was right for me, I've lost her, and it's all over,". She continued "They lack the perspective that they're going to have other relationships, maybe even better relationships"
The fact relationships appear a major factor in male suicide indicates some men need a more realistic outlook about marriage. These men still have obsolete notions of marriage being everything. Being divorced or single is viewed as the end of the world.
At one time, having a wife meant having a companion. Someone who would care about you and help you in life. Those days are gone. Today, modern marriage is centered on the wife. Partnership is discouraged in women's literature. As emphasized by Parenting Magazine (Mad at Dad 2009) and repeated by many women's websites, husbands are now expected to do - at minimum - 50% of house chores. However, wives are not be expected to help husbands with housing repairs, auto maintenance or other similar tasks. These are deemed the "husband's job". Additionally, as emphasized by women's literature, house chores and husband's jobs must be completed according to the wife's time schedule. Her husband's viewpoint does not matter.
Any wife that helps her husband or considers his opinions is criticised in women's literature as subservient. Additionally, she will also be the target of peer pressure from other women to change her behavior toward her husband.
Also, in modern marriage, husbands are used as baby sitters so the wife can have her weekly 'girls night out". This is especially true if she wants to stay out late clubbing. However, boys night out is frowned upon. This is especially true if he wants stay out late clubbing. He will be considered a deadbeat.
Lastly, if a late night girls outing results in an extra maritial affair and pregnancy, its tough luck for the husband if he discovers the child isn't his. Nearly all states have laws supporting paternity fraud. The hapless husband must raise & finance the child. The sleezebag other man will have no obligations.
Modern wives are taught to view their husbands as living room decorations.
More men should be educated about modern marriage. Make them ask very fundamental questions. Why have a "modern" wife? What purpose does she serve? What value is she? What benefit is modern marriage? Admittedly, men have previously received a health benefit from being married. However, research by Hui Liu and Debra Umberson (Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 2008) show, today, there is little difference in health status between married and unmarried men.
Eroding the idea a man must have a modern wife in order to have a meaningful, healthy life can have a significant impact on the male suicide rate. Being divorced or single will no longer seem the end of the world. In fact, a better life is staying single, having a series of girlfriends & joining a biking, hiking swimming, astronomy, or history club. Men should join whatever organization interest them. Thousands of these groups can be found by searching the internet. Yahoo groups is one place to start. Being divorced / single is not unique. In America, 48% of the adult population is unmarried (Population Reference Bureau, 2009).
The second reason for male suicides may be more difficult to tackle. Male unemployment is due largely to lack of education. Millions of jobs requiring only a high school diploma have disappeared. A college degree or at least a degree from a technical school is now necessary for many good paying jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics show that since 1970, the unemployment rate for college graduates is half that of high school graduates. It also shows college graduates, on average earn nearly twice what high school graduates earn. Approximately 50% more women earn college degrees than men. This is the primary reason why, in most American cities, young single woman aged (22-30) earn more money than men of the same age group (New York research firm Reach Advisors 2008).
Men have trouble obtaining higher education. This is because America's education system is mostly controlled by two feminist groups. One group, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) has blocked every single attempted school reform designed to help increase boys interest & performance in school. They insist girls should remain the focus of education. Another group, The National Women's Law Center (NWLC), is responsible for the anti male culture throughout the school system. Boys as young as 4 have been charged with sexual harassment and suspended. The NWLC demands all schools be financially liable for incidents deemed as sexual harassment. Since schools have no money to defend themselves against NWLC lawsuits, its easier to suspend little boys for any reason. Ultimately, the boys learn to become detached from school.
Finally, there is the problem of financing. Because of AAUW pressure, big corporations such as Walmart, Home Depot and Starbucks, donate money to college grant programs with the stipulation the student cannot be male.
Together, the AAUW and NWLC significantly degrade and derail boys education thus making them less likely to advance into college or trade school. Changing this situation requires directly challenging feminist power. Also, a man must realize the national economy is beyond his control. Sometimes, unemployment is unavoidable regardless of education background.
Adjusting men's perceptions to a more realistic view of modern marriage and challenging feminist control over America's education system could have a significant impact on male suicide rates.
Based on studies by Thomas Joiner, Ph.D, a professor of psychology at Florida State University and Professor John Macdonald, Co director of the the Men's Health Information and Resource Centre (MHIRC) in Australia, it appears, the two primary reasons causing the majority of male suicides is marriage and unemployment.
Joiner estimates that "romantic disruptions" and other relationship issues trigger depressive episodes in about 75 percent of men between the ages of 20 and 40 who commit suicide. Macdonald stated "Many men are overwhelmed by social problems like unemployment, family break-ups and not having access to their children. When a number of these social factors come together, they can be enough to send a man over the edge and contemplate self-harm,". Additionally, MSNBC Health ('Male Suicide' 2008) states "Data going back decades shows that, like clockwork, economic downturns push more men over the brink — a fact that should concern us all now. Men draw much of their identity from their careers, and when unemployment rises, that underpinning falls away." Lastly Lisa Firestone, Ph.D., a suicide expert stated "Especially in their early 20s, guys can think, This one person was right for me, I've lost her, and it's all over,". She continued "They lack the perspective that they're going to have other relationships, maybe even better relationships"
The fact relationships appear a major factor in male suicide indicates some men need a more realistic outlook about marriage. These men still have obsolete notions of marriage being everything. Being divorced or single is viewed as the end of the world.
At one time, having a wife meant having a companion. Someone who would care about you and help you in life. Those days are gone. Today, modern marriage is centered on the wife. Partnership is discouraged in women's literature. As emphasized by Parenting Magazine (Mad at Dad 2009) and repeated by many women's websites, husbands are now expected to do - at minimum - 50% of house chores. However, wives are not be expected to help husbands with housing repairs, auto maintenance or other similar tasks. These are deemed the "husband's job". Additionally, as emphasized by women's literature, house chores and husband's jobs must be completed according to the wife's time schedule. Her husband's viewpoint does not matter.
Any wife that helps her husband or considers his opinions is criticised in women's literature as subservient. Additionally, she will also be the target of peer pressure from other women to change her behavior toward her husband.
Also, in modern marriage, husbands are used as baby sitters so the wife can have her weekly 'girls night out". This is especially true if she wants to stay out late clubbing. However, boys night out is frowned upon. This is especially true if he wants stay out late clubbing. He will be considered a deadbeat.
Lastly, if a late night girls outing results in an extra maritial affair and pregnancy, its tough luck for the husband if he discovers the child isn't his. Nearly all states have laws supporting paternity fraud. The hapless husband must raise & finance the child. The sleezebag other man will have no obligations.
Modern wives are taught to view their husbands as living room decorations.
More men should be educated about modern marriage. Make them ask very fundamental questions. Why have a "modern" wife? What purpose does she serve? What value is she? What benefit is modern marriage? Admittedly, men have previously received a health benefit from being married. However, research by Hui Liu and Debra Umberson (Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 2008) show, today, there is little difference in health status between married and unmarried men.
Eroding the idea a man must have a modern wife in order to have a meaningful, healthy life can have a significant impact on the male suicide rate. Being divorced or single will no longer seem the end of the world. In fact, a better life is staying single, having a series of girlfriends & joining a biking, hiking swimming, astronomy, or history club. Men should join whatever organization interest them. Thousands of these groups can be found by searching the internet. Yahoo groups is one place to start. Being divorced / single is not unique. In America, 48% of the adult population is unmarried (Population Reference Bureau, 2009).
The second reason for male suicides may be more difficult to tackle. Male unemployment is due largely to lack of education. Millions of jobs requiring only a high school diploma have disappeared. A college degree or at least a degree from a technical school is now necessary for many good paying jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics show that since 1970, the unemployment rate for college graduates is half that of high school graduates. It also shows college graduates, on average earn nearly twice what high school graduates earn. Approximately 50% more women earn college degrees than men. This is the primary reason why, in most American cities, young single woman aged (22-30) earn more money than men of the same age group (New York research firm Reach Advisors 2008).
Men have trouble obtaining higher education. This is because America's education system is mostly controlled by two feminist groups. One group, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) has blocked every single attempted school reform designed to help increase boys interest & performance in school. They insist girls should remain the focus of education. Another group, The National Women's Law Center (NWLC), is responsible for the anti male culture throughout the school system. Boys as young as 4 have been charged with sexual harassment and suspended. The NWLC demands all schools be financially liable for incidents deemed as sexual harassment. Since schools have no money to defend themselves against NWLC lawsuits, its easier to suspend little boys for any reason. Ultimately, the boys learn to become detached from school.
Finally, there is the problem of financing. Because of AAUW pressure, big corporations such as Walmart, Home Depot and Starbucks, donate money to college grant programs with the stipulation the student cannot be male.
Together, the AAUW and NWLC significantly degrade and derail boys education thus making them less likely to advance into college or trade school. Changing this situation requires directly challenging feminist power. Also, a man must realize the national economy is beyond his control. Sometimes, unemployment is unavoidable regardless of education background.
Adjusting men's perceptions to a more realistic view of modern marriage and challenging feminist control over America's education system could have a significant impact on male suicide rates.
April 15, 2011
Media Promotes Feminist Agenda Yet Again
Techcrunch, a technology news web publication owned by AOL, recently posted an article titled 'Why Women Rule The Internet'. The main emphasis of the article was to promote "girl power" and the idea that women are more important than men as both customers and employees for internet businesses.
The article claimed that since women spend more time talking on social media networks such as Twitter, spend more time shopping online at websites such as Zappos and are the majority of contributors to websites such as Yelp, advertising companies and internet businesses should focus on women. In essence, they should ignore men. (Note: American advertising companies already ignore men. Fathers and men are often denigrated in television commercials).
The journalist also said 65% of shoppers at Chegg (a college textbook rental website) are female. She stated even though "males and females attend college at an almost even rate" women are the majority of renters because renting requires "advance planning". She claimed males are less inclined to plan in advance of events. Perhaps this writer is not fimilair with the "advance planning" required for D Day June 6th. Additionally, the US college student ratio is 60% female / 40% male. The writer did not explain why she considers this an almost "equal rate".
As additional evidence of the importance of women relative to men she stated:
"How about gaming, seemingly a bastion of men in their man caves? The titan of social gaming, Zynga, says 60% of players are female. And a survey by PopCap shows females are the majority of social and casual game players. In fact, they note the average social gamer is likely a 43-year-old woman."
One thoughtful commenter - a man - responded to this section of the article with the statement:
A) Women playing video games = Market that needs to be better appreciated.
B) Men playing video games = Men-children who need to grow up.
The author then emphasized conflicting major points stating:
"According to the US Census Bureau, women oversee over 80% of consumer spending, or about $5 trillion dollars annually. Women control the purse strings when it comes to disposable income. That’s long been the case."
and also:
"if you’re at a consumer web company, how can this insight help you. Would you like to lower your cost of customer acquisition? Or grow revenue faster? Take a look at your product, your marketing, your customer base. Maybe you would benefit from having a larger base of female customers. If so, what would you change to make your product/service more attractive to female customers? "
If women are 80% of customer spending, by definition, this means most businesses already have a large female customer base. If a business wants to grow, wouldn't it make more sense to increase their male customer base rather than focusing on women?
The article concluded:
"You could also take a look at your team. Do you have women in key positions? If you’re planning on targeting female customers, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want to have great women on your team. If you are already targeting female customers, have great women working in your company, and are seeing strong commerce and social network effects, congratulations. You are likely trying to figure out how to handle hypergrowth right now."
Thus, the author's main intent of creating the article was to advocate sex discrimination in the labor market. Men's employment should be marginalized because women, allegedly, are the key to business success.
According to economist Mark Perry, men have accounted for 66% of job losses during the current recession. In February 2011, The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists male unemployment as 8.7%. Female unemployment was 8.0% Yet the media promotes the belief companies should focus on hiring women.
The idea that men should be marginalized by the business world is a long held feminist agenda. Its presentation by Techcrunch is an example of the American media's female chauvinist culture.
As an additional example of the media's female chauvinist mentality, 'The New York Times' recently claimed Wikipedia is sexist because only 13% of its contributors are female. The Times stated these numbers mean Wikipedia has a culture that discourages women.
So, in summation, if 60%-80% of users/contributors/spenders/employees are female, the media claims its because women rule. Its girl power. However when these numbers are reversed, they claim its sex discrimination. The American media is full of female chauvinist crap (in other words, its full of feminism).
The article claimed that since women spend more time talking on social media networks such as Twitter, spend more time shopping online at websites such as Zappos and are the majority of contributors to websites such as Yelp, advertising companies and internet businesses should focus on women. In essence, they should ignore men. (Note: American advertising companies already ignore men. Fathers and men are often denigrated in television commercials).
The journalist also said 65% of shoppers at Chegg (a college textbook rental website) are female. She stated even though "males and females attend college at an almost even rate" women are the majority of renters because renting requires "advance planning". She claimed males are less inclined to plan in advance of events. Perhaps this writer is not fimilair with the "advance planning" required for D Day June 6th. Additionally, the US college student ratio is 60% female / 40% male. The writer did not explain why she considers this an almost "equal rate".
As additional evidence of the importance of women relative to men she stated:
"How about gaming, seemingly a bastion of men in their man caves? The titan of social gaming, Zynga, says 60% of players are female. And a survey by PopCap shows females are the majority of social and casual game players. In fact, they note the average social gamer is likely a 43-year-old woman."
One thoughtful commenter - a man - responded to this section of the article with the statement:
A) Women playing video games = Market that needs to be better appreciated.
B) Men playing video games = Men-children who need to grow up.
The author then emphasized conflicting major points stating:
"According to the US Census Bureau, women oversee over 80% of consumer spending, or about $5 trillion dollars annually. Women control the purse strings when it comes to disposable income. That’s long been the case."
and also:
"if you’re at a consumer web company, how can this insight help you. Would you like to lower your cost of customer acquisition? Or grow revenue faster? Take a look at your product, your marketing, your customer base. Maybe you would benefit from having a larger base of female customers. If so, what would you change to make your product/service more attractive to female customers? "
If women are 80% of customer spending, by definition, this means most businesses already have a large female customer base. If a business wants to grow, wouldn't it make more sense to increase their male customer base rather than focusing on women?
The article concluded:
"You could also take a look at your team. Do you have women in key positions? If you’re planning on targeting female customers, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want to have great women on your team. If you are already targeting female customers, have great women working in your company, and are seeing strong commerce and social network effects, congratulations. You are likely trying to figure out how to handle hypergrowth right now."
Thus, the author's main intent of creating the article was to advocate sex discrimination in the labor market. Men's employment should be marginalized because women, allegedly, are the key to business success.
According to economist Mark Perry, men have accounted for 66% of job losses during the current recession. In February 2011, The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists male unemployment as 8.7%. Female unemployment was 8.0% Yet the media promotes the belief companies should focus on hiring women.
The idea that men should be marginalized by the business world is a long held feminist agenda. Its presentation by Techcrunch is an example of the American media's female chauvinist culture.
As an additional example of the media's female chauvinist mentality, 'The New York Times' recently claimed Wikipedia is sexist because only 13% of its contributors are female. The Times stated these numbers mean Wikipedia has a culture that discourages women.
So, in summation, if 60%-80% of users/contributors/spenders/employees are female, the media claims its because women rule. Its girl power. However when these numbers are reversed, they claim its sex discrimination. The American media is full of female chauvinist crap (in other words, its full of feminism).
March 29, 2011
The Cheating Double Standard
One of the fundamental assertions of feminism is a wife cheats because her husband did something wrong. He is said to be neglectful or unappreciative or self centered. Conversely, they claim a husband cheats because he is egotistical or superficial. A wife did nothing wrong. Therefore, men - BUT NOT WOMEN - should be held accountable for their indiscretions.
This double standard is the basis for women's websites listing the names of men who allegedly cheat.
The most popular website is WomanSavers. Its database lists a man's full name, his picture, hometown and explains what he allegedly did wrong. Additionally, ratings on his character, commitment, trustfulness, and abusefulness are also displayed. Any woman can add an entry on any man. However, it is against the rules to add a woman into the database. Her character and trustfulness cannot be evaluated. As is the case throughout feminist society, she is considered above questioning. What makes this website's double standard astounding is that it references four articles which conclude there is only a small difference in the infidelity rate between the genders.
Even more astounding, however, is a survey conducted by the website in which 49% of women said they cheated. Another 26% said that they'd have no problem stepping out on their husbands or boyfriends if they knew they could get away with it. THIS MAKES MANY WOMEN ON THIS SITE BLATANT HYPOCRITES.
WomanSavers also has a forum allowing users to engage in discussions. Some women on the forum post excuses on why they have had affairs. They also support other members who have stepped out on their husbands and boyfriends. A few men have commented in the forum. Some have posted their wives have had affairs. Many members will defend the wife's actions, claiming the husband must have done something wrong. However it should be stated not all women defend backstabbing wives. Some heavily criticize them. Others tell the mistreated husband to stop being a doormat.
A website similar to Womensavers is 'Dont Date Him Girl'. This site accumulated a database of allegedly unfaithful men (complete with names, photos and hometowns) supposedly larger than Womensavers. And like Womensavers, adding a female's name to its database was forbidden. 'Dont Date Him Girl' has been featured on CBSNews, ABCNews, New York Times, The TODAY Show, CNN, FOX News and various women's magazines.
Since major media outlets promoted the site, many men became aware of its existence. Some discovered they were listed in the database. They demanded their names be removed from the listing claiming the women were lying. For example, according to 'OnLine Dating Magazine' one woman posted the name of her former boyfriend, claiming he cheated and subsequently gave her herpes. The boyfriend discovered the accusation, actually took a blood test to prove he did not have herpes and demanded his removal from the site's database. 'Don’t Date Him Girl' complied. The obvious conclusion of this incident: the women either lied about her story or was a slut who has no idea which man gave her herpes.
In the fall of 2010, 'Dont Date Him Girl' removed its database. This was not because the site's owner suddenly believed all cheats should be treated the same. Rather, she had come to the realization a successful lawsuit against her was inevitable. A growing number of men were proving their former girlfriends were liars.
'Dont Date Him Girl' currently has a forum where anyone can post information on former lovers. However, the same female chauvinist hypocrisy that existed in its database permeates this forum. For example, a husband posted the full name of his backstabbing wife and the sleazebag other man. Rather than gaining sympathy, women criticized him for posting the names - despite the fact there are hundreds of men's names, many with photos, already listed in the forum. Another man expressed support for the website and asked if there was a similar site listing the names of unfaithful girlfriends. He was denounced and mocked.
Besides men being able to post, the only apparent difference between the forum and the former database is searchability. There is no search tool for the forum. Presumably this significantly decreases the chance of a lawsuit because its more difficult to find information on a specific person.
Holding only half of the population responsible for their actions is sexist (in other words its feminist). Every individual should be held accountable for their backstabbing. Unfortunately, the thousands of immature and narrow minded women using these websites believe differently. They promote a cheating double standard.
This double standard is the basis for women's websites listing the names of men who allegedly cheat.
The most popular website is WomanSavers. Its database lists a man's full name, his picture, hometown and explains what he allegedly did wrong. Additionally, ratings on his character, commitment, trustfulness, and abusefulness are also displayed. Any woman can add an entry on any man. However, it is against the rules to add a woman into the database. Her character and trustfulness cannot be evaluated. As is the case throughout feminist society, she is considered above questioning. What makes this website's double standard astounding is that it references four articles which conclude there is only a small difference in the infidelity rate between the genders.
- Intimate Partners, Scarf 1996
- Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, Atwood & Schwartz 2002
- Monogamy Myth, Vaughan 2003
- Is Your Relationship at Risk?, Dworkin-McDaniel 2007
Even more astounding, however, is a survey conducted by the website in which 49% of women said they cheated. Another 26% said that they'd have no problem stepping out on their husbands or boyfriends if they knew they could get away with it. THIS MAKES MANY WOMEN ON THIS SITE BLATANT HYPOCRITES.
WomanSavers also has a forum allowing users to engage in discussions. Some women on the forum post excuses on why they have had affairs. They also support other members who have stepped out on their husbands and boyfriends. A few men have commented in the forum. Some have posted their wives have had affairs. Many members will defend the wife's actions, claiming the husband must have done something wrong. However it should be stated not all women defend backstabbing wives. Some heavily criticize them. Others tell the mistreated husband to stop being a doormat.
A website similar to Womensavers is 'Dont Date Him Girl'. This site accumulated a database of allegedly unfaithful men (complete with names, photos and hometowns) supposedly larger than Womensavers. And like Womensavers, adding a female's name to its database was forbidden. 'Dont Date Him Girl' has been featured on CBSNews, ABCNews, New York Times, The TODAY Show, CNN, FOX News and various women's magazines.
Since major media outlets promoted the site, many men became aware of its existence. Some discovered they were listed in the database. They demanded their names be removed from the listing claiming the women were lying. For example, according to 'OnLine Dating Magazine' one woman posted the name of her former boyfriend, claiming he cheated and subsequently gave her herpes. The boyfriend discovered the accusation, actually took a blood test to prove he did not have herpes and demanded his removal from the site's database. 'Don’t Date Him Girl' complied. The obvious conclusion of this incident: the women either lied about her story or was a slut who has no idea which man gave her herpes.
In the fall of 2010, 'Dont Date Him Girl' removed its database. This was not because the site's owner suddenly believed all cheats should be treated the same. Rather, she had come to the realization a successful lawsuit against her was inevitable. A growing number of men were proving their former girlfriends were liars.
'Dont Date Him Girl' currently has a forum where anyone can post information on former lovers. However, the same female chauvinist hypocrisy that existed in its database permeates this forum. For example, a husband posted the full name of his backstabbing wife and the sleazebag other man. Rather than gaining sympathy, women criticized him for posting the names - despite the fact there are hundreds of men's names, many with photos, already listed in the forum. Another man expressed support for the website and asked if there was a similar site listing the names of unfaithful girlfriends. He was denounced and mocked.
Besides men being able to post, the only apparent difference between the forum and the former database is searchability. There is no search tool for the forum. Presumably this significantly decreases the chance of a lawsuit because its more difficult to find information on a specific person.
Holding only half of the population responsible for their actions is sexist (in other words its feminist). Every individual should be held accountable for their backstabbing. Unfortunately, the thousands of immature and narrow minded women using these websites believe differently. They promote a cheating double standard.
March 14, 2011
Female Sex Offenders and Feminism
In another case of judicial feminism, a 31-year-old woman (Michelle Kemp) was sentenced to NO JAIL TIME despite pleading guilty to having sex with a 15 year old boy AND GIVING HIM DRUGS. In 2 separate hearings, both Okaloosa County and Bay County in Florida, refused to jail Kemp. Instead, she will register as a sex offender. She will also be under house arrest.
In Bay County, Prosecutor Tracy Smith, explaining why she decided not to seek jail time said “If I thought she was going to be a threat I would not have made that plea,”
However, the minor whom Kemp had an affair with was in a narcotics addiction treatment program. Kemp had given the youth drugs while he was in the program thereby derailing any hope the minor had of trying to straighten out his young life in the near future. Despite this fact, Smith felt Kemp is no threat. Smith displays the standard feminist mentality that a boy's future doesn't matter. His education is deemed insignificant. He is a toy for adult women. This type of mentality is one of the reasons why boys have fallen well behind girls in education.
Additionally, both Okaloosa and Bay County claimed the boy refused to cooperate with the State Attorney's Office. Too frequently, State Attorney Offices claim "a boy will not cooperate" yet convince a girl to testify against a man. A disparity of effort? A disparity of concern?
Jason Kemp, Michelle Kemp’s ex-husband, called her sentence “completely unbelievable.” Jason Kemp, who now lives in Des Moines, Iowa, with the couple’s children, said his wife'’s crimes led to their divorce, and questioned whether there is a double standard for women who commit sex crimes. “I know if I did what she did I would be in jail right now,” Jason Kemp said. “I think it’s unbelievable. Completely unbelievable.”
What makes the judicial double standard more appalling is the known fact, girls mature faster than boys. A 15 year old girl is more mature than a 15 year old boy. Therefore, boys are less mentally prepared for sexual relationships than girls. This makes it easier for adult women to manipulate boys like puppets during sexual relationships - yet it is women who routinely serve no time for having sex with minors while men serve months to years in jail.
The American judicial system appears to be following sentencing guidelines written by feminist organizations. For example, a 'National Institute of Corrections'(NIC) document titled "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" was written by the National Association of Women Judges. This document advocates a two tiered sentencing system, one for men and one for women. Another NIC document titled "Women and the Criminal Justice System: Gender Matters" also supports the idea of a two tiered sentencing system. This document was written by a Women's Studies professor. Several other documents exist. Although none of them are law they do appear to influence judicial sentencing.
This arrangement is similar to the education documents issued by the feminist group "The Women's Law Center". These documents are not law, yet most school districts adhere to them. This is why boys aged 4 to 10 are suspended for alleged sexual harassment in schools.
INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE JUDGED AND SENTENCED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ACTIONS - NOT THEIR GENDER. Until feminism is removed from the American judicial system, and from society in general, this cannot happen.
In Bay County, Prosecutor Tracy Smith, explaining why she decided not to seek jail time said “If I thought she was going to be a threat I would not have made that plea,”
However, the minor whom Kemp had an affair with was in a narcotics addiction treatment program. Kemp had given the youth drugs while he was in the program thereby derailing any hope the minor had of trying to straighten out his young life in the near future. Despite this fact, Smith felt Kemp is no threat. Smith displays the standard feminist mentality that a boy's future doesn't matter. His education is deemed insignificant. He is a toy for adult women. This type of mentality is one of the reasons why boys have fallen well behind girls in education.
Additionally, both Okaloosa and Bay County claimed the boy refused to cooperate with the State Attorney's Office. Too frequently, State Attorney Offices claim "a boy will not cooperate" yet convince a girl to testify against a man. A disparity of effort? A disparity of concern?
Jason Kemp, Michelle Kemp’s ex-husband, called her sentence “completely unbelievable.” Jason Kemp, who now lives in Des Moines, Iowa, with the couple’s children, said his wife'’s crimes led to their divorce, and questioned whether there is a double standard for women who commit sex crimes. “I know if I did what she did I would be in jail right now,” Jason Kemp said. “I think it’s unbelievable. Completely unbelievable.”
What makes the judicial double standard more appalling is the known fact, girls mature faster than boys. A 15 year old girl is more mature than a 15 year old boy. Therefore, boys are less mentally prepared for sexual relationships than girls. This makes it easier for adult women to manipulate boys like puppets during sexual relationships - yet it is women who routinely serve no time for having sex with minors while men serve months to years in jail.
The American judicial system appears to be following sentencing guidelines written by feminist organizations. For example, a 'National Institute of Corrections'(NIC) document titled "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" was written by the National Association of Women Judges. This document advocates a two tiered sentencing system, one for men and one for women. Another NIC document titled "Women and the Criminal Justice System: Gender Matters" also supports the idea of a two tiered sentencing system. This document was written by a Women's Studies professor. Several other documents exist. Although none of them are law they do appear to influence judicial sentencing.
This arrangement is similar to the education documents issued by the feminist group "The Women's Law Center". These documents are not law, yet most school districts adhere to them. This is why boys aged 4 to 10 are suspended for alleged sexual harassment in schools.
INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE JUDGED AND SENTENCED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ACTIONS - NOT THEIR GENDER. Until feminism is removed from the American judicial system, and from society in general, this cannot happen.
February 17, 2011
The New York Times Claims Wikipedia Biased Against Women
The New York Times claims Wikipedia is sexist against women. In an article titled "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List" Times reporter, Noam Cohen, was outraged that 13% of the site's contributors are women while 87% are men.
The reporter claimed the internet encyclopedia's topics are skewed toward men. Cohen wrote "the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs . And consider the disparity between two popular series on HBO: The entry on “Sex and the City” includes only a brief summary of every episode, sometimes two or three sentences; the one on “The Sopranos” includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode."
Cohen interviewed Joseph Reagle, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. Reagle claimed Wikipedia contributors create an "ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women". He also claimed some contributors are "high-conflict people, even misogynists".
However, a quick view of the website shows that feminist criticisms are a farce. As an example, an article within the site, titled "Gender and Education", claims that when women do poorly in math and science, compared to boys, its because of educational sex discrimination. However when boys do poorly in reading compared to girls, its because boys brains are comparatively stupid. The article states females have a gender advantage in their brain's left hemisphere thus giving them an edge in literary education. The obvious conclusion of these assertions is that since, girls can do as well as boys in math & science and better than them in reading, women are smarter than men. THIS IS STANDARD FEMINIST BIGOTRY.
Additionally, if 13% of Wikipedia contributors being women is sexist, then what about the percentage of women who are paying child support? In an astounding coincidence, US Census Bureau statistics (2007) show that only 13% of child support payers are women. However, feminists have no problem with this gender gap and see no reason why it should rise. In fact, a scan of the New York Times revealed NO ARTICLES were written complaining about the lack of women paying child support and the gender bias of the US family court system. Classic female chauvinist double standard.
The New York Times reporter also interviewed feminist Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on alleged sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse". Margolis was enraged that many independent editorials both on the internet and in print are being written by males. She said Wikipedia is another example. Margolis is a case of a another feminist becoming angry because old media giants such as ABCNews, NBCNews and The New York Times have lost their monopoly on information circulation due to the invention of the internet. Most independent "male editorials" are actually written on the internet and therefore beyond mainstream media control. This means news organizations are no longer able to promote their political agenda (and feminism) unchallenged. Men can now speak out.
New York Times' attacks against Wikipedia is another example of the media promoting feminist double standards and negative stereotypes against men.
The reporter claimed the internet encyclopedia's topics are skewed toward men. Cohen wrote "the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs . And consider the disparity between two popular series on HBO: The entry on “Sex and the City” includes only a brief summary of every episode, sometimes two or three sentences; the one on “The Sopranos” includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode."
Cohen interviewed Joseph Reagle, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. Reagle claimed Wikipedia contributors create an "ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women". He also claimed some contributors are "high-conflict people, even misogynists".
However, a quick view of the website shows that feminist criticisms are a farce. As an example, an article within the site, titled "Gender and Education", claims that when women do poorly in math and science, compared to boys, its because of educational sex discrimination. However when boys do poorly in reading compared to girls, its because boys brains are comparatively stupid. The article states females have a gender advantage in their brain's left hemisphere thus giving them an edge in literary education. The obvious conclusion of these assertions is that since, girls can do as well as boys in math & science and better than them in reading, women are smarter than men. THIS IS STANDARD FEMINIST BIGOTRY.
Additionally, if 13% of Wikipedia contributors being women is sexist, then what about the percentage of women who are paying child support? In an astounding coincidence, US Census Bureau statistics (2007) show that only 13% of child support payers are women. However, feminists have no problem with this gender gap and see no reason why it should rise. In fact, a scan of the New York Times revealed NO ARTICLES were written complaining about the lack of women paying child support and the gender bias of the US family court system. Classic female chauvinist double standard.
The New York Times reporter also interviewed feminist Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on alleged sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse". Margolis was enraged that many independent editorials both on the internet and in print are being written by males. She said Wikipedia is another example. Margolis is a case of a another feminist becoming angry because old media giants such as ABCNews, NBCNews and The New York Times have lost their monopoly on information circulation due to the invention of the internet. Most independent "male editorials" are actually written on the internet and therefore beyond mainstream media control. This means news organizations are no longer able to promote their political agenda (and feminism) unchallenged. Men can now speak out.
New York Times' attacks against Wikipedia is another example of the media promoting feminist double standards and negative stereotypes against men.
February 11, 2011
Female Politicians and the University of Chicago
Female chauvinism (in other words feminism) has penetrated American Universities to such an extent that 'academic research" now being performed is nothing more than feminist propaganda.
Newsweek, a feminist mouthpiece, recently published a ridiculous University of Chicago study promoting sexism. According to the study, soon to be printed in American Journal of Political Science, female politicians are the most effective lawmakers in the USA. The study claims that between 1984 and 2004, women won their home districts an average of $49 million more per year than their male counterparts. It also stated Women sponsored more bills (an average of three more per Congress), cosponsored more bills (an average of 26 more per Congress), and attracted a greater number of cosponsors than - as Newsweek put it - their it colleagues who use the other restroom.
The University of Chicago also sited another academic study (from Ohio State) that found bills sponsored by women between 1981 and 2009, survived deeper into the legislative process, garnered more press attention, and were more likely to be deemed "important" overall.
In summary, because female politicians get more money and sponsor more bills this makes them better than men.
Obtaining more money has no bearing on the effectiveness of a politician. Saddam Hussein's hand picked lawmakers obtained a great deal of money. Were they good leaders???? WHAT MATTERS IS HOW EFFECTIVE A POLITICIAN'S POLICIES ARE IN MAKING THEIR REGION EFFICIENT. Women get more money because many male legislatures today are wusses who refuse to stand up to sexists like Sen. Barbara Boxer. Harry Reid is an example. Thus, when a feminist politician sponsors a bill (often only benefiting women) few have the guts to go against it. This is also why - as Ohio State claims - it survives deeper into the legislative process.
A brief illustration is America's education policies. Boys academic advancement has fallen well behind that of girls. Despite this, Congress continues to advance policies which focus the American education system on girls. Boys are ignored - to the detriment of the country.
Lastly, University of Chicago's claim that press attention determines the importance of a bill is nonsense. Female sponsored bills obtain more media attention because the press is largely feminist dominated. An example is this Newsweek article. Why would a News magazine even bother printing this garbage - unless it was to promote feminism.
American universities have become bastions of narrow minded stupidity, often supported by a sexist press. Why didn't the University of Chicago study something intelligent like the possible number of planets with civilizations or how to make stronger metals? Instead, they study the alleged superiority of female politicians and claim it is "academic research".
Newsweek, a feminist mouthpiece, recently published a ridiculous University of Chicago study promoting sexism. According to the study, soon to be printed in American Journal of Political Science, female politicians are the most effective lawmakers in the USA. The study claims that between 1984 and 2004, women won their home districts an average of $49 million more per year than their male counterparts. It also stated Women sponsored more bills (an average of three more per Congress), cosponsored more bills (an average of 26 more per Congress), and attracted a greater number of cosponsors than - as Newsweek put it - their it colleagues who use the other restroom.
The University of Chicago also sited another academic study (from Ohio State) that found bills sponsored by women between 1981 and 2009, survived deeper into the legislative process, garnered more press attention, and were more likely to be deemed "important" overall.
In summary, because female politicians get more money and sponsor more bills this makes them better than men.
Obtaining more money has no bearing on the effectiveness of a politician. Saddam Hussein's hand picked lawmakers obtained a great deal of money. Were they good leaders???? WHAT MATTERS IS HOW EFFECTIVE A POLITICIAN'S POLICIES ARE IN MAKING THEIR REGION EFFICIENT. Women get more money because many male legislatures today are wusses who refuse to stand up to sexists like Sen. Barbara Boxer. Harry Reid is an example. Thus, when a feminist politician sponsors a bill (often only benefiting women) few have the guts to go against it. This is also why - as Ohio State claims - it survives deeper into the legislative process.
A brief illustration is America's education policies. Boys academic advancement has fallen well behind that of girls. Despite this, Congress continues to advance policies which focus the American education system on girls. Boys are ignored - to the detriment of the country.
Lastly, University of Chicago's claim that press attention determines the importance of a bill is nonsense. Female sponsored bills obtain more media attention because the press is largely feminist dominated. An example is this Newsweek article. Why would a News magazine even bother printing this garbage - unless it was to promote feminism.
American universities have become bastions of narrow minded stupidity, often supported by a sexist press. Why didn't the University of Chicago study something intelligent like the possible number of planets with civilizations or how to make stronger metals? Instead, they study the alleged superiority of female politicians and claim it is "academic research".
January 27, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)