Most doctors in the United States suck at what they do. They have significant difficulty correctly diagnosing anything other than a textbook case. They are seemingly unable or unwilling to think. Additionally, their solution to most health care issues is medication rather than fixing the problem. Also, there is an unacceptable delay at scheduling appointments. It can take 3 to 5 weeks to see a
specialist. Imagine if these doctors had to wait 5 weeks to schedule a car appointment. Think they would accept it?
Many doctors no longer work on Fridays. American Doctors seem to view Fridays as some sort of medical holy day. Working is forbidden. This holy day makes it even harder for patients to schedule a timely appointment. Friday appointments are sometimes available if there are multiple doctors in the practice, However, some medical centers will not allow you to switch doctors for one appointment claiming your original doctor is familiar with your case. THIS IS A LIE. Your doctor is NOT familiar with your case. Your doctor asks you the same questions at every appointment because they forget about your case. They don’t remember how your symptoms first developed nor what tests have been done. They need you to give them your health details again. Switching doctors for a few appointments should not cause any negative health issues because regardless of which practitioner a patient sees, the same questions will be asked and the same details will be needed. The reason American medical centers don’t want patients switching doctors is most likely accounting. Perhaps clinics keeps track of how much income each doctor brings into the business and pays out bonuses based on this income.
The American medical industry is giving its patients subpar treatment.
If anyone wants good health care, this blog strongly urges that person to research doctor reviews on Ratemds and Yelp before making any medical appointment. Also, never blindly trust a doctor's diagnosis. Based on personal experience, the diagnosis is often founded on laziness as well as the need to quickly get you out of the office so that the next cash cow (sometimes referred to as patient) can be brought into the room. Research the doctor's diagnosis on the internet. Check that it is logical for your symptoms.
Lastly, because American doctors schedule large numbers of patients during the day, any single patient will have - on average - only 5 to 10 minutes of actual consultation with the practitioner. Therefore, before the appointment, patents would be wise to write down important questions on a piece of paper. The doctor probably wont answer any more than 3 questions unless they require only yes or no responses. DO NOT LET THE DOCTOR TAKE THE PAPER OUT OF YOUR HAND. If they take your paper, your questions will likely be quickly and briefly answered with very little thought. Its belter to ask your questions as if you just thought of them. You will receive a more detailed answer. The doctor will put more thought in to his or her response. If the doctor asks to see the paper simply tell them you wrote the questions in shorthand and that only you could understand the abbreviations.
Given the large amount of money, Americans pay for health care, we deserve better treatment. Fire any doctor that doesn’t give you good treatment.
Bloggers Should Not Link to Major Media Websites
It is strongly recommended that anti feminist and men’s rights bloggers not link to major media outlets when posting articles. Outlets such as CBSNews, CNN, FOXNews, Reuters, BuzzFeed, ABCNews and the NYTimes do not allow any links within their comment section to anti feminist
or men’s rights websites. In fact, they rarely allow links to any websites. Additionally, some of these organization have even stopped accepting comments altogether.
Mainstream journalists want to control information. They want to take the public back to 1980 - an era where there was no internet and the media had a monopoly on information. Most news network articles are published with the intent of promoting a specific political agenda. Objectivity is rare. Many mainstream journalists openly oppose free speech. They view websites with alternative perspectives as a threat to their manipulation and control of society. Institutions such as CBSNews and BuzzFeed are notorious for banning accounts which question or oppose their political agenda. ABCNews appears to often ban comments which contradict their political agenda. Its ironic major news networks complain so much about freedom of the press yet have no problem stamping out alternative opinions.
All of the above mentioned news organizations have shown a distinct hostility toward men’s rights. Most will not publish any anti feminist viewpoints. Linking to their articles only gives major media organizations greater control over information on the internet.
When referencing a news article, the ideal solution is to state the title and date of the article. If a men’s rights blogger or webpage owner absolutely needs to link to the news story, use the "Nofollow" attribute when linking. Bloggers outside the men's movement should also
use these recommendations.
The era of media information monopoly is over. Don’t let them bring it back.
or men’s rights websites. In fact, they rarely allow links to any websites. Additionally, some of these organization have even stopped accepting comments altogether.
Mainstream journalists want to control information. They want to take the public back to 1980 - an era where there was no internet and the media had a monopoly on information. Most news network articles are published with the intent of promoting a specific political agenda. Objectivity is rare. Many mainstream journalists openly oppose free speech. They view websites with alternative perspectives as a threat to their manipulation and control of society. Institutions such as CBSNews and BuzzFeed are notorious for banning accounts which question or oppose their political agenda. ABCNews appears to often ban comments which contradict their political agenda. Its ironic major news networks complain so much about freedom of the press yet have no problem stamping out alternative opinions.
All of the above mentioned news organizations have shown a distinct hostility toward men’s rights. Most will not publish any anti feminist viewpoints. Linking to their articles only gives major media organizations greater control over information on the internet.
When referencing a news article, the ideal solution is to state the title and date of the article. If a men’s rights blogger or webpage owner absolutely needs to link to the news story, use the "Nofollow" attribute when linking. Bloggers outside the men's movement should also
use these recommendations.
The era of media information monopoly is over. Don’t let them bring it back.
December 27, 2014
Domestic Violence Double Standard and the University of Michigan.
The University of Michigan recently completed a study on domestic violence. The school's researchers want to identify potential domestic abusers during routine health care visits. Their study endorsed feminist views toward domestic violence. Abusers are strictly male.
The school's report claims one in five American men are guilty of intimate partner violence (IPV). The researchers said "When people think of men who abuse their partners, they often think of violent people who they have never come across, or people they have only heard about in the news. However, our study showed one out of every five men in the U.S. reported physical violence toward an intimate partner. It's likely that we've all met these men in our daily environment. This is an issue that cuts across all communities, regardless of race, income, or any other demographics." The researchers continued "Most of our efforts to prevent intimate partner violence have focused on screening and improving outcomes for women who are victims, because their health and well-being is our priority. Very little work, however, has been done on how to identify male perpetrators". "Our research shows that male perpetrators of intimate partner violence seek routine medical services... This suggest we may be missing an important opportunity in the primary care setting to identify their aggressive behavior and potentially intervene".
The University's definition of IPV included pushing, grabbing, shoving, throwing something and slapping. The school's report appeared in the American Board of Family Medicine and was promoted by large liberal progressive websites such as Thinkprogress and Salon.
The idea abusers are always male is a sexist double standard. Its pure feminism. Several studies have already disproven this fallacy.
In June 2014, a study led by Dr. Elizabeth Bates, University of Cumbria, concluded women were slightly more likely than men to be the perpetrators of IPV. The report also stated "in our sample, 7% of men and 11% of women were categorized as intimate terrorists" over the last 12 months. Dr. Bates said "{Our} study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men". In May 2007, an IPV study published in the American Journal of Public Health, by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." In September 2000, an IPV study conducted by Professor John Archer, University of Central Lancashire, and published in the National Institutes of Health, concluded "women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression" against their partners. Additionally, the study concluded women use such acts more frequently than men. Similar to Michigan’s standards, all three investigations included pushing, grabbing, shoving, throwing objects and slapping as forms of IPV.
Despite this research, there is a persistent double standard in America concerning domestic abuse. Women are treated as an aristocratic class. The media, academia and the judicial system give them special privileges and protections to commit acts of abuse against others.
Michigan's report is simply another example of America's feminist double standard concerning domestic violence.
The school's report claims one in five American men are guilty of intimate partner violence (IPV). The researchers said "When people think of men who abuse their partners, they often think of violent people who they have never come across, or people they have only heard about in the news. However, our study showed one out of every five men in the U.S. reported physical violence toward an intimate partner. It's likely that we've all met these men in our daily environment. This is an issue that cuts across all communities, regardless of race, income, or any other demographics." The researchers continued "Most of our efforts to prevent intimate partner violence have focused on screening and improving outcomes for women who are victims, because their health and well-being is our priority. Very little work, however, has been done on how to identify male perpetrators". "Our research shows that male perpetrators of intimate partner violence seek routine medical services... This suggest we may be missing an important opportunity in the primary care setting to identify their aggressive behavior and potentially intervene".
The University's definition of IPV included pushing, grabbing, shoving, throwing something and slapping. The school's report appeared in the American Board of Family Medicine and was promoted by large liberal progressive websites such as Thinkprogress and Salon.
The idea abusers are always male is a sexist double standard. Its pure feminism. Several studies have already disproven this fallacy.
In June 2014, a study led by Dr. Elizabeth Bates, University of Cumbria, concluded women were slightly more likely than men to be the perpetrators of IPV. The report also stated "in our sample, 7% of men and 11% of women were categorized as intimate terrorists" over the last 12 months. Dr. Bates said "{Our} study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men". In May 2007, an IPV study published in the American Journal of Public Health, by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." In September 2000, an IPV study conducted by Professor John Archer, University of Central Lancashire, and published in the National Institutes of Health, concluded "women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression" against their partners. Additionally, the study concluded women use such acts more frequently than men. Similar to Michigan’s standards, all three investigations included pushing, grabbing, shoving, throwing objects and slapping as forms of IPV.
Despite this research, there is a persistent double standard in America concerning domestic abuse. Women are treated as an aristocratic class. The media, academia and the judicial system give them special privileges and protections to commit acts of abuse against others.
Michigan's report is simply another example of America's feminist double standard concerning domestic violence.
September 30, 2014
Feminist Politicians Continue War Against Male College Students
Feminist Politicians are continuing their war against male college students with their proposed Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA).
CASA will regulate sexual assault investigations on US campuses. The Act requires all publicly funded universities to: investigate alleged campus rapes, designate Confidential Advisors for every student claiming she was raped and conduct annual sexual assault surveys of undergraduates. Federal funds shall be withheld from any University not complying with CASA. Additionally, non complying schools shall also be heavily fined possibly in excess of one million dollars. The US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights shall keep all fines it collects from schools. CASA labels accusing students as victims. It gives accused students no advisor. They are on their own. The Act assumes accused students are guilty unless proven otherwise. Guilty students are removed from campus.
CASA's main sponsors, feminist Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) and Claire McCaskill (Missiouri), fraudulently claim 1 in 5 college women are sexually assaulted. Thus, according to these politicians, hundreds of thousands of male undergraduates are rapists. Groundless suspensions and expulsions have already occurred across US campuses. For example, Xavier University expelled Dez Wells for sexual assault. However, after listening to evidence, a Grand jury refused to indict him. The prosecutor doubted the assault occurred and hospital examination showed no trauma on the woman's body. Columbia University suspended an unidentified man for at least 1 year when a sexual assault complaint was filed against him 5 months after the incident occurred. The man claims the female undergraduate was upset he started dating one of her friends.
CASA will allow colleges to legally mass produce these types of campus removals.
Rape is a crime. Schools are not criminal investigation institutions. THEY ARE EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS. Their purpose is to EDUCATE. Rape should be investigated by criminal investigation institutions NOT schools. Both Gillibrand and McCaskill are vehemently opposed to such a policy. If police rather than schools handle alleged sexual assault crimes, the feminist senators will be unable to achieve their goal of the mass removal of male undergraduates from higher education.
The impetus for this mass removal is a 2010 study by the research firm Reach Advisors. The study discovered single women aged 22-30 outearn their male counterparts in most American cities. Reach Advisors cited college education as the main reason for the gender pay gap. Significantly more women than men earn degrees. By creating CASA, feminist politicians hope thousands of male undergraduates can be prevented from obtaining degrees. Less men with degrees means more high paying skilled jobs go to educated women.
Feminist already control large sections of American education. They have created programs such as The National Girls Collaborative Project, Women in Mathematics and The EDGE Program. All promote learning solely among girls. They have designed reading classes in lower education emphasizing various character's feelings and emotions so that they appeal to girls and disinterest boys. They have obtained financing from companies such as Exxon, Caterpillar and Intel for girls only educational coursework and resources. They have received funding from National Science Foundation (a federal agency) for their organization Girls Incorporated. One function of Girls Inc. is distributing university scholarships with the stipulation the receiving student cannot be male. Thru the American Association of University Women, these female chauvinists have written school conduct codes resulting in boys as young as 6 being suspended for alleged sexual assault. With the addition of CASA, feminist can significantly hinder men's education from grade school thru college.
Gillibrand and McCaskill have vowed to make their proposal into law. Currently, these Senators (both Democrats) have some bipartisan support. Senators Marco Rubio (R), Kelly Ayotte (R), Richard Blumenthal (D), Chuck Grassley (R), Dean Heller (R), and Mark Warner (D) have stated they support the proposal. This bipartisan support shows men voting on the basis of a politician's party affiliation are being fools. What matters is a politician's feminist affiliation. Vote against any politician affiliating themselves with feminism. CASA is feminism.
CASA will regulate sexual assault investigations on US campuses. The Act requires all publicly funded universities to: investigate alleged campus rapes, designate Confidential Advisors for every student claiming she was raped and conduct annual sexual assault surveys of undergraduates. Federal funds shall be withheld from any University not complying with CASA. Additionally, non complying schools shall also be heavily fined possibly in excess of one million dollars. The US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights shall keep all fines it collects from schools. CASA labels accusing students as victims. It gives accused students no advisor. They are on their own. The Act assumes accused students are guilty unless proven otherwise. Guilty students are removed from campus.
CASA's main sponsors, feminist Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) and Claire McCaskill (Missiouri), fraudulently claim 1 in 5 college women are sexually assaulted. Thus, according to these politicians, hundreds of thousands of male undergraduates are rapists. Groundless suspensions and expulsions have already occurred across US campuses. For example, Xavier University expelled Dez Wells for sexual assault. However, after listening to evidence, a Grand jury refused to indict him. The prosecutor doubted the assault occurred and hospital examination showed no trauma on the woman's body. Columbia University suspended an unidentified man for at least 1 year when a sexual assault complaint was filed against him 5 months after the incident occurred. The man claims the female undergraduate was upset he started dating one of her friends.
CASA will allow colleges to legally mass produce these types of campus removals.
Rape is a crime. Schools are not criminal investigation institutions. THEY ARE EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS. Their purpose is to EDUCATE. Rape should be investigated by criminal investigation institutions NOT schools. Both Gillibrand and McCaskill are vehemently opposed to such a policy. If police rather than schools handle alleged sexual assault crimes, the feminist senators will be unable to achieve their goal of the mass removal of male undergraduates from higher education.
The impetus for this mass removal is a 2010 study by the research firm Reach Advisors. The study discovered single women aged 22-30 outearn their male counterparts in most American cities. Reach Advisors cited college education as the main reason for the gender pay gap. Significantly more women than men earn degrees. By creating CASA, feminist politicians hope thousands of male undergraduates can be prevented from obtaining degrees. Less men with degrees means more high paying skilled jobs go to educated women.
Feminist already control large sections of American education. They have created programs such as The National Girls Collaborative Project, Women in Mathematics and The EDGE Program. All promote learning solely among girls. They have designed reading classes in lower education emphasizing various character's feelings and emotions so that they appeal to girls and disinterest boys. They have obtained financing from companies such as Exxon, Caterpillar and Intel for girls only educational coursework and resources. They have received funding from National Science Foundation (a federal agency) for their organization Girls Incorporated. One function of Girls Inc. is distributing university scholarships with the stipulation the receiving student cannot be male. Thru the American Association of University Women, these female chauvinists have written school conduct codes resulting in boys as young as 6 being suspended for alleged sexual assault. With the addition of CASA, feminist can significantly hinder men's education from grade school thru college.
Gillibrand and McCaskill have vowed to make their proposal into law. Currently, these Senators (both Democrats) have some bipartisan support. Senators Marco Rubio (R), Kelly Ayotte (R), Richard Blumenthal (D), Chuck Grassley (R), Dean Heller (R), and Mark Warner (D) have stated they support the proposal. This bipartisan support shows men voting on the basis of a politician's party affiliation are being fools. What matters is a politician's feminist affiliation. Vote against any politician affiliating themselves with feminism. CASA is feminism.
September 2, 2014
Women Are More Controlling Than Men In Relationships
A recent British study concluded females are more prone than males to be controlling and aggressive in relationships.
Psychologists at the University of Cumbria questioned 706 young women and 398 young men about their behavior in relationships. They were asked about their physical aggression and controlling behavior toward sexual partners and friends. The psychologists discovered women were more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive toward men than vice versa. Women were also shown to engage in greater levels of controlling behavior than men. This type of behavior is understood by psychologists to be a predictor of physical aggression in both sexes. The findings also revealed just as many females as males could be classified as abusive.
Lead researcher, Dr Elizabeth Bates said "This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men." She also stated ‘"The stereotypical popular view is still one of dominant control by men. That does occur but research over the last ten to 15 years has highlighted the fact that women are controlling and aggressive in relationships too.’"
Previous studies, particularly in feminist America, explained controlling behavior in relationships as male violence towards women arising from patriarchal values. The British study shatters that feminist myth. Dr Bates stated "This [study] suggests that IPV [intimate partner violence] may not be motivated by patriarchal values and needs to be studied within the context of other forms of aggression, which has potential implications for interventions."
Dr Bates' last statement shakes the very foundation of feminism. Her statement means that rather than judging people on the basis of their gender they should be judged on the basis of their actions.
In America, this would require a rethinking of institutions such as domestic abuse shelters and the family court system. These entities currently follow feminist philosophical guidelines. They judge people on the basis of feminist gender stereotypes. Thus, men are denied access to domestic abuse shelters because they are seen as violent rapists. Conversely, women are viewed as good & virtuous. Men are also denied equality in the family court system because courts believe any marital problems are the husband's fault. Wives are viewed as innocent. Additionally, popular women's websites such as Lulu operate on feminist principles. Lulu's creators, Alison Schwartz & Alexandra Chong, believe only males cause relationship problems. Their website's philosophy is only males act selfish or violent. Females are seen as honest, selfless and righteous. Thus, the website allows dating reviews only of men. Schwartz and Chong deem the rating of women as unnecessary since female characteristics are all good.
The feminist idea of all women being benevolent and selfless is obsolete. The British relationship study shows feminist gender stereotypes were based on sexism not scientific fact. People should be judged on the basis of their actions not gender.
Psychologists at the University of Cumbria questioned 706 young women and 398 young men about their behavior in relationships. They were asked about their physical aggression and controlling behavior toward sexual partners and friends. The psychologists discovered women were more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive toward men than vice versa. Women were also shown to engage in greater levels of controlling behavior than men. This type of behavior is understood by psychologists to be a predictor of physical aggression in both sexes. The findings also revealed just as many females as males could be classified as abusive.
Lead researcher, Dr Elizabeth Bates said "This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men." She also stated ‘"The stereotypical popular view is still one of dominant control by men. That does occur but research over the last ten to 15 years has highlighted the fact that women are controlling and aggressive in relationships too.’"
Previous studies, particularly in feminist America, explained controlling behavior in relationships as male violence towards women arising from patriarchal values. The British study shatters that feminist myth. Dr Bates stated "This [study] suggests that IPV [intimate partner violence] may not be motivated by patriarchal values and needs to be studied within the context of other forms of aggression, which has potential implications for interventions."
Dr Bates' last statement shakes the very foundation of feminism. Her statement means that rather than judging people on the basis of their gender they should be judged on the basis of their actions.
In America, this would require a rethinking of institutions such as domestic abuse shelters and the family court system. These entities currently follow feminist philosophical guidelines. They judge people on the basis of feminist gender stereotypes. Thus, men are denied access to domestic abuse shelters because they are seen as violent rapists. Conversely, women are viewed as good & virtuous. Men are also denied equality in the family court system because courts believe any marital problems are the husband's fault. Wives are viewed as innocent. Additionally, popular women's websites such as Lulu operate on feminist principles. Lulu's creators, Alison Schwartz & Alexandra Chong, believe only males cause relationship problems. Their website's philosophy is only males act selfish or violent. Females are seen as honest, selfless and righteous. Thus, the website allows dating reviews only of men. Schwartz and Chong deem the rating of women as unnecessary since female characteristics are all good.
The feminist idea of all women being benevolent and selfless is obsolete. The British relationship study shows feminist gender stereotypes were based on sexism not scientific fact. People should be judged on the basis of their actions not gender.
July 30, 2014
Female Sex Offenders And Their Defense
Three recent female sex offender incidents shows America’s feminist culture uses an array of excuses to defend these women's actions.
In the first incident, an Ohio high school track coach, Mrs. Martina Stanley, 35, admitted to a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old boy. Although he was a student at her high school, she was neither his teacher nor coach. In June, a Marion County court issued her a 15 day jail sentence and 60 hours of community service. She also lost her teaching license.
The defense used by her attorney, and promoted by several media outlets, was the sexual relationship caused the boy no harm. Some media reports implied Mrs. Stanley should not even be sentenced. The 'no harm' defense is often used for female sex offenders. It is rooted in feminist ideology and white knight culture.
Feminism emphasizes men are often responsible for a women's misdeeds therefore women are not true criminals. Only men are criminals. This philosophy was the basis for a document titled "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" written by the "The National Association of Women Judges" The document's focus was the promotion of a two tiered sentencing system based on gender. Women should be given lighter sentences than men for most crimes. The document has beenn promoted for nearly a decade.
Similarly, male white knight culture is based on the belief all women are pure and good. They see women as being 'up on a pedestal'. These men view the conviction of women for criminal actions as wrong.
The idea adult women cannot harm adolescent boys is false.
Consider the fact psychologists, feminist and white knights categorically emphasize adolescent girls are more mature than adolescent boys. They also violently oppose any sexual relationship between adult males and adolescent girls. They claim such a relationship causes girls to have higher levels of depression, lower levels of self-esteem and causes her physiological damage.
Yet, maturity is the determining factor in how well an individual handles a sexual relationship. The claim mature girls are harmed by sex while immature boys remain unaffected is illogical and contradictory. Also, when Mrs. Stanely began a sexual relationship with the boy, she taught him its ok for adults to date minors. When he's in his 30's, he could have sex with adolescent girls based on his experience with Mrs. Stanely. Has harm been done? Suppose he gets married in the future. By having sex with the boy, Mrs. Stanely taught him its ok to lie to your spouse's face and stab them in the back. He could cheat on his future wife with an adolescent girl based on his experience as an adolescent. Has harm been done?
Lastly, actual harm is never the only issue in other crimes. For example, if a women is attacked and raped by an assailant, that assailant is viewed as a criminal. Suppose the woman was able to escape thereby avoiding all the harm associated with rape. Is the assailant no longer a criminal? The legal issue is adults dating adolescents.
Martina Stanley's 15 day sentence might seem reasonable if the youth was close to his 18th birthday. However, there is a small problem.
On March 1, 2013 a Marion County Court sentenced a male sex offender to 14 years in prison. Richard Hale, 53, was guilty of taking nude pictures of an underage girl and having a sexual relationship with her. The girl was either 16 or 17 - for reasons unknown the court did not determine her exact age. The adolescent girl made no statements against Mr. Hale. Their relationship was only discovered when the girl asked her high school for help with her home life. Her mother was selling drugs and she was using drugs. The Court had no evidence Hale ever gave her drugs. Hale also had many nude pictures of previous girlfriends. Several officials viewed the photos. Only 1 person thought a few of the girls were probably under 18. However, the judgmental accuracy and objectivity of this person is unknown. Defendants cannot be convicted of additional crimes based on a vague opinion of one individual. No other victims have come forward. There is also no evidence Hale ever distributed any of his pictures to the public.
The factual evidence against Richard Hale and Martin Stanely is not too different yet the difference between their sentences is huge. It appears Marion County is using "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" as its legal guidance. Mr. Hale would seemingly have grounds for a gender discrimination lawsuit.
In a second female sex offender case, Utah teacher, Mrs. Brianne Land Altice, 34, admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy. The boy was a student at her school. Allegedly, the relationship lasted from March to June in 2013. Mrs. Altice's defense is the relationship was not her fault. Her attorney claims the 16 year old boy is at fault. He pursued her. On June 3, a Utah judge denied a motion to dismiss charges against her.
Claiming an adult woman is not responsible for her actions is classic feminism. Like Martina Stanely's case, it is rooted in the feminist belief that men are responsible for a women's misdeeds. Whether or not the boy pursued her is irrelevant. She is the adult. ALL adults are responsible for their actions. She made the decision to date a 16 year old, lie to her husbands face and stab him in the back. She bares sole responsibility for that decision. Her husband has filed for divorce and custody of their child.
In the final sex offender case, a New York high school gym teacher, Mrs. Joy Morsi, 38, was arrested on June 3 and charged with 20 counts each of third-degree rape and third-degree criminal sexual act. She allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy whom was a student at her school. Prosecutors claim the relationship ended when Mrs. Morsi “flipped out” over the boy's decision to take a female classmate to the prom. Additionally, a second student has since come forward to say he also had sex with the teacher. Apparently, Mrs. Morsi began dating him as an act of revenge against her original teenage boyfriend. Her husband accompanied her to her arraignment but reporters claim he did not leave with her afterwards.
Defending her, Fox News commenter Tucker Carlson stated "”You’re this boy, and all of a sudden you’re a rape victim? You pursue an older woman, and have a relationship with her, and you’re a rape victim??”. He called the case "ludicrous". He also admitted it would be a different if the victim was female and the teacher was male. Carlson is another white knight male who views women as being 'up on a pedestal' He thinks 16 year old girls never think about sex. Instead, they sit in their basement and play with their Barbie dolls. Its irrelevant the teenage boy pursued Mrs Morsi. He's a minor. SHE'S THE ADULT.
In America, feminist double standards, often supported by white knight men, are used to defend female sex offenders.
In the first incident, an Ohio high school track coach, Mrs. Martina Stanley, 35, admitted to a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old boy. Although he was a student at her high school, she was neither his teacher nor coach. In June, a Marion County court issued her a 15 day jail sentence and 60 hours of community service. She also lost her teaching license.
The defense used by her attorney, and promoted by several media outlets, was the sexual relationship caused the boy no harm. Some media reports implied Mrs. Stanley should not even be sentenced. The 'no harm' defense is often used for female sex offenders. It is rooted in feminist ideology and white knight culture.
Feminism emphasizes men are often responsible for a women's misdeeds therefore women are not true criminals. Only men are criminals. This philosophy was the basis for a document titled "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" written by the "The National Association of Women Judges" The document's focus was the promotion of a two tiered sentencing system based on gender. Women should be given lighter sentences than men for most crimes. The document has beenn promoted for nearly a decade.
Similarly, male white knight culture is based on the belief all women are pure and good. They see women as being 'up on a pedestal'. These men view the conviction of women for criminal actions as wrong.
The idea adult women cannot harm adolescent boys is false.
Consider the fact psychologists, feminist and white knights categorically emphasize adolescent girls are more mature than adolescent boys. They also violently oppose any sexual relationship between adult males and adolescent girls. They claim such a relationship causes girls to have higher levels of depression, lower levels of self-esteem and causes her physiological damage.
Yet, maturity is the determining factor in how well an individual handles a sexual relationship. The claim mature girls are harmed by sex while immature boys remain unaffected is illogical and contradictory. Also, when Mrs. Stanely began a sexual relationship with the boy, she taught him its ok for adults to date minors. When he's in his 30's, he could have sex with adolescent girls based on his experience with Mrs. Stanely. Has harm been done? Suppose he gets married in the future. By having sex with the boy, Mrs. Stanely taught him its ok to lie to your spouse's face and stab them in the back. He could cheat on his future wife with an adolescent girl based on his experience as an adolescent. Has harm been done?
Lastly, actual harm is never the only issue in other crimes. For example, if a women is attacked and raped by an assailant, that assailant is viewed as a criminal. Suppose the woman was able to escape thereby avoiding all the harm associated with rape. Is the assailant no longer a criminal? The legal issue is adults dating adolescents.
Martina Stanley's 15 day sentence might seem reasonable if the youth was close to his 18th birthday. However, there is a small problem.
On March 1, 2013 a Marion County Court sentenced a male sex offender to 14 years in prison. Richard Hale, 53, was guilty of taking nude pictures of an underage girl and having a sexual relationship with her. The girl was either 16 or 17 - for reasons unknown the court did not determine her exact age. The adolescent girl made no statements against Mr. Hale. Their relationship was only discovered when the girl asked her high school for help with her home life. Her mother was selling drugs and she was using drugs. The Court had no evidence Hale ever gave her drugs. Hale also had many nude pictures of previous girlfriends. Several officials viewed the photos. Only 1 person thought a few of the girls were probably under 18. However, the judgmental accuracy and objectivity of this person is unknown. Defendants cannot be convicted of additional crimes based on a vague opinion of one individual. No other victims have come forward. There is also no evidence Hale ever distributed any of his pictures to the public.
The factual evidence against Richard Hale and Martin Stanely is not too different yet the difference between their sentences is huge. It appears Marion County is using "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" as its legal guidance. Mr. Hale would seemingly have grounds for a gender discrimination lawsuit.
In a second female sex offender case, Utah teacher, Mrs. Brianne Land Altice, 34, admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy. The boy was a student at her school. Allegedly, the relationship lasted from March to June in 2013. Mrs. Altice's defense is the relationship was not her fault. Her attorney claims the 16 year old boy is at fault. He pursued her. On June 3, a Utah judge denied a motion to dismiss charges against her.
Claiming an adult woman is not responsible for her actions is classic feminism. Like Martina Stanely's case, it is rooted in the feminist belief that men are responsible for a women's misdeeds. Whether or not the boy pursued her is irrelevant. She is the adult. ALL adults are responsible for their actions. She made the decision to date a 16 year old, lie to her husbands face and stab him in the back. She bares sole responsibility for that decision. Her husband has filed for divorce and custody of their child.
In the final sex offender case, a New York high school gym teacher, Mrs. Joy Morsi, 38, was arrested on June 3 and charged with 20 counts each of third-degree rape and third-degree criminal sexual act. She allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy whom was a student at her school. Prosecutors claim the relationship ended when Mrs. Morsi “flipped out” over the boy's decision to take a female classmate to the prom. Additionally, a second student has since come forward to say he also had sex with the teacher. Apparently, Mrs. Morsi began dating him as an act of revenge against her original teenage boyfriend. Her husband accompanied her to her arraignment but reporters claim he did not leave with her afterwards.
Defending her, Fox News commenter Tucker Carlson stated "”You’re this boy, and all of a sudden you’re a rape victim? You pursue an older woman, and have a relationship with her, and you’re a rape victim??”. He called the case "ludicrous". He also admitted it would be a different if the victim was female and the teacher was male. Carlson is another white knight male who views women as being 'up on a pedestal' He thinks 16 year old girls never think about sex. Instead, they sit in their basement and play with their Barbie dolls. Its irrelevant the teenage boy pursued Mrs Morsi. He's a minor. SHE'S THE ADULT.
In America, feminist double standards, often supported by white knight men, are used to defend female sex offenders.
July 7, 2014
The National Campaign Against Male College Students
Feminist have launched a national
campaign of harassment and intimidation toward male college
students.
At Columbia University, feminists wrote
the names of four male students at various locations across the
campus claiming they were rapists. However, none of the students had been found guilty of anything. The
only known fact about any of their cases is that a complaint was
filed against one of the men 5 months after the incident.
New York's feminist Senator, Kirsten
Gillibrand, wants more legislation against colleges' alleged rape
culture. She stated "The price [for women] of a college
education should not include a 1 in 5 chance of
being sexually assaulted." She claimed schools have "become
havens for rape and sexual assault". "These are not cases
of dates gone badly, of a misunderstanding about
whether she said yes or no, these are actually brutal crimes
committed by recidivists and predators". Falsely claiming
thousands of women are being raped means thousands
of men are rapists. Gillibrand is hoping to create new legislation
making it easier for schools to expel large numbers of accused men.
Sandra Fluke, a feminist California
State Senate candidate, repeated Gillibrand's fraudulent clam of 1 in
5 female undergraduates being sexually assaulted. She stated "One
in five women will survive a rape or
attempted rape by the time she graduates college. That means of the
approximately 966,000 women at the bachelor's degree level who will graduate this year, 193,200 will be
survivors of rape or attempted rape while in college". Fluke
demanded female undergraduates be given "rape shield statutes to
protect assault survivors from character
assassination". Her proposal means that in any campus incidents
women will remain anonymous while men will be named. This includes
incidents of false rape.
In a TIME Magazine article, Nancy Chi
Cantalupo, feminist professor at Georgetown Law, argued that accused
students rights can be ignored because "schools face exponentially more expensive liability
for violating student victims’ rights under Title IX than they do
for violating accused assailants’ due process rights". She stated the largest award given to a
falsely accused male undergraduate was only $26,500 compared with
$2.8 million awarded a women.
Feminist Amanda Childress, Sexual
Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College stated
“"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” "It
seems to me that we value fair and equitable
processes more than we value the safety of our students." Thus,
the Dartmouth Coordinator wants men expelled on mere accusations. This same school has also created a
Bystander Initiative program which demands pupils, faculty and staff
intervene against men at the first signs of dating trouble. Dartmouth is creating a type
of feminist police state.
Lastly, TIME magazine's recent large
article titled 'The Sexual Assault Crisis on American Campuses'
emphasized campus sexual assault rules are applied only against men. Women cannot be rapists. In fairness,
the author also implored only about 6% of male undergraduates are
rapists. She said most men are good. Nonetheless, emphasizing rape
laws be applied only against men gives
feminist opportunities to manipulate sexual assault rules without
impacting female students. Manipulating rules will allow for the expulsion of increasing numbers of
men from college. Thus, 6% can easily be changed to 20% or even 40%
of male undergraduates are rapists. An example of this double standard occurred in the Ohio State
University false rape incident. A video was posted of two drunk undergraduates having sex. Feminists publicly demanded the man be
expelled because, under current campus guidelines, a drunk women
cannot give sexual consent. However, the man was was also drunk. Yet
the woman was not deemed a rapist. Sexual assault guidelines
were applied only toward the man.
Across America, feminist are advocating
a hostile campus environment for male university students. These
women are creating rules allowing for the easy expulsion of men on bogus charges. Feminist are
attempting to limit the number of men earning degrees.
The impetus
for this limitation is a 2010 study by the research firm Reach
Advisors. The study discovered single women aged
22-30 outearn their male counterparts in most American cities. Reach
Advisors cited college education as the main reason for the gender pay gap. Significantly more
women than men earn degrees. By altering campus rules, feminist hope
thousands of male undergraduates can be prevented from obtaining
degrees. Less men with degrees means more high paying
skilled jobs go to educated women.
Curtailing mens' economic opportunities
while simultaneously advancing women is the campaign's major goal. If feminists wanted equality, they would have advocated fairness for
all students. Instead, these women are intentionally
creating a hostile learning environment for men.
May 31, 2014
America's Feminist Media and Jill Abramson
The New York Times recently fired executive editor Jill Abramson. She was replaced by Dean Baquet. America's female chauvinist media was outraged.
Every time a white female corporate manager is fired, there is mass media hysteria. The same hysteria happened with the firing of Carly Fiorina, Carol Bartz, Cynthia Carroll and a host of other female corporate managers. The American media projects a feminist mindset that white female managers should not be fired nor questioned. They should simply be obeyed.
The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, NPR in fact nearly all media outlets claimed she was fired because she was a woman. They even made up a phrase calling her firing a 'glass cliff' for women.
However, Dylan Byers (from POLITICO) stated that Abramson had many problems with subordinates. She was viewed as stubborn and condescending. Many subordinates believed they were being treated poorly. The usually feminist NewYorker backed up his claim. Could this be the reason for her firing? Why would an organization want dissension within its ranks?
A Charlie Rose panel (Rebecca Traistter, Ann Marie Lipinski and Dylan Byers;) grudgingly admitted that the previous executive editor, Bill Keller, had the same problem. Ultimately, it led to his demotion. Could it be the New York Times owner did not want to go thru the same scenario all over again?
The same panelists also stated Abramson hired many females - most of whom were white. Could it be that male journalists were growing resentful at being passed over for promotion or not being hired at all? Because most major media organizations operate secretively, its not known whether she actually practiced sex discrimination in her hiring and promotion practices. However, it is known that she intended to hire Janine Gibson - a white female and place her in a prominent position. Ms. Gibson would serve alongside Dean Baquet as a co-managing editor. Baquet was never told of such an arrangement and was angered when he inadvertently found out. Was Abramson discretely creating a white female controlled environment circumventing other employees? Additionally, could her underhandedness concerning Mr. Baquet be a reason for her firing?
Another fact is Abramson demanded the New York Times pay her more money. After 3 years as executive editor, her salary was $503,000. She demanded the same salary as previous executive editor Bill Keller. His salary, after 8 years in the position was $559,000. Abramson hired a lawyer to assert her salary demands.
Making salary demands by hiring a lawyer is not an intelligent decision. An employer will likely become angered. Could that be a reason for her firing? Additionally, American feminist media outlets such as the LA Times, Huffington Post, Slate, The NewYorker, CNN and others claimed her salary demands were about pay equity. However, none of the feminist outlets justified why a women needs only work 3 years in a position before she can make the same as a man who worked 8 years in the same position.
Lastly, these same news organizations contended Abramson created an atmosphere for high quality reporting and investigative journalism.If so then why has the New York Times continued producing biased and chauvinistic articles? For example. a few weeks before her firing the organization wrote an article titled "Technology’s Man Problem". The article claimed male programmers make death threats and rape threats against women. It stated the "computer-engineering culture" causes hostility toward women and pushes them out of the industry. It quoted a man named Lauren Weinstein. He said the reason more women aren’t in this industry is because "these guys are just jerks, and women know it". The foundation for these hostile claims was the fictional app Titstare. According to its comedy presentation, the app allows someone to take photos of themselves staring at tits. The New York Times claimed the app was disgusting and sexist. It was an example of why more women are needed in computing. However, this same news organization produced a November 2013 article discussing the app Lulu. This app allows women to write reviews of men but expressly forbids men from reviewing women. Pictures of men can also be uploaded and their names listed. Negative comments can be posted anonymously. Lulu's developer hopes the app will change men. The New York Times article openly supported Lulu. Thus, according to this news organization, under Abramson's management, a fictional app about staring at anonymous women's tits promotes sexism. A real app rating named men like a restaurant service - and forbidding the rating of women - does NOT promote sexism. THIS IS CLASSIC FEMINIST DOUBLE STANDARD.
Admittedly, the New York Times produced biased and double standard articles long before her hiring. However, she did little to promote objectivity during her tenure.
Media hysteria every time a woman corporate manager is fired shows the American news industry has an entrenched female chauvinist culture. It is a culture based on the philosophy that women should not be held accountable for their actions and men are second class citizens. This philosophy is formally known as feminism.
Every time a white female corporate manager is fired, there is mass media hysteria. The same hysteria happened with the firing of Carly Fiorina, Carol Bartz, Cynthia Carroll and a host of other female corporate managers. The American media projects a feminist mindset that white female managers should not be fired nor questioned. They should simply be obeyed.
The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, NPR in fact nearly all media outlets claimed she was fired because she was a woman. They even made up a phrase calling her firing a 'glass cliff' for women.
However, Dylan Byers (from POLITICO) stated that Abramson had many problems with subordinates. She was viewed as stubborn and condescending. Many subordinates believed they were being treated poorly. The usually feminist NewYorker backed up his claim. Could this be the reason for her firing? Why would an organization want dissension within its ranks?
A Charlie Rose panel (Rebecca Traistter, Ann Marie Lipinski and Dylan Byers;) grudgingly admitted that the previous executive editor, Bill Keller, had the same problem. Ultimately, it led to his demotion. Could it be the New York Times owner did not want to go thru the same scenario all over again?
The same panelists also stated Abramson hired many females - most of whom were white. Could it be that male journalists were growing resentful at being passed over for promotion or not being hired at all? Because most major media organizations operate secretively, its not known whether she actually practiced sex discrimination in her hiring and promotion practices. However, it is known that she intended to hire Janine Gibson - a white female and place her in a prominent position. Ms. Gibson would serve alongside Dean Baquet as a co-managing editor. Baquet was never told of such an arrangement and was angered when he inadvertently found out. Was Abramson discretely creating a white female controlled environment circumventing other employees? Additionally, could her underhandedness concerning Mr. Baquet be a reason for her firing?
Another fact is Abramson demanded the New York Times pay her more money. After 3 years as executive editor, her salary was $503,000. She demanded the same salary as previous executive editor Bill Keller. His salary, after 8 years in the position was $559,000. Abramson hired a lawyer to assert her salary demands.
Making salary demands by hiring a lawyer is not an intelligent decision. An employer will likely become angered. Could that be a reason for her firing? Additionally, American feminist media outlets such as the LA Times, Huffington Post, Slate, The NewYorker, CNN and others claimed her salary demands were about pay equity. However, none of the feminist outlets justified why a women needs only work 3 years in a position before she can make the same as a man who worked 8 years in the same position.
Lastly, these same news organizations contended Abramson created an atmosphere for high quality reporting and investigative journalism.If so then why has the New York Times continued producing biased and chauvinistic articles? For example. a few weeks before her firing the organization wrote an article titled "Technology’s Man Problem". The article claimed male programmers make death threats and rape threats against women. It stated the "computer-engineering culture" causes hostility toward women and pushes them out of the industry. It quoted a man named Lauren Weinstein. He said the reason more women aren’t in this industry is because "these guys are just jerks, and women know it". The foundation for these hostile claims was the fictional app Titstare. According to its comedy presentation, the app allows someone to take photos of themselves staring at tits. The New York Times claimed the app was disgusting and sexist. It was an example of why more women are needed in computing. However, this same news organization produced a November 2013 article discussing the app Lulu. This app allows women to write reviews of men but expressly forbids men from reviewing women. Pictures of men can also be uploaded and their names listed. Negative comments can be posted anonymously. Lulu's developer hopes the app will change men. The New York Times article openly supported Lulu. Thus, according to this news organization, under Abramson's management, a fictional app about staring at anonymous women's tits promotes sexism. A real app rating named men like a restaurant service - and forbidding the rating of women - does NOT promote sexism. THIS IS CLASSIC FEMINIST DOUBLE STANDARD.
Admittedly, the New York Times produced biased and double standard articles long before her hiring. However, she did little to promote objectivity during her tenure.
Media hysteria every time a woman corporate manager is fired shows the American news industry has an entrenched female chauvinist culture. It is a culture based on the philosophy that women should not be held accountable for their actions and men are second class citizens. This philosophy is formally known as feminism.
May 22, 2014
A Reason Why Marriage Is A Bad Deal For Men
A prime example illustrating how marriage is a bad deal for men recently appeared on the news website Slate (ranked by Alexa as one of the most popular sites in the word).
On the site's Advice section, a wife wrote that she had been married two years and recently became pregnant. Her husband wanted a paternity test simply to make sure the child was his. The wife, however, does not want to do a paternity test. She stated she has never given "him the slightest reason to doubt my fidelity" and "I’m at the point that I’m not sure I even want to save the marriage. What sort of dad is he going to be if his love and trust for me is so conditional? Part of me is strongly tempted to say “You’re right, this child is not yours,” and just raise it myself". Slate's feminist oriented advisor called the husband a "hostile, accusatory lunatic" and stated the wife should tell her husband she has "never been so shaken, and that he is making you question the foundation of your marriage".
Legalized paternity fraud is a major reason why men see marriage as a bad deal. In America, only 9 states have outlawed paternity fraud: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Missouri. Each of these states allow husbands to submit - at any time - DNA evidence proving they are not the father. The court will then absolve the husband from any child support or parental responsibilities. Three states, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Tennessee, allow the submission of DNA evidence only if the child is under the age of 5. Once the child reaches the age of 5, DNA testing is irrelevant. State law legally requires the husband to finance and raise his wife's boyfriend's child. The remaining states allow DNA testing only if the child is very young. Depending on the state, the child can be no older than a few years to only a few months old.
A husband can avoid every state's restrictions by obtaining DNA testing at birth. However, as emphasized by Slate, any husband requesting paternity testing will be harassed by his wife and called a "hostile, accusatory lunatic" by feminists. If DNA testing at birth were made state law this situation would be avoided. Husbands would have no need requesting testing since its required by law. However, opponents of such a law claim its insulting to innocent wives. Additionally, opponents state the government should not force couples into taking paternity testing. Allowing DNA paternity testing at anytime during the child's life would avoid insulting innocent wives and forcing couples into taking paternity tests. However, opponents of such a law claim children will be harmed because they will no longer have a father. They say they are concerned for the child's welfare.
As can be seen, there is a stream of excuses for maintaining paternity fraud in the United States. In any given situation, a husband will be harassed and denied paternity testing. Its a poor deal for husbands.
Additionally, the excuses as to why these wives cheat are a farce. Feminist oriented outlets such as Women's Day, WebMD and ABCNews promote propaganda claiming wives cheat because their husbands are unsupportive. These outlets claim a wife's boyfriend provides understanding and emotional support.
If the boyfriend is so understanding then why are so many states forcing the 'unsupportive' husband into raising the 'understanding' boyfriend's child? Wouldn't an 'understanding' man be a better father than a 'unsupportive' man? The contradictory excuses for female marital infidelity and legalized paternity fraud are simply ASTOUNDING.
Opposition to paternity fraud laws is not about the welfare of children. Rather, its about preserving the exploitation of husbands for the benefit of selfish fraudulent wives. The only people benefitting from paternity fraud are the backstabbing wife and her sleazeball boyfriend. The wife is able to fraud and exploit her husband without repercussions while the boyfriend is absolved from his parental responsibilities.
Since American law promotes the frauding of husbands, why should men get married? Marriage, for men, is a bad deal.
On the site's Advice section, a wife wrote that she had been married two years and recently became pregnant. Her husband wanted a paternity test simply to make sure the child was his. The wife, however, does not want to do a paternity test. She stated she has never given "him the slightest reason to doubt my fidelity" and "I’m at the point that I’m not sure I even want to save the marriage. What sort of dad is he going to be if his love and trust for me is so conditional? Part of me is strongly tempted to say “You’re right, this child is not yours,” and just raise it myself". Slate's feminist oriented advisor called the husband a "hostile, accusatory lunatic" and stated the wife should tell her husband she has "never been so shaken, and that he is making you question the foundation of your marriage".
Legalized paternity fraud is a major reason why men see marriage as a bad deal. In America, only 9 states have outlawed paternity fraud: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Missouri. Each of these states allow husbands to submit - at any time - DNA evidence proving they are not the father. The court will then absolve the husband from any child support or parental responsibilities. Three states, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Tennessee, allow the submission of DNA evidence only if the child is under the age of 5. Once the child reaches the age of 5, DNA testing is irrelevant. State law legally requires the husband to finance and raise his wife's boyfriend's child. The remaining states allow DNA testing only if the child is very young. Depending on the state, the child can be no older than a few years to only a few months old.
A husband can avoid every state's restrictions by obtaining DNA testing at birth. However, as emphasized by Slate, any husband requesting paternity testing will be harassed by his wife and called a "hostile, accusatory lunatic" by feminists. If DNA testing at birth were made state law this situation would be avoided. Husbands would have no need requesting testing since its required by law. However, opponents of such a law claim its insulting to innocent wives. Additionally, opponents state the government should not force couples into taking paternity testing. Allowing DNA paternity testing at anytime during the child's life would avoid insulting innocent wives and forcing couples into taking paternity tests. However, opponents of such a law claim children will be harmed because they will no longer have a father. They say they are concerned for the child's welfare.
As can be seen, there is a stream of excuses for maintaining paternity fraud in the United States. In any given situation, a husband will be harassed and denied paternity testing. Its a poor deal for husbands.
Additionally, the excuses as to why these wives cheat are a farce. Feminist oriented outlets such as Women's Day, WebMD and ABCNews promote propaganda claiming wives cheat because their husbands are unsupportive. These outlets claim a wife's boyfriend provides understanding and emotional support.
If the boyfriend is so understanding then why are so many states forcing the 'unsupportive' husband into raising the 'understanding' boyfriend's child? Wouldn't an 'understanding' man be a better father than a 'unsupportive' man? The contradictory excuses for female marital infidelity and legalized paternity fraud are simply ASTOUNDING.
Opposition to paternity fraud laws is not about the welfare of children. Rather, its about preserving the exploitation of husbands for the benefit of selfish fraudulent wives. The only people benefitting from paternity fraud are the backstabbing wife and her sleazeball boyfriend. The wife is able to fraud and exploit her husband without repercussions while the boyfriend is absolved from his parental responsibilities.
Since American law promotes the frauding of husbands, why should men get married? Marriage, for men, is a bad deal.
May 13, 2014
Changing Attitudes Regarding A Backstabbing Wife
For many decades, feminist have promoted the viewpoint that cheating wives are honest women. They cheat because of their husband's self-centeredness or laziness or other character flaw he possess. Articles such as Psychology Today's "Women Who Cheat on Relationships", Womens Day's "Why I Cheated on My Husband" and Redbook's "My Wife Cheated On Me" all promote this attitude. Conversely, a backstabbing husband is viewed differently than a backstabbing wife. Most media outlets, including Psychology Today, Womans Day and Redbook write articles claiming husbands cheat because they are liars and selfish. In fact, Redbook heavily criticized a husband merely for flirting.
However, reader comments in several media outlets indicates changing public opinion regarding a backstabbing wife.
On Yahoo's Dear Abbey, a husband wrote he inadvertently discovered email messages between his wife of 45 years and another man. She planned to secretly meet the man, a former business client, at a hotel in his home town during a convention. Her phone records confirmed daily secret long-distance conversations between the two.
Public reaction was decidedly against the married woman.
Typical comments were "sorry Sir--don't delude yourself. Exit gracefully, and with YOUR head held high. Someone will appreciate an honest man. Your wife obviously" and does not." and " Sorry dude, they don't start 'drifting 'after 45 years, she's had all she wanted while you were busting your butt to keep a roof over her head. Get yourself a good legal team, and investigator. You will be shocked what they can find out about her past affairs!!!" and "Heres the reality with the guy whose wife is going to a convention to cheat on him--When he confronts her about the email she will act wounded,scream how he invaded her privacy and then tell him if there is no trust there should be no marriage. She will then stomp off indignantly and get a lawyer,screw her husband over and take him for what she can and after she has picked him to the bones she will still have the sex she wanted with that guy but this time she will act self righteous and the wounded party for those that believe her lies."
Some readers even pointed out Dear Abbey's promotion of feminist double standard. For example, one reader stated "I love it last month or the month before there was a letter from a woman that her husband was cheating. The first words were, get a lawyer, file for divorce and sue him for everything you can. What happened this time? Why not tell him to dump the cheating B*&*CH and get a lawyer to sue for everything he can? What double standard of BS advice to give to this guy. Take the advice she gave the wife of a cheating husband last month."
At the Huffington Post, public reaction to a wife's infidelity was similar. This outlet displayed a video of a husband crashing his SUV into his house after catching his wife cheating. Some typical responses were "Not me. I'm not going to ruin anything I own. Just turn around and walk away. She's obviously not worth it." and "I am not sure how destroying your own house (and likely getting arrested) constitutes revenge. It hurts to get cheated on and really sucks to catch them in the act but take a walk and preserve your dignity and your assets. Dump the wife, keep the house. That is revenge."
Admittedly, there were readers at both outlets defending the backstabbing women. They continued promoting the old feminist viewpoint that a wife's cheating is her husband's fault. These readers made statements such as "The husband may have done something wrong" and "Maybe he was a lousy husband" and the husband is "a schmuck".
Perhaps the most stunning reversal of opinion appeared on the usually female chauvinist website CafeMom. A backstabbing wife wrote that she had an affair when she wasn't getting along with her husband. The affair lasted 5 months. Ultimately, she became pregnant by her boyfriend. The boyfriend ended the relationship once the pregnancy arose - not an unusual reaction for sleazeballs who date married women. She then worked on making her marriage better. Three years after the affair, she confessed to her husband. Surprisingly, many readers were unsympathetic to the backstabbing woman.
Typical comments were: "She waited till their relationship was going well to tell him because she feared if she told him while they were having problems, he'd leave. That's selfish. Cheating is selfish." and "Odds are every time it gets hard she will turn somewhere else." Many also stated that the husband should get tested for STD's. However, there were a few women promoting old feminist double standards. They stated "If [the husband] loves her, he will drop his pride and make it work" and their bonds "can be even stronger" because of her honesty after 5 months of cheating.
Despite continuing feminist propaganda within the media, people's attitudes regarding marital backstabbing are changing. More people are holding women accountable for their behavior. Slowly, the public is reaching the conclusion a backstabbing wife and a backstabbing husband are the SAME THING.
However, reader comments in several media outlets indicates changing public opinion regarding a backstabbing wife.
On Yahoo's Dear Abbey, a husband wrote he inadvertently discovered email messages between his wife of 45 years and another man. She planned to secretly meet the man, a former business client, at a hotel in his home town during a convention. Her phone records confirmed daily secret long-distance conversations between the two.
Public reaction was decidedly against the married woman.
Typical comments were "sorry Sir--don't delude yourself. Exit gracefully, and with YOUR head held high. Someone will appreciate an honest man. Your wife obviously" and does not." and " Sorry dude, they don't start 'drifting 'after 45 years, she's had all she wanted while you were busting your butt to keep a roof over her head. Get yourself a good legal team, and investigator. You will be shocked what they can find out about her past affairs!!!" and "Heres the reality with the guy whose wife is going to a convention to cheat on him--When he confronts her about the email she will act wounded,scream how he invaded her privacy and then tell him if there is no trust there should be no marriage. She will then stomp off indignantly and get a lawyer,screw her husband over and take him for what she can and after she has picked him to the bones she will still have the sex she wanted with that guy but this time she will act self righteous and the wounded party for those that believe her lies."
Some readers even pointed out Dear Abbey's promotion of feminist double standard. For example, one reader stated "I love it last month or the month before there was a letter from a woman that her husband was cheating. The first words were, get a lawyer, file for divorce and sue him for everything you can. What happened this time? Why not tell him to dump the cheating B*&*CH and get a lawyer to sue for everything he can? What double standard of BS advice to give to this guy. Take the advice she gave the wife of a cheating husband last month."
At the Huffington Post, public reaction to a wife's infidelity was similar. This outlet displayed a video of a husband crashing his SUV into his house after catching his wife cheating. Some typical responses were "Not me. I'm not going to ruin anything I own. Just turn around and walk away. She's obviously not worth it." and "I am not sure how destroying your own house (and likely getting arrested) constitutes revenge. It hurts to get cheated on and really sucks to catch them in the act but take a walk and preserve your dignity and your assets. Dump the wife, keep the house. That is revenge."
Admittedly, there were readers at both outlets defending the backstabbing women. They continued promoting the old feminist viewpoint that a wife's cheating is her husband's fault. These readers made statements such as "The husband may have done something wrong" and "Maybe he was a lousy husband" and the husband is "a schmuck".
Perhaps the most stunning reversal of opinion appeared on the usually female chauvinist website CafeMom. A backstabbing wife wrote that she had an affair when she wasn't getting along with her husband. The affair lasted 5 months. Ultimately, she became pregnant by her boyfriend. The boyfriend ended the relationship once the pregnancy arose - not an unusual reaction for sleazeballs who date married women. She then worked on making her marriage better. Three years after the affair, she confessed to her husband. Surprisingly, many readers were unsympathetic to the backstabbing woman.
Typical comments were: "She waited till their relationship was going well to tell him because she feared if she told him while they were having problems, he'd leave. That's selfish. Cheating is selfish." and "Odds are every time it gets hard she will turn somewhere else." Many also stated that the husband should get tested for STD's. However, there were a few women promoting old feminist double standards. They stated "If [the husband] loves her, he will drop his pride and make it work" and their bonds "can be even stronger" because of her honesty after 5 months of cheating.
Despite continuing feminist propaganda within the media, people's attitudes regarding marital backstabbing are changing. More people are holding women accountable for their behavior. Slowly, the public is reaching the conclusion a backstabbing wife and a backstabbing husband are the SAME THING.
March 30, 2014
Norfolk Court Rejects Jail For Female Sex Offender
Patience Perez, 22, had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy while working as a security assistant at Renaissance Academy in Virginia Beach. Perez (who is married with children) had sex with the boy at her house as well as the boy's house.
The illegal affair ended when the boy's mother went to police after finding naked pictures of Perez on her son's phone. Norfolk police spokeswoman Karen Parker-Chesson said Perez and the boy used mobile phones to exchange pornographic images. Ms. Parker-Chesson also said Perez and the boy engaged in at least one conversation to plan to kill Perez's husband.
Despite these actions, Norfolk's County Court issued only a suspended seven month sentence to Perez. Additionally, she must get counseling, have no contact with the victim and register as a sex offender. The charges relating to the planned murder of her husband were dropped. Norfolk's feminist judicial system gave no explanation for the dropped charges.
The boy's mother was not happy with the lenient sentence. "We haven't wrapped our brain around it. It doesn't make sense. It's like we endured all this pain all this stress and for this to happen. Just like an arrow to the heart." In a previous interview, according to the website 'Scallywagandvagabond.com', the mother stated "She took advantage of a teenage boy that had depression issues, anger issues."
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Suppose a 22 year old male guard had a sexual relationship with a 15 year girl and talked about killing his wife. Think he'd get no jail time?
Norfolk’s leniency is similar to a court decision in Tennessee. According to a Tennessee police report, Elizabeth 'Leigh' Garner, 42 followed a 12-year-old boy into a bathroom at a party. She groped him and tried to remove his shorts so she could perform oral sex on him. She claimed she was drunk and thought the boy was a man. The Tennessee Circuit Court sentenced her to NOTHING. She merely has to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Imagine a 42 year old man claiming he was drunk and thought a 12 year old girl was a women. Think he would get a jail sentence? Think he would have to register as a sex offender?
Many, American courts appear to be using a document titled "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" written by The National Association of Women Judges. This feminist document advocates that female felons should be given more leniency than male felons.
A crime is not different just because a female is the perpetrator. Female sex offenders should be treated the same as male offenders. America's feminist kangaroo judicial system is a farce.
The illegal affair ended when the boy's mother went to police after finding naked pictures of Perez on her son's phone. Norfolk police spokeswoman Karen Parker-Chesson said Perez and the boy used mobile phones to exchange pornographic images. Ms. Parker-Chesson also said Perez and the boy engaged in at least one conversation to plan to kill Perez's husband.
Despite these actions, Norfolk's County Court issued only a suspended seven month sentence to Perez. Additionally, she must get counseling, have no contact with the victim and register as a sex offender. The charges relating to the planned murder of her husband were dropped. Norfolk's feminist judicial system gave no explanation for the dropped charges.
The boy's mother was not happy with the lenient sentence. "We haven't wrapped our brain around it. It doesn't make sense. It's like we endured all this pain all this stress and for this to happen. Just like an arrow to the heart." In a previous interview, according to the website 'Scallywagandvagabond.com', the mother stated "She took advantage of a teenage boy that had depression issues, anger issues."
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Suppose a 22 year old male guard had a sexual relationship with a 15 year girl and talked about killing his wife. Think he'd get no jail time?
Norfolk’s leniency is similar to a court decision in Tennessee. According to a Tennessee police report, Elizabeth 'Leigh' Garner, 42 followed a 12-year-old boy into a bathroom at a party. She groped him and tried to remove his shorts so she could perform oral sex on him. She claimed she was drunk and thought the boy was a man. The Tennessee Circuit Court sentenced her to NOTHING. She merely has to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Imagine a 42 year old man claiming he was drunk and thought a 12 year old girl was a women. Think he would get a jail sentence? Think he would have to register as a sex offender?
Many, American courts appear to be using a document titled "Sentencing Women Offenders: A Training Curriculum for Judges" written by The National Association of Women Judges. This feminist document advocates that female felons should be given more leniency than male felons.
A crime is not different just because a female is the perpetrator. Female sex offenders should be treated the same as male offenders. America's feminist kangaroo judicial system is a farce.
March 27, 2014
Thinkprogress Goads False Rape Charges on College Campuses
In a recent article, the progressive liberal website, Thinkprogress.org, promoted a false rape culture against male college students. The article, mockingly titled "Rape Victims Are Just As Guilty As Rapists If They’re Both Drunk", claimed that if 2 drunk students have sex, the male student should be convicted of rape.
According to the website, women cannot give consent for sex when they are drunk. Therefore, if a female student has sex with a man while drunk but later regrets her actions the man is a rapist. The website wants him kicked out of school and convicted. The site stated "research into college rapists reveals that sexual assault is premeditated and victims are carefully chosen. Alcohol is a tool that rapists often use, but it’s simply one tool among many." Thinkprogress believes an adult woman should not be responsible for her actions while drunk but an adult man SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE for both his actions as well as the woman's actions while he is drunk.
Thinkprogress is not an obscure, fringe website. Out of millions of American based sites, Thinkprogress is ranked by the company ALEXA approximately 960th in the United States . As a comparison, CBSNews is ranked about 290th.
This narrow minded website claims sex should only occur with the consent of a sober woman. Consent is not needed from a man. Thus if both students are drunk - EVEN THOUGH THE MALE STUDENT IS UNABLE TO GIVE CONSENT IN A SOBER STATE - the female student is not a rapist. As an example, in October 2013, two drunk Ohio State University students had sex. The female student later regretted it. The male student was then falsely accused of rape. Thinkprogress viewed the male student as a rapist whom should be kicked out of school and prosecuted. The site claimed his drunken state was irrelevant and that the female student did not need his consent. She therefore should not be accused of rape.
Conversely, if the roles are reversed, the internet site reaches a diferrent conclusion. If a drunk male student regrets having sex (such as with an overweight ugly female or a well known arrogant sorority girl), Thinkprogress does NOT consider it sexual assault. The website implores that sexual assault is only when a drunk FEMALE regrets her actions.
This gender double standard is classic feminism. The progressive website judges people on the basis of their gender RATHER THAN THEIR ACTIONS. In fact, judging people on the basis of their gender or race or religion is a fundamental pillar of progressive liberalism.
This internet site, along with feminist groups such as the American Association of University Women and National Organization of Women are attempting to erode civil rights on college campuses. They are advocating university conduct codes be altered so that men can more easily be kicked out of school. These groups have had previous success in changing conduct codes. In 2011, their influence within the US Dept of Education pushed the agency to alter University student behavior guidelines. Under the new guidelines, minimal evidence of sexual assault is needed for colleges to remove male students from school. This has resulted in men being booted from campus after false rape accusations.
By further eroding civil rights, organizations such as ThinkProgress believe thousands of additional male students can be removed from colleges across the country by false accusations. The impetus for this removal is a 2010 study by the research firm Reach Advisors. The study discovered that single women age 22-30 outearn men in most American cities. The Firm cited college education as the main reason for the gender pay gap. Significantly more women than men earn degrees.
Preventing thousands of men from obtaining degrees by altering guidelines so male students can more easily be kicked out of school on false rape accusations is the main feminist goal. Less men with degrees means more high paying skilled jobs go to educated women.
This is why ThinkProgress promotes the propaganda statement "at least one in four college women will be sexually assaulted during their academic career". Thousands of women being raped means thousands of men are the culprits.
The promotion of false rape by ThinkProgress is another example of the sexist feminist mindset.
March 2, 2014
Brunel University Promotes Sex Discrimination
Brunel University, located in Britain,
will give grants of £1,250 (approximately $2050 US) a month to 40
women studying postgraduate engineering courses.
Feminist engineering
lecturer, Petra Gratton stated "Only around a quarter of
students on engineering master's courses are women. Bluntly speaking,
that has to change if UK engineering is going to continue to compete
as successfully as it currently does. Also this Women in Engineering
Program will allow us to deeply study what is still holding back
female engineers from realizing their full career potential and the
insights we gain will be shared throughout higher education and the
engineering professional bodies." The feminist also stated
"While some may see this as positive discrimination the stark
reality is that UK [commerce] can no longer afford not to exploit
fully this enormous potential talent pool. Every British engineering
company will tell you they face crippling skills shortages and
without radical action that can only get worse."
Positive discrimination? This is code
talk from a narrow minded sexist woman. (Note: More formally these
types of women are called feminists). 'Positive discrimination' is simply another word for apartheid. The stark reality is that
Brunel University is denying men equal opportunity to advance their
education. This program allows the school to give financial aid based on gender. Thus, out of pocket education expenses will be lower for women
than men. Women will be getting paid simply to be female students.
Additionally, there is currently NOTHING stopping women from
advancing in engineering. Ms. Gratton claims that if women aren't 50%
of engineers then there is some type of discrimination. If '50%
women' defines equality then why isn't this feminist vehemently
advocating for more female child support payers? The British news
agency "The Guardian" indicates a meager 5% of child
support payers in Great Britian are women. This statistic appears
verified by the "Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of
Statistics for Great Britain" December 2011 and also September
2013. Five percent is SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the twenty five
percent that Petra Gratton claims is discrimination.
Lastly, Ms Gratton is full of feminist
crap when she states British engineering companies are facing
crippling skills shortages. According to the website
Theengineer.co.uk, 10.9% of engineering and technology graduates are
unemployed. The website stated "Ask the students what the
obstacles to getting a job are, and by far the most common responses
are the lack of opportunities and the difficulty of obtaining work
experience". Ms Gratton is merely trying to justify Brunel's feminist
program of sex discrimination.
In discussing Brunel's new program,
the BBC stated the University's plan "follows growing concerns
that postgraduate study risks becoming too exclusive, with high fees
and limited funding squeezing out poorer students." If this were
true then the program would not discriminate against poor men.
Brunel's program was designed to promote female chauvinism (more
commonly called feminism).
There is little doubt Brunel
University's female payment policy will have an impact on America's
education system. Currently, US education is largely controlled by
feminist groups such as the American Association of University Women
and the National Women's Law Center. These groups routinely advocate
curriculum designed to help female students and oppose curriculum
designed to help male students. It is simply a matter of time before
these female chauvinist organizations advocate adoption of Brunel
University's female payment policy.
January 23, 2014
Georgia Man Sued For Marriage Proposal Change Of Heart
Melissa Cooper sued Christopher Kelley for fraud and breach of promise to marry her after their 10-year relationship ended in 2011. The Coweta County Superior Court in Georgia awarded Ms. Cooper damages and attorneys’ fees worth $50,000, and now the Georgia Court of Appeals is affirming that ruling. The award is in addition to child support payments Cooper is already receiving from Kelley.
Melissa Cooper lived with Christopher Kelley for 10 years. They had one child and Cooper had another child from a previous relationship. In 2004, Kelley gave Cooper a ring. She claimed the ring was part of a marriage proposal. Christopher Kelley stated "I never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring". "I never said the words 'will you marry me' to her."
The couples relationship ended after Ms. Cooper discovered that Kelley had cheated on her with two other women. Additionally, Kelley wanted to end his relationship with Copper and start a new relationship with the 2nd other woman. In court proceedings however, Ms. Cooper admitted there was a time she also had an affair with someone else.
The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled saying "the promise to marry is enforceable and the fact that the couple lived together before and after the marriage proposal is only collateral to the promise to marry". Cooper's attorney said Melissa plans to use the money to buy a home.
If Georgia allows men to be sued for fraud because they change their mind about getting married (even when its unclear if they ever made a marriage proposal), then in the interest of equality, Georgia should allow husbands to sue their ex wives for paternity fraud. Currently, this state does not allow such a lawsuit. According to the website Nationalparentsorganization.org, as well as several lawyers, Georgia does not allow suits against a mother for paternity fraud.
Yet, the very definition of fraud is when a wife cheats, gets pregnant, tells her husband to remain faithful and lies to him about his biological connection to the resulting child from her affair - year after year after year.
Admittedly, Georgia is much more advanced than most states in regards to paternity fraud. It is one of the few states that allows men to cancel child support payments if they prove the child is not theirs. However, permitting lawsuits against men who change their mind about marriage but forbidding lawsuits against fraudulent wives is blatant double standard. If men are financially liable for changing their minds about marriage then wives should ABSOLUTELY be financially liable for paternity fraud.
The time has come for states to begin dismantling feminist double standards within their judicial system. Its time for the backstabbing fraudulent wife and her sleazeball boyfriend to legally be held responsible for their actions.
Melissa Cooper lived with Christopher Kelley for 10 years. They had one child and Cooper had another child from a previous relationship. In 2004, Kelley gave Cooper a ring. She claimed the ring was part of a marriage proposal. Christopher Kelley stated "I never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring". "I never said the words 'will you marry me' to her."
The couples relationship ended after Ms. Cooper discovered that Kelley had cheated on her with two other women. Additionally, Kelley wanted to end his relationship with Copper and start a new relationship with the 2nd other woman. In court proceedings however, Ms. Cooper admitted there was a time she also had an affair with someone else.
The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled saying "the promise to marry is enforceable and the fact that the couple lived together before and after the marriage proposal is only collateral to the promise to marry". Cooper's attorney said Melissa plans to use the money to buy a home.
If Georgia allows men to be sued for fraud because they change their mind about getting married (even when its unclear if they ever made a marriage proposal), then in the interest of equality, Georgia should allow husbands to sue their ex wives for paternity fraud. Currently, this state does not allow such a lawsuit. According to the website Nationalparentsorganization.org, as well as several lawyers, Georgia does not allow suits against a mother for paternity fraud.
Yet, the very definition of fraud is when a wife cheats, gets pregnant, tells her husband to remain faithful and lies to him about his biological connection to the resulting child from her affair - year after year after year.
Admittedly, Georgia is much more advanced than most states in regards to paternity fraud. It is one of the few states that allows men to cancel child support payments if they prove the child is not theirs. However, permitting lawsuits against men who change their mind about marriage but forbidding lawsuits against fraudulent wives is blatant double standard. If men are financially liable for changing their minds about marriage then wives should ABSOLUTELY be financially liable for paternity fraud.
The time has come for states to begin dismantling feminist double standards within their judicial system. Its time for the backstabbing fraudulent wife and her sleazeball boyfriend to legally be held responsible for their actions.
January 2, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)