|
|
Angry School Girl Kicks 40-year-old Man’s Groin and Injures His Testicle
Source: MedIndia.com
Teen aggression is getting ghastlier by the day.
A 18-year-old Australian girl has been guilty of kicking a 40-year-old man viciously in the groin and injuring his testicles.
Megan Jane Conroy, 18, appeared at Brisbane's District Court two days ago where she pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm over the attack, which left her victim in hospital with severe genital bruising.
The man had been at a party with Conroy's parents last year.
The court heard Conroy had arrived home drunk and was introduced to the man by her mother.
Conroy asked the 40-year-old complainant if he was "a Kiwi", and told him to "get f***ed" when he replied in the affirmative.
She then took offence that he pronounced her name as "Maegan" instead of "Megan" and kneed him in the groin, demanding he say it correctly.
She pushed him against the wall and kicked his groin again before the complainant apologised.
Conroy finally let him go after trying to kick him a third time.
The man went to hospital and was treated for severe bruising and tenderness to his testicles.
Conroy's defence counsel conceded the then 17 year-old had overreacted, but argued the mispronunciation of her name had been perceived as "some sort of slight" at the time.
Judge Tony Rafter agreed the incident was out of character for the girl, she had no criminal history and released her on a $200, six-month good behaviour bond. No conviction was recorded.
She did sob in the dock, but her mother or none close to her have expressed any remorse or concern over such violent behaviour.
Also to be noted is that they had all allowed her to go berserk on a trivial issue and attack so brutally a guest they had invited for the party.
Source-Medindia
SRM /J
Judge Tony Rafter's decision to allow the savage to walk the streets as a "free-woman" is insulting to men, as it is tantamount to sending out the message that young women can injure a man's testes for no legitimate reason and walk away scot-free. Imagine how women would react if a man was given impunity after he severely damaged a woman's vulva. People wouldn't stand for it, and rightfully so.
The fact she kicked a man in the testes not once but twice -- and attempted to kick him a third time -- over something so trivial is an indication that she has no consideration for the welfare of other people. It also suggests she may have a masochistic sexual fetish known as "ballbusting", as the absurdity of her actions indicate that she was looking for a reason to kick the man in the testes. Attacking an area as vulnerable as the testes is arguably worse than vaginal rape, as it can cause a wide range of problems from infertility to hormonal problems due to irreversible damage of the Leydid Cells. A man can experience a range of physical, emotional and intellectual problems after his Leydid Cells are permanently damaged.
The judge's poor handling of the case should lead to an investigation into his ability to uphold the law, as he has handed out tougher sentences to women who committed lesser crimes. Around July of 2007, Judge Rafter sentenced Carolyn Joy Hughes to 3 years in jail for scamming $80,000 in welfare from Centrelink. Although a custodial sentence is arguably an appropriate sentence for Carolyn Joy Hughes, the fact is her sentence should not outweigh Megan Jane Conroy's sentence. Fraud is a serious crime, but it shouldn't be considered "worse" than the heinous act of intentionally damaging the testes of an innocent man, as testes are irreplaceable and money is recoverable. It would make more sense to force Carolyn Joy Hughes to pay back the money she scammed from the Government and to place Megan Jane Conroy in prison.
Megan Jane Conroy's cowardice was epitomised when she sobbed her eyes out in court. It goes to show that Miss Lyl' Testis Kicker is a weakling when she's forced to stand before a judge. I believe it would be "justice" if she were to receive a really hard kick in the clitoris by a powerful man wearing steel-capped boots. It would be even better if her clitoris rupured during the process, as she deserves it.
In summary, the case epitomises the legal subjection that men face in today's society, and is an example of how much privilege is bestowed upon women who violate the law.
Categories: Politics, Men's Issues, Feminism, Men's Health
1 comment
24/05/08 @ 22:32
Previous post: Harpic TV Commercial (Australia) Depicts Testis Pain as "Funny"Next post: Queeensland Health publicises false information about Domestic Violence
The comtemporary media has lost its objectivity -- due to the burden of political correctness -- and has become a tool for liberals, socialists and feminists to use as a way of furthering their agenda.
MRO Times is not burdened by political correctness, and is therefore able to report news the way it should be -- objectively and analytically.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
"My thoughts on pro-masculism and anti-feminism. Some thoughts may mirror what others have said while others are uniquely mine but either way they are legitimate." Masculist Man.
My actions are all the information that you need to make an informed opinion.
Angry School Girl Kicks 40-year-old Man’s Groin and Injures His Testicle
Source: MedIndia.com
Teen aggression is getting ghastlier by the day.
A 18-year-old Australian girl has been guilty of kicking a 40-year-old man viciously in the groin and injuring his testicles.
Megan Jane Conroy, 18, appeared at Brisbane's District Court two days ago where she pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm over the attack, which left her victim in hospital with severe genital bruising.
The man had been at a party with Conroy's parents last year.
The court heard Conroy had arrived home drunk and was introduced to the man by her mother.
Conroy asked the 40-year-old complainant if he was "a Kiwi", and told him to "get f***ed" when he replied in the affirmative.
She then took offence that he pronounced her name as "Maegan" instead of "Megan" and kneed him in the groin, demanding he say it correctly.
She pushed him against the wall and kicked his groin again before the complainant apologised.
Conroy finally let him go after trying to kick him a third time.
The man went to hospital and was treated for severe bruising and tenderness to his testicles.
Conroy's defence counsel conceded the then 17 year-old had overreacted, but argued the mispronunciation of her name had been perceived as "some sort of slight" at the time.
Judge Tony Rafter agreed the incident was out of character for the girl, she had no criminal history and released her on a $200, six-month good behaviour bond. No conviction was recorded.
She did sob in the dock, but her mother or none close to her have expressed any remorse or concern over such violent behaviour.
Also to be noted is that they had all allowed her to go berserk on a trivial issue and attack so brutally a guest they had invited for the party.
Source-Medindia
SRM /J
Judge Tony Rafter's decision to allow the savage to walk the streets as a "free-woman" is insulting to men, as it is tantamount to sending out the message that young women can injure a man's testes for no legitimate reason and walk away scot-free. Imagine how women would react if a man was given impunity after he severely damaged a woman's vulva. People wouldn't stand for it, and rightfully so.
The fact she kicked a man in the testes not once but twice -- and attempted to kick him a third time -- over something so trivial is an indication that she has no consideration for the welfare of other people. It also suggests she may have a masochistic sexual fetish known as "ballbusting", as the absurdity of her actions indicate that she was looking for a reason to kick the man in the testes. Attacking an area as vulnerable as the testes is arguably worse than vaginal rape, as it can cause a wide range of problems from infertility to hormonal problems due to irreversible damage of the Leydid Cells. A man can experience a range of physical, emotional and intellectual problems after his Leydid Cells are permanently damaged.
The judge's poor handling of the case should lead to an investigation into his ability to uphold the law, as he has handed out tougher sentences to women who committed lesser crimes. Around July of 2007, Judge Rafter sentenced Carolyn Joy Hughes to 3 years in jail for scamming $80,000 in welfare from Centrelink. Although a custodial sentence is arguably an appropriate sentence for Carolyn Joy Hughes, the fact is her sentence should not outweigh Megan Jane Conroy's sentence. Fraud is a serious crime, but it shouldn't be considered "worse" than the heinous act of intentionally damaging the testes of an innocent man, as testes are irreplaceable and money is recoverable. It would make more sense to force Carolyn Joy Hughes to pay back the money she scammed from the Government and to place Megan Jane Conroy in prison.
Megan Jane Conroy's cowardice was epitomised when she sobbed her eyes out in court. It goes to show that Miss Lyl' Testis Kicker is a weakling when she's forced to stand before a judge. I believe it would be "justice" if she were to receive a really hard kick in the clitoris by a powerful man wearing steel-capped boots. It would be even better if her clitoris rupured during the process, as she deserves it.
In summary, the case epitomises the legal subjection that men face in today's society, and is an example of how much privilege is bestowed upon women who violate the law.
A month or two ago I complained to the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) about a television commercial that depicted testis pain as "funny". Here is a copy of the complaint I made, as well as a snapshot of the Advertiser's written response:
My Complaint:
Date: Friday; 27th of July, 2007.
Time: 6:59pm.
Programme: Neighbours
Television Stations: Network Ten (Channel 10) on terrestrial TV.Reckitt Benckiser (Aust) Pty Ltd (Harpic) (Surface care products)
One of their cleaning products.
A man in hit in the testes by a broom-like object after he accidentally walks on it.
===================================================
The advertisement's depiction of testis pain is objectionable for a number or reasons: it's offensive to men; it's perverted and sexist, and; it gives children the impression that genital-related injuries [of men] are "funny".
As a man, it angers me that a society that claims to be pro-diversity is so biased in its application of "equality" between the sexes. A relatively mild form of violence such as slapping a woman across the face is viewed with disgust by our society, yet testis injury/pain is viewed as something to laugh at and joke about.
If the Australian Standards Bureau (ASB) cannot see the hypocrisy that pervades the way our society and television industry has politicised violence and health, and only take these issues seriously when they have a negative effect on women, then I and the rest of Australian men have a damn good reason to hate terrestrial television -- as well as the organisations such as the ASB.
I have never seen a commercial that contained a scene where a woman's vulva was injured by a kick or accidental blow. Based on my years of watching women's sport such as tae kwon do, football and mixed martial arts, I have seen at least five women fall to the ground in agony after they were kicked in the vulva. This is an indication that a blow to the vulva can be as debilitating as a blow to the testes -- and possibly as painful. Therefore, the way the advertising companies and television producers censor vulva kicking and vulva pain while they promote testis kicking and testis pain is sexist.
It can also be argued that the promotion of testis kicking (combined with the censorship on vulva kicking) is affecting the way the youth view the two subjects. When I was a child I noticed that the majority of children were unaware of the pain that a vulva kick can produce. I saw a fair few girls using their ignorance on the subject as their way of teasing and abusing boys. The boys were vulnerable to the emotional abuse as they didn't know the facts on the issue. If they had have known the facts, then the boys wouldn't have been susceptible to the abuse. Therefore, I blame the media for the problem, as the media has played a role in causing children to think the way they do about groin kicking.
Another matter of concern is the sexual connotations that are related to the way society views testis pain. A lot of men and women are fans of a paraphiliac practice known as "ballbusting", which is the term used to describe the fetish where people get off on being kicked in the testes, kicking men in the testes, or seeing men getting kicked in the testes. There are hundreds and possibly thousands of websites and internet forums on the subject on the internet.
Make no mistake about it, fans of "ballbusting" get off on the TV commercials and TV programs that portray testis-pain as funny and acceptable. Fans of "ballbusting" are known to hoard video clips of television programs, commercials and movies that portray testis-pain and/or kicking as funny and acceptable. YouTube, Yahoo! Groups and other file sharing websites are proof of this.
Over the years I have heard of many accounts where girls have kicked boys in the groin for no legitimate reason. It's very probable that the girls who did this were imitating the "groin kicking" scenes they saw on TV. Therefore, the media needs to play its role in disallowing such content from going to air. The ASB can contribute by not airing any television commercial that promotes testis kicking and/or scenes that promote testis pain.
There is a discrepancy between the statistics on the Queensland Health's web-page about "Violence Against Women" and the data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
On their page "Violence Against Women", it says "Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women" [sic]. [1]
According to the ABS, over 22% of persons who are victims of domestic violence are men [2].
"Assaults by a current and/or previous partner accounted for 31% (73,800) of females' physical assaults, and 4% (21,200) of males' physical assaults." [1]
I may not be Albert Einstein, but I am able to perform the following mathematical equations:
How to find out how many people were part of the study on DV:
- 21,200 (male victims) plus 73,800 (female victims) equals 95,000.Answer: 95,000 victims in total.
How to find out the percentage of male victims of DV.
- 21,200 (male victims) divided by 95,000 (all participants in the study) divided by 0.01 (to find out the percentage) equals 22.3%.
Answer: 22.3% of the DV victims were men.
Bibliography:
[1] Queensland Health, "Violence Against Women", last updated 27 July 2006, review date July 2007, viewed 7 November 2007, (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp)
[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety Australia CRIME AND SAFETY, AUSTRALIA, 2005 (cat. no. 4509.0), last updated 11 September 2007, viewed 7 Novemmber 2007, (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/7C318164863DCB32CA2572A4000C727C?OpenDocument)
Written by: Luke S.
The internet is the main medium which the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) uses to spread its message. However, there has never been a system to measure how well the MRM is spreading its message through the internet (and in connection with this, the overall strength of the MRM on the internet). That is why I have now devised a system for this very purpose, which I dub “The Luke S. Report”.
This report includes the Alexa Traffic Rankings and numbers of unique visitors (according to TrafficEstimate.com) of the top 10 antifeminist and MRA websites on the internet, which receive (according to my calculations) an estimated 73.9% of the traffic of all MRA/antifeminist websites on the internet.
By analyzing these top 10 trendsetters on a weekly and/or monthly basis, we can come up with an evaluation of how well over time the MRM is spreading its message, and of the overall strength of the MRM on the internet, over time.
So without further ado, here is the first set of data:
Academic success is achieved by studying and memorising the content of a a curriculum. This involves the ability to accumulate knowledge. A large proponent of accumulating knowledge is desire. If you want to know something, you will be likely to put in the effort of researching a subject and summarising the information on it. If you don't care about the way something works, then you're more likely to avoid it and never think about it again.
Women and girls are surpassing men and boys academically. Is this the byproduct of a cause-and-effect relationship where superior intellect on behalf of women is the 'cause' while 'academic success' is the effect? NO! The current education system is a) pro-feminist and b) anti-male. Current teaching methods are meant to appeal to girls. Boy's learning needs are ignored by teh current system. Therefore, girls and women are more likely than boys and men to study with the desire of accumulating knowledge via a formal education.
Intellect is defined by Oxford Dictionary as 'the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively'. A website I saw a year or two ago defined intellect as the ability to analyse and interpret data from the outside world. Based on the aforementioned definitions, it is reasonable to argue that knowledge does not define intelligence. Therefore, the measurement of intelligence would explore one's ability to analyse and interpret data from the outside world. Which practice requires the ability to analyse and interpret data from the outside world?
Invention
The practice of invention involves the ability to use reason and abstraction as a means of understanding something that is unknown. In other words, to invent, you need to be able to analyse and interpret information and look between the gaps to find the answer -- as opposed to reading the answer from a textook.
Women seem to be pretty good at reading and memorising answers from text books, but what are they like at explaining the unknown?
According to Buttons to Biotech report, over 90% of patents filed in the USA between 1977 and 1996 were filed by men. [1] Most University students in the USA are women, and have been this way since the early 1980's. [2]
Therefore, this shows that a) the accumulation of knowledge is a poor measurement of intellect and b) men as a class are more intelligent than women).
The moral of the story -- anyone can go to a University, few people are able to invent.
[1] http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/wom_98.pdf
[2] http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0429sacks.html
A couple of years ago, The Guardian -- an overly leftist-feminazi publication from England -- published a derogatory piece of feminazi propaganda from Julie Bindel. Titled "Why I hate men",, it was written in the first-person and explained Bindel's hatred for men. She justified her hatred for men -- or should I say, attempted to justify -- by citing a few newsworthy cases of male-on-female violence. The cases were published within a national newspaper(s) over the four days prior to her article's publication.
Bindel's fulmination trangressed to her not understand why people refer to her and her feminazi associates as "man haters".
"The irony is I and other feminists who fight against male violence towards women and children are labelled 'man haters'"
She went on to label men as the haters of women.
"It is men who hate women, going on the evidence of the above cases, and the millions of incidents of battery, child sexual abuse, rape, sexual harassment, torture and murder of women and girls by boys and men."
Quite shocking, but hardly logical. Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and US Federal Government's Department of Justice (DOJ) tell a different story. Using the data supplied by the ABS and DOP, less than one percent of the male population from the United States and Australia have committed a violence crime against women over the last 12 months. The actions of one percent of men cannot be used to argue the other 99% of men hate women.
A pre-empted response was made to the "misogynists" who would decry her article.
"Before the misogynists start ranting on about how many men are abused by women, how many women kill their children, etc, etc, don't bother. Every piece of credible research produced in every country in the world where this work has been done shows that sexual and domestic violence is committed overwhelmingly by men against females."
Quite a few credible sources from contradict Bindel's claim about domestic violence. According to Martin S. Fiebert, a member of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Bindel's claim does not support the 219 scholarly investigations on domestic violence he has analysed. Fiebert's archive, last updated in May, cites 170 emprical studies and 49 reviews and/or analyses on domestic violence. All of them point to the same following conclusion: women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violent or are more likely to do so.
Child maltreatment wasn't discussed by Bindel. Perhaps her refusal to discuss the issue is because credible sources from the USA and Australia prove women are the main perpetrators of it? Information is available from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
Bindel's focus of attack drifted to the men who "do not do an awful lot to stop other men harming women".
"Where are men's voices of protest in this war against women? When can we expect your support in reducing numbers of females killed and raped by men?"
The first sentence is laughable as it assumes men are conspiring against women. The latter sentence is ludicrous as it implies non-violent men have the capacity to a) predict when women are going to be raped and/or killed by other men and prevent it from happening.
At the footend of Bindel's article was a report on who she hates.
"I will say loud and proud, yes, today I hate men, and will tomorrow and the day after. But only the men who perpetrate these crimes against my sisters, and those who do nothing to stop it. Are you in either one of those categories? If so, then I despise you."
One must beg the question, if Bindel's hatred is based on people not doing enough to stop male-on-female violence, then how come the women who do nothing to stop it aren't on the receiving end of her hate?
Secondly, one needs to ask themselves why Bindel thinks male-on-female violence should receive so much attention. According to the BOJ and ABS, male-on-male violence is the commonest form of physical abuse and most murder victims are men.
The newsworthy cases cited by Bindel -- about men harming women -- succeeded the following line.
"A quick trawl of other news stories this week where men have raped, tortured, killed and abused women and children produced the following:"
The term, "women and children", is often used to project children's helplessness, innocence and dependence upon women, thus allowing feminists to argue women ought to receive the same legal privileges and societal protection assigned to children. The other purpose behind its usage is to demonise men as evil creatures who prey upon helpless women and children. Given the context of Bindel's article, one can be forgiven for assuming she used the "women and children" line to accomplish both of these goals.
Fiebert's archive is located on California State University's website. Its address is http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Article by WolfmanMac
On March 29th of this year, Rebecca Traister of Salon.com published an article chronicling the (mis)adventures of Rachel Marsden (Fox's Ann Coulter 2.0 | Salon News). Rachel Marsden is a conservative columnist for the Toronto Sun who seems poised to take FOX news by storm as Canada’s answer to Ann Coulter.
According to Traister – “The 31-year-old columnist is already well known in her native Canada as an oft-accused and once-admitted stalker who made questionable rape charges of her own 10 years ago, in a case that eventually cut short the career of a university president and changed the tenor of harassment cases all over Canada. In 1999, a professor at the same university went to the police with charges Marsden was stalking him, and in 2004 she pleaded guilty to criminally harassing a former Vancouver radio host.”
Ms. Traister details Marsden’s torment of the professor in the rape case, which finally ended with his termination. He was rehired two months later when evidence disproved Marsden’s allegations. Evidence showed that it was Ms. Marsden who was enamored of the professor, and filed the allegations when he rejected her. However, $12,000 awarded to Marsden by the university as compensation was not returned, or so far as anyone knows, even requested.
Ms. Traister asks the pertinent question “what was FOX thinking [when they hired her]?” A good question, but one only a “true believer” would ask. Sexual Harassment/Assault charges are perilously easy to make, almost impossible to defend and present very little downside for the accuser. A false accuser need not fear even well deserved stigma. Ms. Marsden’s enrichment by the university and the trajectory of her career (which has yet to reach its apogee) in the wake of the false allegation (as well as a guilty plea on her part for stalking another man) hardly reads like a cautionary tale. While acknowledging the trauma inflicted upon the innocent accused, Ms. Traister bemoans the effect these allegations had on campus feminists, who “supported Marsden in her purported hour of need, only to get kicked in the gut -- not simply at the time, but by her current professional persona, much of which is accessorized with snappy anti-feminist quips about how Hillary Clinton "fills out a cup better than Peyton Manning."
However, Ms. Traister is far less concerned about those lessons in this case, instead using Marsden’s criminal behavior to take a swipe at - where else – men. “The whole disaster read like an Oleanna-style wet dream of the right’s most misogynist thinkers, who love nothing more than a woman-makes-it-up tale to underscore the often- unprovable nature of harassment and rape claims.”
How about underscore their all-too- often false nature?
Just what exactly is right-wing or misogynistic about acknowledging the possibility that an obsessed girl/woman, finding her affections unrequited and then lashing out (as the obsessed and frustrated always do), might then draw claims of rape and sexual harassment from her already bulging quiver of weapons with which to torment the unfortunate victim of her fancy? These are questions of evidence that any lawmaker with any concern whatsoever for the interests of justice would ask before passing such a law. Indeed, these are questions any layman who actually reads laws and codes proscribing sexual harassment has to feel compelled to ask if they are at all interested in their own liberty, or the liberty of those they love.
What is “right-wing” or misogynistic about acknowledging the fact that if women as a class are provided with the power to accuse a man of an “often unprovable” accusation, is assured that she will be afforded the benefit of every doubt in the investigation of that allegation and, in many forums, can make that accusation from the safety of anonymity that some women will use that power in an unethical manner? Laws and speech codes that criminalize such appalling behavior as “unwanted looks” or asking someone out on a date can only result in injustice. These commonsense objections and spot- on predictions for the future were made and met (and still are met) with hysterical claims of “misogyny,” “blaming the victim,” and those who raised/raise them equated to calling all women liars. In fact, these concerns were nothing of the kind – they were simply acknowledgments of the basic human condition. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and when someone can file such destructive (and by Ms. Traister’s own admission, often unprovable) accusations with very little downside and assurance that not only will she be believed, but that her cause will be vocally championed by the kind of ideologues that infest any campus “womyns studies” program, they hold in their hands something far too close to absolute power to pass constitutional muster.
The structure of sexual harassment law, both in its federal and “campus speech code” incarnations is such that there is precious little downside to leveling accusations and an excellent possibility that the targets life will be ruined or at least drastically altered as a result. Furthermore, there is often the promise of a pay-off to boot, which Ms. Marsden received even after her story imploded. The pay-off need not be monetary, however – it may come in the form of attention (which Ms. Marsden received from the campus feminists), revenge, being excused for substandard academic performance or performance on the job or even to attract the attention of a mate the accuser senses is “slipping away.”
Any of the various and sundry reasons anyone lies about anything might motivate someone to lie about rape or sexual harassment. When the benefit of the doubt is then given to the accuser, “impossible to prove” accusations then become “impossible to defend.”
So, who are these straw men who “love nothing more” than to hear about false charges of rape and sexual harassment? False claims being actually disproven in the fashion of Ms. Marsden’s are rare as hen’s teeth. Even when such vindication is received, it leaves a trail of mental, emotional and financial destruction in its wake. Does anyone really feel “love” when they hear about cases like this?
More like bone-weary disgust.
Why feminism 'could be bad for your health'
by CHARLOTTE GILL - More by this author »
Last updated at 22:38pm on 25th March 2007Source: DailyMail.co.uk
For years, feminists have fought for equality, believing it is the key to a better society.
Now researchers have found that parity between the sexes may be bad for your health.
....But the study, published in the journal Social Science and Medicine, also put forward the theory that equality has not yet been fully achieved in society and that these effects are part of a transitional process on the road to fairness.
The claim of 'women seeking equality' is very deceiving, as it's based on the premiss that an uneven quota between the sexes must be derived from women being the victims of oppression and/or discrimination. When you look into the figures, you see that men as a class earn more than women because men work harder and longer.
As Belfort Bax proved in his book, The Legal Subjection of Men, there's not a single shred of evidence to validate the claim that women were ever oppressed in the Western world. During the 19th Century women received a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege over men. Under Old English Law women received a large amount of impunity because they didn't have the same "rights" as men.
Well, women now have rights, yet they still receive a large amount of criminal law exemption (IE. convicted women are less likely than convicted men to receive a custodial sentence)and civil law privilege (IE. Divorce, child support).
Therefore, if the feminists are worried about equality, then maybe they should go to the legislators and tell them to start treating female criminals the same way male criminals are treated.
"Sweden may have reached a critical point where further one- sided expansion by women into traditionally male roles, spheres and activities will not lead to positive health effects unless men also significantly alter their behaviour.
Yeah, men should alter their behaviour -- especially the ones in the courts -- as their chivalrous behaviour is preventing women from being treated like men -- IE. being held accountable for their actions.
As the curtain closes on the final act of the Duke Rape Hoax, several questions remain. Most of them will never be answered. But one stands out – What about Crystal Gail Mangum?
For those unaware, Crystal Gail Mangum is the stripper, lionized as the black, female single mother stripping to put herself through college who was so cruelly violated by the rich, white college Duke Lacrosse team. It was her tale of rape, shame and degradation (concocted after being discovered passed out drunk in her car the night of the party) that prevented her arrest and likely the loss of her child to authorities. It also plunged three innocent young men and their families into a nightmare that may have ended legally on Tuesday, but will carry on for some time in terms of damaged reputations, exhausted finances and a drastically changed worldview.
In dismissing the charges, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper had little to say about Mangum. Cooper hinted broadly at her mental problems, and stated he didn’t feel it would be “in the interests of justice” to pursue legal action against her. Victims’ rights advocates have fretted that the complete collapse of the case might discourage other victims from “coming forward.”
Terry Moran of ABC news, on his “Pushback” blog, urges us “Not to feel too sorry for the Dukies.” He goes on to explain that while Crystal Gail Mangum has been shown to be “either a vicious liar or a troubled fantasist,” he reminds us that the social status of the Duke boys “is a very large cushion under them,” one that entitled them to the “high priced legal representation” that led to “high- profile, high-minded vindication.” Mr. Moran rightly notes that reckless, defamatory prosecution is hardly unheard of in this country, but that the majority of its victims are not nearly so well equipped to combat it. These are, said Terry, “young men victimized by a reckless prosecutor, who had the resources to fight him off.”
No, they weren’t. While Mike Nifong (the district attorney who initially filed the charges) is a loathsome character to be sure, Colin Finnerty, Reade Seligman and David Evans were not victimized by him – they were victimized by Crystal Gail Mangum. Mike Nifong made it possible. A culture that has criminalized male sexuality and is obsessed with romanticizing the “underclass” – that’s blacks, women and gays in order of precedence – made it inevitable.
Race hustlers have promoted the idea that a crime committed by a white person against a black person is not a crime committed by one individual against another – it is a crime committed by one race against another. This position has been codified in so-called “Hate Crime Laws.” Ostensibly, this applies both ways to persons of all races. In practice it is ignored in the case of even the most heinous assaults against whites (See “The Wichita Massacre” or the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville Kentucky), while trumpeted as an epidemic with vast implications for society when crimes are committed against minorities (see James Byrd Jr., Jasper Texas). Feminists nicely glommed onto this concept when they began declaring rape an act of “systematic oppression” committed not by one man or men against one woman, but committed by all men against all women. This has been accompanied by sexual harassment laws and theories which see a direct connection between flirting and rape; after all, as members of an oppressed class women cannot consent to sex anymore than slaves can consent to the master – they cannot consent who have no real ability to refuse. These ideas have been accompanied by massive outlays of public funds, enriching such alleged intellects as Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, whose ideas have found codification in federal laws such as the hideous Violence Against Women Act.
Also essential to this movement is the myth that women don’t lie about allegations of rape. If you are ever in the mood to make a feminist turn purple (not hard to do) just question this tenet of the faith. Women do lie about rape. Women are every bit as willing and capable as men of lying about whatever suits their fancy – and rape is all too often one of those things. The canard that subjecting allegations of rape to any of the scrutiny such serious allegations deserve will prevent legitimate victims from coming forward changes the constitutional standard of “reasonable doubt” for convictions that result in deprivation of life, liberty or property to one of “we’ll take your word for it.” Furthermore, credible accusations will meet with increased skepticism from a public grown jaded by false hysteria.
The inevitable result of such politicization of the justice system is nothing like justice – innocent men are railroaded, the act of rape is trivialized by very public false allegations, and the actual statistics regarding the occurrence of rape in society become increasingly difficult to determine with any accuracy. This last state of affairs is further abetted by an expansion of the definition of rape to include such circumstances as having sex under the influence of alcohol when you otherwise might not have, or rape by “fraud in the inducement” – understanding the nature and quality of the act you are engaging in, but consenting to engage in it by false pretenses.
And so, Let us take nothing away from Mr. Cooper. His dismissal of the charges against the three Duke boys was forceful and principled, laying the responsibility for this fiasco squarely at the feet of a “rogue prosecutor.” This was admirable, but incomplete. While Crystal Gail Mangum indeed cuts a pathetic figure, what she has done has implications beyond the Durham community and the lives of the accused. She has demonstrated that being black, a stripper, a substance abuser and single mother with a criminal record are no impediments to bringing outrageous charges of rape against even the most privileged in our society. That society has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to let the mob rule in pursuit of those charges, with total disregard for even the most compelling evidence of innocence.
While I find the tone of his point contemptible, Mr. Moran is certainly correct in pointing out that when a lynch mob gathers, only a very small percentage of the population has a prayer of escape. Every year such mobs gather, and many men – husbands, fathers, sons – do not.
Regardless of whether women want to admit it or not, a strong amount of evidence suggests that sexual selection offers women a huge advantage over men when it comes to finding a partner. While a woman can usually gain attention from many men with relative ease, a man will usually have to work quite hard just to obtain a response from a woman he is courting. In general, men have to court women if they want a girlfriend, while women don't need to court men in order to find a boyfriend.
A considerable amount of young women are attracted to savage men, as they find the uncouth qualities of these men to be exciting. In the process, this leaves the shyer men in a conundrum, as the women in question see these men as being nothing other than "friends" who they can burden with their emotional issues -- they argue that these men are boring wimps.
In the past it wasn't as bad as this, as men and women did not place a great deal of emphasis on the superfical traits that are obsessed over by today's generation. Part of this was due to the strong influence of the family unit, which educated women about the danger of associating with savages and other idiots who live recklessly. The second-wave feminists from the sixties and the early feminists from the 19th Century labeled this as a form of "sexual repression", and shamed society into allowing women to base their *sexual choices* on emotion rather than common sense. The result is young women are more promiscuous, desensitised and insensitive than ever when it comes to their sexuality and interaction with men.
Another fact is young men who are unemployed are the least likely demographic of men to father children -- as has been shown by the ABS -- and are more likely than any other demographic to be shunned and rejected by the opposite sex. Young women on the other hand -- even those who are unemployed and uneducated -- are sought after by men of all ages, as these type of women are at their sexual peak. This leaves young women with a LOT of sexual power which they do not know how to use, as they do not have the life experience to understand the consequences of having reckless sex. Some of these women take advantage of it, and use it to gain favours and money from men, while others use it to have "fun" by seeing how many men they can attract while they party, smoke and drink alcohol.
The socialists and feminists -- the early feminists were originally socialists -- who rallied for women to be allowed to copulate with anyone they wanted are idiots, as the fruit of their activism is depriving women of the parental and social guidance that women need to understand the real world. Their ignorance (the feminists and socialists) is causing problems between men and women, as men are starting to lose their chivalrous urge to protect and provide for women.
For the reasons listed above, prostitution is the most practical option for men who are looking to fulfil their sexual needs -- however they are not the only reasons. Prostituion is becoming more attractive to men than marriage due to the anti-male bias within the legal system.
Anti-male legislation -- most of which was lobbied for by rabid feminists -- entices women to defraud men. A lot of anti-male legislation dates back to the 19th Century. During the early 20th Century -- I think it was 1908 or 1909 -- Belfort Bax released a publication called The Legal Subjection of Men, which documented the criminal law exemption and civil law privilege that women enjoyed under 19th Century law in England. Australia was far more socialist than England was during the 19th Century, and was probably more misandrist in Australia than it was in England.
In the past it wasn't as hard for men to attract women and vice versa, as society didn't place a great deal of importance on inane superfical traits such as style, promiscuity, hairlessness, big breasts and movie-star looks. As a result, relationships were more practical in the past, as men and women saw a relationship as meaning more than sex and status -- they saw it as a way of working as a team to survive in the real world. In today's society, a "relationship" has turned into a business transaction, as there are some women who are only willing to marry wealthy men -- they do this so they can acquire wealth from these men by filing for divorce. The women who do this are usually the ones who only dated savages while they were young. [Their reasoning is they have had their "fun" with the bad boys, and now it's time to settle for a dependable and hardworking man who can provide her with the material possessions that she wants.]
The women who perpetrate these acts are causing trouble for good women, as men are now too scared to marry as they don't want to be defrauded. There are a lot of good women out there, so it's sad to see so many of them being shunned because of the actions of a few bad women.
Article By WolfmanMac
Verizon Wireless, previously a sponsor of “rap artist” Akon, announced this week that it will sever its relationship with the performer. A concert last week in Trinidad climaxed (no pun intended) with a sweaty episode of “freak dancing” with a girl Akon pulled onto the stage from the crowd. The girl in question is Trinidad born Danah Alleyne who participated enthusiastically in the raunchy public display (“"I did not know what to do and with the crowd cheering and stuff I guess I got a little carried away”) but also states “there was nothing I could have done about it. I was in a state of real shock. I am so sorry for everything. I am sorry for disappointing my parents and my brother Ian, who is a public figure in his portfolio as the president of the Trinidad and Tobago Crime Watch. I will learn from this experience for sure. This week was the worst week of my life." Trinidad Prime Minister Patrick Manning has called for an investigation and government officials want Akon banned from performing on the island. (“Verizon Ends Tie With “Rape Rapper,” May 4, 2007 WorldNetDaily).
Those not familiar with Mr. Akon are as fortunate as those familiar with him are without the excuse of ignorance respecting his music. From the poetic witticism of such tracks as “I Wanna F*** You” to the delicate imagery of “Smack That,” his lyrics read like the master blueprint for failure the black underclass in the United States has followed for far too many tragic years. Going to an Akon concert unprepared for sexual imagery and language that combines all the eroticism of a meat-packing plant with the loving caress of a dental drill is like going to a hockey game unprepared for a fight. Further, Mr. Akon’s embrace of “Thug Life” is well documented - “He served a total of five years in prison. In late 2005, his manager Robert Montanez was killed in a drive-by shooting. Akon was in the car and was shot in the shoulder, however he made a full recovery. He professes to be a Muslim and a believer and practitioner of polygamy. “(WorldNetDaily).
There is simply no way to make the case that anyone who would stand in line for one of this man’s performances, pay good money to see it and attend are unaware of what they are paying to see and hear. When one actively participates in the bacchanalia, embarrassment after the fact does not indict the performer.
In 2002, two underage girls were asked to expose their breasts for the camera during a filming of the lucrative video series “Girls Gone Wild.” After misrepresenting themselves as 18 years old and signing consent forms,they did so. They later sued, apparently stating that the photographer had told them the filming was for a private video. “Said Richard Merrill of Fabio & Merrill, which represented Mantra: “The plaintiffs knew what they were doing. The jury realized that there were no drugs, alcohol or coercion involved in what they did.” (Girls That Went Wild Lose Lawsuit Against Girls Gone Wild, Wall Street Journal Law Blog, June 29, 2006).
“Girls Gone Wild” is an enormous franchise. For over ten years, the company has amassed a fortune on a simple premise – take a film crew wherever young women congregate in a party atmosphere (bars, spring break, resorts), and ask them to expose themselves and/or perform various sexual acts with themselves and one another on film. The success of the franchise and the dozens of videos produced so far bear witness to the number of willing volunteers. In fact, one can even find commercials on late night T.V. actively seeking volunteers to come to a resort location and perform for upcoming releases. Participants sign release forms prior to filming, although filming someone already drinking in a bar is pretty persuasively presumptive evidence of the age of majority. Nevertheless, the company has been bedeviled with lawsuits from regretful women alleging they have been victimized by the franchise.
This is not an indictment of “Girls Gone Wild,” “Gangsta Rap,” “Rape Rap” or whatever other manifestation of degradation is offered for sale in the public square. What behavior people will pay for or participate in for the sake of entertainment is their own affair. What is at issue is the persistent efforts of many to extract payment from others for their own regrettable behavior. Also at issue is the deafening silence from rarely silent feminists when women take action they later regret, then seek action (often from government) for redress of their self inflicted grievances.
Rights are inextricably intertwined with responsibilities. Feminists demonstrate that their quest is for privilege and not equality when they clamor relentlessly for ever more of the former, while at best remaining silent on the subject of the latter.
Article by WolfmanMac
The newest battle lines in the gender war have been drawn, and the ultimate success or failure of the Men’s Rights Movement may well depend upon the manner in which men engage this battle. Hotels in Florida, Michigan and Minnesota are now offering “women only” floors. The floors (which command a higher fee than integrated floors) offer enhanced services and amenities such as spas, chocolates and in-room wet bars. In one hotel, women find a copy of the book “If Women Ruled the World” (I can answer that). Also offered are single sex lounges. Some of these lounges feature (of all things) “Monday Night Football,” where presumably women can enjoy the game without fearing attack from their men-folk, driven into the violent rages feminists have long alleged football engenders.
Indeed, security is offered as a justification for segregated arrangements. Susan Dennon, Director of sales for the Amerisuites hotel in Ft. Lauderdale says "A safe environment is our biggest concern, I know when I traveled alone, I wanted to be where you can't be seen from the street."http://www.usatoday.com/travel/hotels/2006-08-07-women-hotels_x.htm. Convenience is also an issue, particularly for women who must bear the burdensome cross of attractiveness – “...they can enjoy a drink without worrying about men hitting on them.” http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18735108/ The idea is also a big hit from a business standpoint – one hotel exec stated that the floors had run at 95% capacity since they opened. Although the idea is new in the U.S. (hotels in Germany and France have offered these services for some time), it is catching on fast.
It is at this point unclear whether men will be allowed on the floors to fight fires, fix plumbing gone awry, or fix broken or malfunctioning appliances.
It isn’t hard to be outraged by this, or the arrogant chutzpah on display. “Jim Crow” laws have long since found to be unconstitutional, and these days two little boys can scarcely hang a “No Gurls Aloud” sign from their tree fort without being set upon by hordes of feminist lawyers intent upon grinding all vestiges of invidious, omnipresent “patriarchy” under the heels of their open toed shoes. Even arch-feminist lawyer Gloria Allred was surprised. Allred, whom Time Magazine called "one of the nation's most effective advocates of family rights and feminist causes," wondered “… if we want to go back to the days when men used similar arguments to defend facilities set aside for only them…What’s next?” she asked. “Are we going to have a whites-only floor for Ku Klux Klan members who have racial stereotypes about minorities and don’t want to be near them?”...Women say they feel more secure on a floor that is off-limits to men, but Allred said that “goes back to stereotyping of men: Men as sexual predators, women as fragile, needing to be protected. We don’t need to go back to the '50s where we had this kind of stereotyping.” http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18735108/
Many would have thought a statement from Gloria Allred actually espousing something like real equality under the law would be the first sign of the apocalypse, and so might be quick to applaud her uncharacteristic even-handedness and common sense insight into the implications of such facilities. But it is important we recognize that this is the very attitude that got government into the business of telling people what they could and could not do with their private property and with whom they could freely associate in the first place. Such intrusion has had dire implications for the rights of all people in western society, and men in particular.
Equality will not be achieved by challenging such arrangements, but by encouraging them. An owner of a private business has every right to dictate the terms of his business with the public including what members of the public he intends to do business with. The intrusion of the federal government into the private business between proprietor and customer, employer-employee indeed, husband and wife - has led to the environment that allows feminists to work their mischief. If women want a women only floor, hotel, club, sports organization or business, they have every right to do that. Men should consider ventures such as this a “green light” to segregate their own organizations as they see fit, and leave it to feminist groups to object (as they surely will, with no trace of irony). By putting the onus back upon women to seek federal redress of the alleged inequity of such organizations, feminists invite unwelcome attention to their sacred cows.
But if men give in to the reactionary impulse to sue, and attempt to close down these business ventures, consider the possible outcomes – if such a suit fails and results in a formal ruling that “a compelling government issue” is served by allowing women only (but not men only) facilities, men are in a worse position than they were when they started. The law will have attached its imprimatur to discrimination, and not for the first time.
If in the alternative, such a suit or other action succeeds and these women-only facilities are found to be unconstitutional, what have men gained? At the street level, only a return to status quo, and if that were acceptable there would be no Men’s Rights Movement. At the government level, men will have fueled the fires of the system that has betrayed us by our participation and in the eyes of the public, stooped to the most basic form of political “me-too-ism.”
Such “me-too-ism” is a perfectly appropriate defense if one is sued, such as by feminists apoplectic about a “men only” venture similar to the women-only hotel floors; it is a disastrous offense, in that it validates the very government intrusion that has led us to this point in history, and reduces us to the level of another victim group, begging the nanny state to assuage our grievances by bringing others down. We have no right to complain about the degraded state of our rights if in seeking redress we adopt the Marxist tactic of achieving equality by means of “hatchet, axe and saw,” rather than encouraging a system where all can flourish free from government interference in peaceful, private transactions.
The position of men’s rights activists should unquestionably be absolute defense of private property rights, rights businesses offering “women-only” facilities are well within.
Article by WolfmanMac
The newest battle lines in the gender war have been drawn, and the ultimate success or failure of the Men’s Rights Movement may well depend upon the manner in which men engage this battle. Hotels in Florida, Michigan and Minnesota are now offering “women only” floors. The floors (which command a higher fee than integrated floors) offer enhanced services and amenities such as spas, chocolates and in-room wet bars. In one hotel, women find a copy of the book “If Women Ruled the World” (I can answer that). Also offered are single sex lounges. Some of these lounges feature (of all things) “Monday Night Football,” where presumably women can enjoy the game without fearing attack from their men-folk, driven into the violent rages feminists have long alleged football engenders.
Indeed, security is offered as a justification for segregated arrangements. Susan Dennon, Director of sales for the Amerisuites hotel in Ft. Lauderdale says "A safe environment is our biggest concern, I know when I traveled alone, I wanted to be where you can't be seen from the street."http://www.usatoday.com/travel/hotels/2006-08-07-women-hotels_x.htm. Convenience is also an issue, particularly for women who must bear the burdensome cross of attractiveness – “...they can enjoy a drink without worrying about men hitting on them.” http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18735108/ The idea is also a big hit from a business standpoint – one hotel exec stated that the floors had run at 95% capacity since they opened. Although the idea is new in the U.S. (hotels in Germany and France have offered these services for some time), it is catching on fast.
It is at this point unclear whether men will be allowed on the floors to fight fires, fix plumbing gone awry, or fix broken or malfunctioning appliances.
It isn’t hard to be outraged by this, or the arrogant chutzpah on display. “Jim Crow” laws have long since found to be unconstitutional, and these days two little boys can scarcely hang a “No Gurls Aloud” sign from their tree fort without being set upon by hordes of feminist lawyers intent upon grinding all vestiges of invidious, omnipresent “patriarchy” under the heels of their open toed shoes. Even arch-feminist lawyer Gloria Allred was surprised. Allred, whom Time Magazine called "one of the nation's most effective advocates of family rights and feminist causes," wondered “… if we want to go back to the days when men used similar arguments to defend facilities set aside for only them…What’s next?” she asked. “Are we going to have a whites-only floor for Ku Klux Klan members who have racial stereotypes about minorities and don’t want to be near them?”...Women say they feel more secure on a floor that is off-limits to men, but Allred said that “goes back to stereotyping of men: Men as sexual predators, women as fragile, needing to be protected. We don’t need to go back to the '50s where we had this kind of stereotyping.” http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18735108/
Many would have thought a statement from Gloria Allred actually espousing something like real equality under the law would be the first sign of the apocalypse, and so might be quick to applaud her uncharacteristic even-handedness and common sense insight into the implications of such facilities. But it is important we recognize that this is the very attitude that got government into the business of telling people what they could and could not do with their private property and with whom they could freely associate in the first place. Such intrusion has had dire implications for the rights of all people in western society, and men in particular.
Equality will not be achieved by challenging such arrangements, but by encouraging them. An owner of a private business has every right to dictate the terms of his business with the public including what members of the public he intends to do business with. The intrusion of the federal government into the private business between proprietor and customer, employer-employee indeed, husband and wife - has led to the environment that allows feminists to work their mischief. If women want a women only floor, hotel, club, sports organization or business, they have every right to do that. Men should consider ventures such as this a “green light” to segregate their own organizations as they see fit, and leave it to feminist groups to object (as they surely will, with no trace of irony). By putting the onus back upon women to seek federal redress of the alleged inequity of such organizations, feminists invite unwelcome attention to their sacred cows.
But if men give in to the reactionary impulse to sue, and attempt to close down these business ventures, consider the possible outcomes – if such a suit fails and results in a formal ruling that “a compelling government issue” is served by allowing women only (but not men only) facilities, men are in a worse position than they were when they started. The law will have attached its imprimatur to discrimination, and not for the first time.
If in the alternative, such a suit or other action succeeds and these women-only facilities are found to be unconstitutional, what have men gained? At the street level, only a return to status quo, and if that were acceptable there would be no Men’s Rights Movement. At the government level, men will have fueled the fires of the system that has betrayed us by our participation and in the eyes of the public, stooped to the most basic form of political “me-too-ism.”
Such “me-too-ism” is a perfectly appropriate defense if one is sued, such as by feminists apoplectic about a “men only” venture similar to the women-only hotel floors; it is a disastrous offense, in that it validates the very government intrusion that has led us to this point in history, and reduces us to the level of another victim group, begging the nanny state to assuage our grievances by bringing others down. We have no right to complain about the degraded state of our rights if in seeking redress we adopt the Marxist tactic of achieving equality by means of “hatchet, axe and saw,” rather than encouraging a system where all can flourish free from government interference in peaceful, private transactions.
The position of men’s rights activists should unquestionably be absolute defense of private property rights, rights businesses offering “women-only” facilities are well within.
Article by WolfmanMac
Amanda Marcotte is a feminist blogger, easily recognizable as such by the seemingly constant state of apoplexy that passes for her composure. Recently Mandy took some shots at foreign women who marry American men through international dating services, a practice made the governments business by the International Marriage Broker Act of 2005 (made effective March 6, 2006).
“The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) makes it illegal for Americans to meet foreigners via social websites that specialize in such introductions, without first submitting to criminal background checks and having the foreigner sign an approval that contact is allowed.” http://www.imbra.org. Wendy Mcelroy, founder of IFeminists.com and a former Fox News contributor commented that “this is the first time in US history criminal background checks have been required for two people to communicate.” Ms. Mcelroy is correct. This law is an atrocity riding on the back of an atrocity (it is part of the Violence Against Women Act) and the fact that men have taken it lying down is itself an effective rebuttal to feminist ruminations on the depths of men’s capacity for violence, as well as their desperate desire to preserve the “patriarchy” and “sexual hegemony.”
But the injustices of the IMBRA notwithstanding, Ms. Marcotte’s outbursts merit further examination, and not simply as another example of the skin deep nature of feminist sisterhood and tolerance for dissent so notoriously lacking in feminist circles. Lending great weight to H.L. Mencken’s definition of a misogynist as “a man who hates women as much as women hate each other,” Ms. Marcotte referred to foreign women who marry men from the United States as “scabs,” who are “forcing American women to submit to patriarchy.”
Gosh Mandy, here was me thinking they were victims of western men who wanted to fill their brothels with helpless immigrant flesh. I should think you’d be relieved that American men finally got tired of beating and molesting their own wives and daughters and are looking elsewhere for victims. Seems you’d want to encourage this - maybe a few American women might survive to adulthood. Further, it is unclear anyone is forcing American women to do anything – two generations of feminist control of the educational system has pounded home the message that women’s desire for marriage and family is a social construct used to maintain patriarchy. If men seek wives elsewhere, that should free American women of our incessant demands, shouldn’t it?
But, I digress.
“Scabs” is a term that first originated during that period in the United States when so-called “Laissez-faire” capitalism was in its decline and labor unions were emerging. It referred to workers who would cross union picket lines to work for businesses targeted by strikes. These were, in effect, individuals unwilling to side with the union who felt the bargain offered by the business was good enough for them. Their own ability to decide what was best for them and their families took precedence over the collectivist concerns of the unions. Without attempting to read the mind of any who have done so, it seems safe to say that the individual who crosses a picket line see’s themselves as an individual, rather than a cog in someone else’s machine. “Scab” was a fighting word and one of the nicer words used for these individuals as beatings, physical intimidation and at times execution were methods used by the unions to control them.
Now, if a dearth of marriage minded males in the United States is exerting pressure on American women, and if women from other countries are crossing the “picket line,” let us consider for a moment the choices facing U.S. men who want a wife and possibly a family –
There exists no shortage of marriage minded American men. In the words of the great Thomas Ellis, men want relationships – they just don’t want bad ones. But the staggering number of divorces (most are initiated by women), “no-fault” divorce, the arrogant inequity of family courts, rates of domestic violence clearly showing that women are at least as likely to abuse as men, the lionization of women such as Lorena Bobbitt and Clara Harris and the outpouring of sympathy for Andrea Yates are just a few of the cases illustrating that the likelihood of a marriage adding to a man’s quality of life is far from a foregone conclusion – in fact, it seems a pretty remote possibility.
By WolfmanMac
Can the body of one person be used against their will to satisfy the desires of another? This is a simple question which no person who believes in justice, liberty or individual rights could possibly answer in the affirmative. Indeed, it is a question long settled with respect to all identifiable groups in the United States save one (men). Since the abolition of the institution of slavery, men have been exempted from this simple principle in at least two areas – the draft and reproductive freedom. The latter issue is before us at this time in the case of Roman v. Roman, now before the Texas Supreme Court.
In 1996 Randy Roman met Augusta. They were married six months later. Their first attempt at children ended in miscarriage. They turned to a fertility clinic for assistance where eggs were taken from Augusta and fertilized with sperm from Randy; these eggs were to be re-implanted into Augusta. Shortly (hours) before the implantation was to occur, Randy changed his mind, expressed doubts about the marriage and suggested they seek counseling. The embryos were frozen for possible use at a later time. When proceedings for divorce were initiated, a court battle for custody and control of the embryos ensued. Randy wants the embryos destroyed or maintained in their present state; Augusta demands that they be implanted in her. Randy points to an agreement signed by both of them giving him the right to change his mind prior to implantation; Augusta says this is her last chance to become a mother -she is 44 and the three frozen embryos are her last. Further, she is willing to absolve Randy of all responsibility for his offspring.
The trial court found for Augusta, but the decision was reversed by the appellate court. It is now before the Texas Supreme Court.
On June 1st, Augusta appeared with her attorney on Fox’s “Morning Show with Mike and Juliet.” Also present were Men’s Rights Activist Glenn Sacks and Attorney Jeanine Pirro. The arguments were instructive – the attitudes on display more so.
Augusta and her attorney both reminded the audience that they sought to impose upon Randy no obligations, financial or otherwise. All Augusta wanted was to have children, and at her age this was likely her last chance. Glenn’s argument that at 44, Augusta’s body had long been capable of producing children and Randy did not deserve to bear the burden for her decision to remain childless until her forties met with some opposition from the panel. “That’s an easy thing for a man to say,” said Host Mike Jerrick. Hostess Juliet Huddy chimed in, asserting her own childlessness and then reminding Glenn it was none of his business why she (Juliet) had not chosen to have children, as if Glenn had brought up Juliet’s presently barren status in the first place.
Then Mike pointed out to Glenn what I’m sure he thought was a salient point – “She has the urge – the need – to have children.”
This speaks volumes. However powerful Augusta’s desire for children, by no stretch of the imagination can be it be termed a need. But such is the level to which debates on the rights of men in general, and in particular their rights respecting fatherhood have sunk. A woman’s desires equal a woman’s needs – a man’s desires equal a selfish attempt to deny a woman her happiness.
Randy does not want to have a child with this woman. The fact that he withdrew consent shortly before the implantation after having previously given his consent is not a relevant issue under any circumstances, but particularly so when a prior written agreement signed by both parties affirmed the rights of either party to do exactly that. In any other bargain between two people, be it sexual intercourse, marriage or even buying a loaf of bread, consent to consummate the deal is revocable at any time until the deal is completed. Indeed, feminists have argued (and both statutory and case law have affirmed) that in the case of intercourse, consent can be withdrawn at any time during the act and in some cases even after. When the shoe is on the other foot respecting pregnancy, a woman married or otherwise can withdraw her consent and terminate the pregnancy at any time, up to and including the time of birth without even informing the father – and if a man wants children but his wife does not, his only recourse is acceptance of her decision or divorce court. This is all justified under the slogan “her body-her choice.” Perhaps this is as it should be.
However, if that is indeed how it should be, what chutzpah motivates the attempt to force this man to become a father when he not only does not want to be, but has clearly, unequivocally and publicly withdrawn his consent? What is one to make of the idea that to force a woman to have intercourse (rape), or to even require her to inform the father of an abortion if she is pregnant constitutes an abhorrent denial of one’s basic civil rights (and in the case of rape it clearly does), but forcing a man to become a father for the sake of a woman’s emotional gratification does not?
Aside from the fact that Augusta seeks to force Mike to endure the emotional burden of being the father of a child he will never see, she seeks to burden a child with fatherlessness, and to do so with malice aforethought. There should be no debate remaining about the effects of fatherlessness on children and by extension society. Regrettably, there is. The idea that men are redundant remains alive and well - and that idea is displayed in this case at least to the degree that thus far, no mention of this aspect of the case has been made.
Article by WolfmanMac
In the October 20, 2003 issue of New Yorker magazine, Naomi Wolf penned “The Porn Myth,” a missive detailing the continuing crisis women face in the sexual arena. In an article decrying what is hardly an original feminist complaint, Wolf hardly breaks the monotony in her identification of the villain – men of course, but more specifically their alleged obsession with one of feminism’s oldest and most contentious boogermen – pornography. She posits that men are now so inundated with sexual images, they can’t be satisfied by a real woman – we all want unattainable women with perfect bodies who will do anything we want. Just exactly what is new about that Ms. Wolf fails to explain – but porn is at fault.
The article begins with a brief discussion of the prediction made in the eighties by uber-feminist Andrea Dworkin. Dworkin predicted that left unchecked, pornography would inundate society and result in men coming to view women “in sexually debased ways…if we did not limit pornography…men would come to objectify women as they objectified porn stars… rape and other kinds of sexual mayhem would surely follow.” That Dworkin had by that time made perfectly clear in other writings that, in her opinion, men did, always had and (absent a massive restructuring of society to remake masculinity) always would view women as objects with whom they could do as they pleased was not part of the equation vis a vis this prediction.
Ms. Wolf acknowledges that while Dworkin was right in her prediction about porn becoming increasingly available she was wrong in its effect. It has not “turned men into raving beasts.” But that’s apparently about all the reality Ms. Wolf could stomach for one column, as she then devolved into an equally absurd characterization of pornography’s effect on the culture.
According to Ms. Wolf, porn has instead made it harder for “real women” to compete in the sexual marketplace - “The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening the libido of men in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn worthy…” how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?” http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/. It seems women now have to actually put some effort into attracting a man - “When I came of age in the seventies, it was still pretty cool to be able to offer a young man the actual presence of a naked, willing young woman. There were more young men who wanted to be with naked women than there were naked women on the market. If there was nothing actively alarming about you, you could get a pretty enthusiastic response by just showing up.”
That’s not the worst of it, either – nowadays, women are further expected to actually participate in sex - “Now you have to offer—or flirtatiously suggest—the lesbian scene, the ejaculate-in-the-face scene. Being naked is not enough; you have to be buff, be tan with no tan lines, have the surgically hoisted breasts and the Brazilian bikini wax—just like porn stars.” Yep. Men have needs and desires as well and expect their partners to fulfill them, just as women expect men to fulfill theirs. Has the world gone mad?
So Ms. Wolf Laments the realities of today’s dating scene, and it isn’t hard to see why she is complaining. Not long ago ( and to a large degree, still today), virtually any woman could simply present herself in a place where both genders gather and be assured of the attention of a number of suitors. During this period, any man wishing to attract her was expected to be as shining an example of manhood as the object of his affection would ever wish to see – ever attendant to her needs and whims, any misstep on his part was reason enough for her to eliminate him from consideration and move on to the next suitor. Those suitors would endure a considerable amount of outrageous behavior (including actions that few therapists would hesitate to label “abusive” if committed by a man), and would continue to do so as long as the possibility existed that the pay-off would be “a naked willing young woman.”
