Feminism vs Facts

chains

The end of 2013 is fast approaching and it’s that list-making time of year. Weighing in at number twenty three in iconic feminist moments was the release of an African-American woman named Marissa Alexander from jail while awaiting a retrial for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Given that women get lesser sentences for actually killing their target, this case is curious.

So, who is this feminist poster girl?

Feminists will tell you that Marissa is a battered woman “condemned” to 20 years in prison merely for firing a warning shot into the ceiling to prevent her abusive husband from beating her. They have campaigned relentlessly for her release. Radicalwomen.com joined the “Free Marissa Now” campaign pleading with us to “stop the legal lynching by Florida’s mandatory minimum sentencing laws of an African American domestic violence survivor.” The Feminist Wire begged readers to sign a petition with the slogan “Justice for Marissa! Set her Free!” And the Free Marissa Now website boasts a number of feminist organizations that are supporting and funding her legal defence.

The feminist version of the story goes like this: Marissa found herself trapped in her home with a violent husband, who had a history of abuse, and against whom she had a restraining order. She had given birth just nine days before the altercation. When she escaped from the house and arrived at her car, she realized she had forgotten her keys. She then grabbed a gun (for which she had a permit) from the car and fired a warning shot at her estranged husband when he threatened to kill her and made a movement in her direction.

Marissa invoked Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” defence. She was denied that defence and found guilty by a jury in just over twelve minutes. This resulted in the mandatory minimum 20 year sentencing for gun crimes in that state.

Sounds like a travesty.

It also sounds like a hay wagon full of horse shit.

As it turns out, the feminists’ story lacks the following details: Marissa was not assaulted in her own home. Days after giving birth, she left her newborn in the hospital and drove to her estranged husband’s house. At the time, there were mutual restraining orders in place. Her husband was not home so Marissa parked her car in his garage and waited for his return. She eagerly showed him photos of her newborn on her cell phone and an argument arose when he noticed text messages between her and her ex-husband on the phone.

Marissa stormed out of the house and into the garage, where she grabbed a gun from her car and went back inside. Marissa claimed that the garage door was broken, forcing her to return after she had successfully left. Police found no evidence that the garage door was broken. She later claimed that she had left her keys behind.

The supposed “warning” shot was fired at head level and only ended up in the roof after ricocheting out of the other side of a wall. There were two children in the room standing next to her husband when Marissa fired the gun at his head.

Three months after being released on bail Marissa violated the no contact order, went back to her husband’s house and gave him a black eye. When police contacted her, Marissa claimed that she was never there but later confessed.

The “Stand Your Ground” defence places the burden of proof onto the accused to show that their life was in danger. By attempting to use that defence Marissa made her case harder to win. She also refused a plea bargain that would have only sentenced her to three years in jail. Marissa chose to take her chances in court despite enough evidence stacked against her – so much that a jury of her peers only needed twelve minutes to reach a guilty verdict.

Stand Your Ground did not apply to Marissa’s case since she was able to leave the house safely and not only returned but, upon her return, escalated a non-deadly altercation into a deadly confrontation by bringing a gun into the conflict. There was no evidence of bruising or violence to Marissa’s body when police arrested her. The 911 call was placed by her husband who fled the house with his two children and called police to have them remove Marissa from his home.

The prosecutor in the case, Angela Corey, is known for her staunch victim’s advocate stance. Corey has confronted the misrepresentation of Marissa Alexander’s case in the media numerous times explaining that she has a duty to the main victims in this crime: two young children. But no one wants to hear what Angela Corey has to say because it doesn’t make for a good feminist campaign.

Unsurprisingly, when given the choice, feminists are more worried about a black woman than they are about two black children. Of course part of their battle cry is that Marissa won’t be with her own children while incarcerated, and they were forced to choose between the custodial children of a woman and the custodial children of a man. It’s easy to see the complicated scales of equality feminism at work here.

Not being the ones to let facts get in the way of a good campaign, feminists have compared Marissa Alexander’s Stand Your Ground case to that of George Zimmerman and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Their bone of contention is that a white man got away with murdering a black kid under Stand Your Ground, but a black woman was unsuccessful with that same defence even though she didn’t kill anyone.

First of all, George Zimmerman is Hispanic. Secondly, Zimmerman did not use the Stand Your Ground defence in his trial. His lawyers wisely advised Zimmerman that he stood a better chance of acquittal if he kept the burden of proof on the state. Third, they were both shooting at black people.

To help us understand the case better, Melissa Harris-Perry, host of MSNBC, wrote an open letter to prosecutor Angela Corey. It starts like this:

Dear Angela Corey,

It’s me, Melissa.

Angela, there are few times in life that we get second chances to right our wrongs. Well Angela, this is yours.

You have been called a fierce victim’s advocate, so it is way past time that you start acting like it.

Dear Melissa Harris-Perry,

It’s me, Diana.

Melissa, there are few times in life that we get second chances to realize that we acted like complete cunts. Well, Melissa, this is yours.

You have been called an educated woman and it’s way past time that you start acting like it.

As the host of a television show, which has much greater access to the facts of the case than I do, I’m looking forward the explanation of how it only took me two minutes with Google to find out the details of the case that seem to have eluded you.

Since, Melissa, you obviously care about abuse victims, I suggest you remember that two young children watched a psychopathic woman aim and fire a gun at their father’s head. This woman, who you are so passionately defending, has shown herself to be incapable of staying away from the home of a man who allegedly beats her even when restraining orders are in place and her bail conditions stipulated “no contact.”

Since you are trying to educate us about domestic violence, Melissa, I am left wondering why you left out the part explaining how Marissa kept finding herself driving to her abuser’s house. Usually battered wives are “stuck” there because they live with their spouse and the “domestic” part of the violence references their own home, creating the sticky part of “stuck”.

Finally, I am greatly intrigued by your response to the detail that Marissa’s “warning shot” hit the wall at adult head level. You explained with exasperation that “Marissa is three inches shorter than [her husband].” Being rather tall, I had no idea that the ceiling is located in a different place for short people.

Thank you, Melissa, for this enlightening example of how a feminist brain functions.

Sincerely,
Diana

Also posted on A Voice For Men

Feminists: more equal than others

swine3
Like a general assembly of Orwellian swine, feminists have gathered together to justify their creed that “some animals are more equal than others.” As in the tale of Animal Farm, the changes to the legal system happened incrementally and with only a few grumbled objections, which were dealt with swiftly in retribution. As a society, we now find ourselves staring with astonishment at the writing on the wall and wondering how the pigs have managed to get away with this blatant corruption of equality before the law.

The legal system for criminal court was founded on a few, basic principles or cornerstones:

1) the presumption of innocence;
2) the burden of proof is on the Crown;
3) proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and
4) proof is made during a fair and public hearing.

Overall, these building blocks remain intact for most criminal proceedings with one exception: crimes against women.

Thanks to feminism, we have re-created a Star Chamber reserved only for men. In this chamber, accusers are anonymous, guilt is assumed, false confessions may be extracted, and those who escape are ostracized regardless of legal innocence. To find oneself in the star chamber requires one simple accident of birth: you have a penis.

Violent crimes have now been segregated into two types: violence, and violence against women. The explanation for this separation is that feminists feel women are more vulnerable than men and require a unique status in court that serves to ‘enhance’ their equality with men.

In 2000, feminist scholar Sara Hinchliffe, described her concerns with this demand for special treatment of women by the courts.

The debate about equality raises serious problems for conceptions of women as freely choosing, rational agents. If a different standard is required by which to judge women because they are unequal, then social inequality may be formalized in law. The fact that battered woman syndrome has become an acceptable defense to murder in the United States is one contemporary example. If women are not susceptible to the same assumption of equality and rationality as men then women may be excluded from the presumption that they are capable actors.

In cases of rape or sexual assault, the disturbing changes to the legal system are thus:

  1. The presumption of guilt;
  2. A shift of the burden of proof onto the accused;
  3. Removal of mens rea or “guilty intent” as a requirement for conviction;
  4. Rape shield laws that interfere with public hearings and defence rights.

You’ll note that these changes reduce to rubble all four cornerstones of criminal law.

Hinchliffe goes on to elucidate the dangers of allowing feminism to infantalize women in the eyes of the law. “Under the guise of a set of reforms presented as defending the interests of rape victims, we are seeing the undermining of hard-fought civil liberties.”

In an article for The Independent, Hinchliffe warns that “the radical British feminists Lorraine Kelly and Jill Radford claim that the law’s distinction between rape and sex is problematic since it ‘suggests that clear distinctions can be drawn between violence and non-violence and thereby between abusive and ‘normal’ men’.” The radicals were no longer fringe and their suspicion or criminalization of normal, heterosexual activities had gained influence with policy-makers.

The women founding these changes to how the law treats rape unabashedly declared all heterosexual sex to be rapey; an act to which no rational woman would consent when in her right mind.

As journalist, Nathalie Rothschild pointed out in a 2011 Spiked-online article, “It is curious that self-described feminists are propounding such a paternalistic view of women as unable to make their own minds up, as too weak and silly to say ‘no’ to men, and as putting themselves at risk by drinking and flirting and potentially knocking out their critical faculties, leading them to wake up in a strange bed without having first given their ‘active consent’.”

Not only have modern women been utterly stripped of their adulthood by feminists, we let it happen. We put on our ‘fuck me’ boots and proudly slutwalked the path to perpetual victimhood.

Like Animal Farm, after the revolution had been won and the rules of a just society were written on the wall for all to see, every time the animals looked up another rule had been altered which catered to the whims of the pigs, who became the ruling class. Feminists are now the ruling class, adding their brackets to the end of our civil liberties.

No animal shall sleep in a bed (with sheets)
No animal shall consume alcohol (to excess)
No animal shall kill another (without cause)

And now we’ve reached the day where we stare at the side of the barn and all the rules are gone, replaced simply with “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Only women get special funding for shelters, schooling, and business ventures. Only women are deemed not responsible for their actions when drunk, or not guilty of murder when under emotional stress. Women are given lesser criminal sentences when found guilty of a crime, and special treatment when they claim victimization. We no longer seek to maintain a safe, productive community; we have mandated that the world be made safe “for women” and cater to demands that we elevate women to positions of power merely to prove our morality.

As Hinchliff points out,

Demands to increase the conviction rate in rape cases (in other words to lock more men up on less evidence) through a more inquisitorial approach to rape trials are becoming commonplace. New precedents are being set, which call into question the central idea of equality before the law for men and women.

Feminism has corrupted the law, but there are two courts we face in society: the legal system and the court of public opinion. As important as it is for society to restore equality to our civil rights, we must also deal with the vigilante mobs that back up the feminist ideology.

Cases in which men have been murdered or have committed suicide after false rape allegations were made do not even employ the court system in the accusations. Where feminists declare “rape myths” deflower the reputation of women who have been assaulted, the reality is much more gruesome. Men are at high risk because of feminist “rape myth myths”. In fact, despite the sob story they bleat in our faces every day, society is so keen to protect and defend women that the vigilante court of public opinion is not content to let the legal system deal with accusations at all. White knights abound, eager to do the bidding of their fair maidens.

The world is not a safe place for men.

As Warren Farrell so wisely noted, “Men’s greatest weakness is their façade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their façade of weakness.” Where women have used their feigned weakness to warp the justice system and manipulate men into proxy violence, men must now overcome their weakness and use what strength they have to fight for their own rights.

In Animal Farm, Boxer is the dedicated and loyal workhorse who represents the feminist vision of a “good man.” This is what women tell men they should aspire to and, like the pigs of Animal Farm, they enjoy the profits from the fruits of your labour. And when you collapse or become of no use to them they’ll sell you to the knacker’s yard for a case of whisky.

While lawyers and academics embolden themselves to take on the dominant swine who have corrupted our equality and justice, we need not sit by silently and wait to be rescued. Where Boxer adopted the motto “I will work harder” and “Napoleon is always right,” we can choose our own mantra.

Men’s rights are human rights.
Also posted on A Voice For Men

Is Maureen Dowd necessary?

maureen_dowd
I really don’t think that she is.

I understand that she is not literally disposable but I don’t think we need her writing in a prestigious publication like The New York Times, and here is why.

In 2005 Maureen had a book published entitled “Are Men Necessary?” In 2013 she had an article published in The Globe and Mail entitled “Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving” which started “Are men necessary? No.”

After eight years all Maureen has come up with is one more word.

Good authors like to remind people that they’ve written something else when people want to talk about eight year old projects. Bad authors like to remind people what they wrote eight years ago. The fact that Maureen has nothing new to offer us has been noticed before.

Maureen’s main focus is to write silly sentences. She’s not so much interested in what those sentences say when put together. For example, she claims that men are “devolving” because they are acting like women. That she just claimed women are lower on the evolutionary scale does not concern Maureen because she’s in it for the sentences. Apparently her editors don’t care if those sentences link together either.

The one thing we can glean from Maureen’s ramblings is that she doesn’t understand evolution. After all, she is just an entertainer using old material.

Devolution is a concept used by people who think “that evolution must mean ‘progress’ to ‘more advanced’ organisms.” The term is mostly used by creationists. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach promoted the theory believing that Adam and Eve both existed, were white, and other ethnicities were a devolution. In his classification of how the various ethnic groups devolved he said “I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian because this stock displays the most beautiful race of men.”

When Maureen does write something intelligent, it’s a good idea to make sure she hasn’t plagiarized it. Despite winning a Pulitzer Prize for writing about Bill Clinton’s blowjob (apparently Pulitzer needs to worry about their standards as well) she hasn’t learned how to credit other writers for their work.

Maureen is either lazy, sloppy, dishonest, or a genuine cunt. Why pick just one?

For those who have low standards and like to cling to the predictable, Maureen Dowd is definitely your woman. Her tactic of belittling men by calling them “girly” is her standard recipe for cheap laughs. She was criticized by Ann Bartow for this tired routine in 2006 and yet here she is trying to tell us it’s still funny in 2013.

I have a theory about Maureen Dowd that explains her columns.

I suspect that Maureen has all of her old articles on a computer program and doesn’t actually write them any more. The computer picks out words and phrases reassembles them for her, then she slaps today’s date on it. That also explains why her articles don’t quite make sense. Garbage in, garbage out.

Maureen Dowd is a bot.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, here are some passages from “Are Men Necessary?” written in 2005 and the comparison passage from her Globe and Mail article in 2013. Let’s play a game called “I don’t see the difference, do you? ”

“[Manly discourse] was, unlike the feminine chatter in the parlor, thought to be impersonal, unemotional, forthright and reasonable.

For centuries, it was widely believed that women’s physical makeup made them emotionally unfit to be leaders.
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 79

compared to

For centuries, it was widely thought that women were biologically unsuited to hold leadership positions.

Power was best wielded by men, theorists felt, because men were impersonal, unemotional, forthright and reasonable.
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

You’ll note that the only real change was that she (or the computer program) flipped the order of the sentences and used a thesaurus to alter a couple of words.

Aristotle observed that women’s minds should be kept free from exertion because “children evidently draw on the mother who carries them in her womb, just as plants draw on the soil.” Darwin said that while the female spent her energy forming her ova, the male spent “much force in fierce contests with his rivals.”
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80

compared to

Aristotle wrote that women’s minds should be kept free from exertion because “children evidently draw on the mother who carries them in her womb, just as plants draw on the soil.” Darwin observed that while the female spent her energy forming her ova, the male spent “much force in fierce contests with his rivals.”
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

She (or the bot) merely changed “observed” to “wrote” and “said” to “observed”.

Even as late as 1970, Dr. Edgar F. Berman, Hubert Humphrey’s personal physician and an official on a national policy-making committee of the Democratic Party, declared that his “scientific position” was that “women are different physically, physiologically and psychically.”

“If doctors do not know that there is such a thing as premenstrual tension,” he huffed, “they’d better go back to medical school.”
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80

compared to

Even as late as 1970, after the social revolution of the 60s, Dr. Edgar F. Berman, Hubert Humphrey’s personal physician and an official on a national policy-making committee of the Democratic Party, declared that his “scientific position” was that “women are different physically, physiologically and psychically.” “If doctors do not know that there is such a thing as premenstrual tension,” he said, huffily, “they’d better go back to medical school.”
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

The Maureenbot added “after the social revolution of the 60s” and turned “he huffed” into “he said huffily”.

When his words caused a furor among women and he was forced to resign, he ruefully observed: “Pandora’s box is no tender trap.”
But at long last, the tables have turned.
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80

compared to

He stuck to his guns even after his remarks caused such a furor that he had to resign. He left his job with this parting shot: “Pandora’s box is no tender trap.”
But the tables have finally turned.
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

The bot got clever here substituting the “forced” part from the original with “stuck to his guns” but loved the last sentence too much to change it. Are bots capable of “love”?

Now it is unstable male temperament that is causing alarm…
Men are engaging in shrewish, scolding, clawing, vengeful, sneaky, vain behaviour that is anything but reasonable and impersonal. Women are affected by lunar tides only once a month; men have raging hormones every day.”
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary?. (New York: Berkley Books, 2005), 80-1

compared to

Now it is unstable male temperament that is causing alarm.
Male politicians are engaging in sneaky, catty, weepy, ditzy, shrewish behaviour that is anything but reasonable and impersonal.
Women are affected by lunar tides only once a month, after all. Men have raging hormones every day…
Maureen Dowd: Men have not only stopped evolving – they’re devolving”, 2013

The bot kept “shrewish” and “catty”, changed three adjectives, and dropped one. I guess six adjectives became passé in the last near decade.

I’ll spare you the rest of the article, which is entirely just a copy of 2005’s Chapter Two: Why Pandora’s Box Is No Tender Trap”. Ultimately, the point here is that The Globe and Mail should sue Maureen Dowd for fraud. They paid her for an article “special to The Globe and Mail” and she gave them something already published elsewhere for which she’d already been paid.

To show this isn’t a single transgression, the next article Maureen submitted, “Why the Y?” in The New York Times on November 24th, is barely a rewrite of 2005’s Chapter Four: Why The Well-hung Y Is Wilting, Even As The X Is Excelling. The New York Times needs to fire Maureen Dowd on the grounds that we’ve already read the book.

So, is Maureen Dowd necessary when we’ve got a perfectly good bot doing her job for her?

No.

Maureen is so unnecessary that I debated whether or not to bother writing about her this week. Given her history, I could save my notes, publish it eight weeks or eight years from now, and it would still be just as relevant. At least, this time, Dowd only copy/pasted herself.

Also posted on A Voice For Men

Women Don’t Own Sex

passion
Hardly a week goes by without the public being told how rape culture and victim blaming are being perpetrated by ‘the patriarchy’. Monday, September 23, 2013 offered us the mother lode of mythical feminist thinking in the form of Una Mullally in The Irish Times.

It’s not that Una said something unique, it’s that she managed to fit so many fallacies into one article that really makes her applause worthy.

Una begins with criticizing police for advising people to “protect yourself from violence” by exercising caution when meeting people online. The reason for this advisory is that a woman’s bones were discovered and the missing woman seems to have met someone via a dating site on the internet before turning up dead. Apparently this is ‘victim blaming’.

I used to get emails all the time from female friends who wanted to forward me the latest warning on how a man might kidnap me by hiding in the back seat of my parked car at the mall. The warnings always came from female friends and they always had my best interests in mind. I never once emailed them back “how dare you blame me for parking my car!” I did start sending all emails to spam if they had “fw:” in the message line but the proper, civilized response is “Thank you. I’ll pass the message along to everyone I know.”

Una, and her ilk, also need some basic lessons in Crime Solving For Dummies. If you watch television at all you might have come across shows like CSI or Criminal Minds in which they portray rather likable, well-meaning detectives who investigate crimes. The first thing they do is ask apparently bizarre questions like “Who, what, where, when, why… and how?”

The answers to these questions help solve crimes.

When a police force investigates someone’s online dating habits it can lead to information, like the identity of the killer. They can also help divulge the method of death, which can help police link one murder to other murders. While they do this investigative work they sometimes have microphones shoved in their faces asking for a public statement in order to inform the people who write and read the news.

The reason police offer warnings to the public are because the public wants to know how they can avoid showing up as a set of bones on the next news report. They get scared. This information is intended to help them feel safer.

“Societies are in a crisis over how men treat women,” Una claims. Now, this is news to me. Society is in a crisis over international wars, terrorism, bank fraud, the resulting economic collapse, and a general lack of faith in either the press, politicians or ‘God’. Most of the women I know are far more concerned with having a bad hair day and failing to look attractive than in having a day where too many men show them unwanted attention.

She claims “potential attackers are rarely instructed to exercise vigilance.” Yes, Una, they are reminded every day by the fucking law. It’s as illegal to commit a crime today as it was yesterday. They are told to not be violent by being faced with jail if they break the law. If we were to instruct them to “be vigilant” we’d be telling them to not get caught. Yelling at him “that’s illegal, you know!” will not solve the problem. You moron.

“Men, don’t rape” is Una’s next solution. This is part of the whole rape culture myth. For some reason, women, like Una, think that other men are in a unique position to give each other rules about sex. They aren’t. If men want sex from women, women are in the unique position to tell them how to go about achieving their goals. What feminists are doing when they tell men that only they can stop rape is basically like a teacher telling a class of inferiors that she will punish the whole class if they don’t tell her who put tacks on her seat.

According to international law, collective punishment is wrong.

The sentiment embedded in the demand for men to fix women’s problems is the idea that men are the problem. The error of this idea, and it’s not Una’s fault for believing this because feminism has ingrained it into her mind, is that men do not live in this world within a cocoon. Boys are born as helpless babies, just as girls are, and we are mostly raised by women.

Though men appear to rule the world, that is because women treat them like gophers: Go get me stuff.

A man’s worth in our world is not assessed on how much wealth he possesses, it is based on the level of happiness of his woman. Every politician knows he’ll do better if he has a happy wife at his side. Don’t be shallow, ask better questions. Why do men commit crimes? I’ll posit this: because they need more stuff to make a woman happy or because they have been rejected by a woman shaming them for not being good enough and feel they have nothing left to lose. Committing a crime has a penalty. They need a reason to risk that penalty. It’s going to be primal. Think… think… are you with me?

The man is the head of the house but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants.

Feminists claim that men objectify women but it’s women who think that men are just walking, magical penises and that the penis has the mystical quality of getting them stuff. We’re less concerned with how they get us our stuff than in making sure we get the shit we’re after. One of those things is security so the problem for women is not in how to get men to stop being aggressive, it’s in how to get them to be aggressive but stay out of jail so they can keep providing the stuff that makes us happy.

The problem is not men. Men just want to be loved and respected. What women make them do for that respect is what drives some of them crazy.

“Men, stop hanging your threat of rape over dark streets.” This is Una’s impassioned plea. The streets are only dark if you decide that you have no agency, no power, to affect the world around you. The threat in walking out your door every day exists for both men and women. I’m sorry to inform you, Una, but you could die at any moment. Men face a much greater risk of physical assault every day than women do but they still keep walking out that door.

Being that women are equal, I think we should meet that threat on an equal basis.

What Una claims makes men more culpable is that they all know someone who is “dubious” and goes to strip clubs or pays for sex. Strip clubs are not illegal and I know quite a few women who married for money, so buying sex is apparently quite legal, too, as long as you get the proper paperwork. Una, you and I both know someone who had a baby to avoid having to get a job. You and I both know someone who married a man they didn’t love. Isn’t that just a little bit shady? ‘Dubious behaviour’, perhaps?

Saying that men can stop rape is like telling a driver they can stop all car accidents or investors that they can stop all fraud. Just because men enjoy sex or do it from time to time doesn’t place them in a unique position to police all other participants. Just like Una can’t stop other writers from saying things she disagrees with.

Una claims that “women should be free to talk to whomever they choose and go wherever they want without threat of assault.” That’s bullshit. No one is free to do that. A person is free to leave their home every day and enter the world of the unknown and they should be assured that if something bad happens society will come to their aid to help them heal. Unfortunately, women are not given this freedom because feminists are hell bent on maximizing the pain and trauma of every female experience.

They are busy convincing women who don’t even know if they’ve been raped to call it rape. If you aren’t sure: it didn’t happen. If the woman doesn’t know, how the hell is the guy supposed to have known? They tell women it’s a terrible thing and that they should go to support groups where they relive the pain over and over and over again until all they are is a rape victim. Some of these girls didn’t even know they were raped and could have moved on but now it’s their lifelong identity and they’ll never get over it. What kind of sick fucks are you?

We have become indoctrinated to believe that rape is the worst crime that can be committed. How the hell did that happen? I can think of a bunch of things that are worse: Murder, having my fingers cut off one at a time while I watch, having my limbs disconnected, waking up in an abandoned house with a tape recorder saying “Hello, Diana, I want you to make a choice…” The list can go on. I’ve seen a lot of films. I’ve been raped so that’s not fiction, but my mind (perhaps more creative than that of feminists) can imagine worse scenarios.

Some rapes are extremely violent, leaving women beaten and in hospital with damage to their reproductive organs. These crimes are not just rapes, they are brutal physical assaults that never go unreported and no one laughs. A man can end up with lifelong damage from getting kicked in the groin yet this is comedy to women. While feminists claim that a woman who is drunk can’t consent, they don’t want to address the problem that drunk women can become so sexually aggressive they assault men. I have a friend who has serious problems after a fall-down drunk friend he was trying to keep safe by taking her home grabbed his testicles in a sexual advance, squeezing so hard he had to go to the hospital. This guy wasn’t trying to rape her, he was trying to keep her from having sex.

Drunk girls are not fun and they are not weak.

Drunk women are responsible if they decide to drive themselves home and get in an accident while doing so. They are equally responsible if they make the decision to have sex. I hear Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a crazy ass bunch of sisters if you try to challenge them on that.

While feminists claim that a rape culture exists which ‘normalizes’ rape, I insist that a feminist culture exists that ‘rape-ifies’ normal sex. The definition of rape has now been expanded to include when a woman doesn’t say no but thinks it, when a woman decides that sex didn’t go the way she wanted, when a woman has had a few drinks, when a woman is woken up with sex after falling asleep next to a man she has previously had sex with and decided to stay in the bed… The list will continue to grow until we stop it.

Perhaps this is too much information but, for me, sex is my favorite way to wake up. Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their fucking bed. We are not children here.

Women don’t own sex, it’s something people do together. It requires communication. Women don’t like it when men lie to them to get sex and men don’t like it when women lie either. It happens both ways. “Yes, I’ll use a condom” or “Yes, I’m on birth control.” There is no one-sided game, it can happen to either gender. If a woman lies with her body language and her actions she is raping the man. Sex is not a written contract. It is something that only the people present can attest to, it happens organically, intuitively and it is something over which people can make mistakes. Men don’t need need an ’emphatic yes’ to avoid rape, you need to give them an emphatic ‘no’. If you think you didn’t have the option to say ‘stop’, you are wrong.

The original case in discussion with Una Mallally’s article (before she made it a rape culture issue) was a woman who decided to go to a fetish site (note that a woman ‘normalized’ SM fetishes with her book Fifty Shades of Grey, probably influencing the dead woman’s choices) and met with someone who ended up killing her. What we don’t know, and don’t need to know, is whether or not the murder was the prime objective or whether the fetish scene accidentally led to her death and the partner tried to cover it up. That’s a job for the police. What we do know is that meeting people in real life whom you only know from online is a dangerous prospect and that the police warnings are extremely good advice.

Women are not free to exit their doors and expect to return safely any more than men are. Every day you wake up and exit the house be happy that you are alive and be happy when you return safely. In the meantime, there are many things you can do to reduce your anxiety: choose to be fearless, choose to be cautious, choose to not leave your house… or the fifty shades of grey in between. The choice is yours and no one is taking that away from you. Women and men both face this risk but, for some reason, only women seem intent on blaming men for all their problems.

Also posted on A Voice For Men

The Boardroom Bitches

decaying-flying-donut

There are a few things women adore quoting until it’s not convenient. “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.” Another favourite is the idea that “behind every great man is a great woman.” Women just love to brag about how easily they manipulate men but don’t let that concept interfere with their brutal theory of Patriarchy.

Honesty just isn’t convenient sometimes. If you consider it both briefly and in depth, it is much more pleasing to control events from the background while letting men place themselves at public risk. According to women, they have historically pulled the strings of men while men took all the responsibility for the consequences of those actions. If you look closely at a woman’s blank face when the shit hits the fan you will usually find a subtle half hidden smile behind a look of innocence while she feigns shock and disdain. Like a child with her hollow, practiced eyes asking “Who? Me?”

So, Ms. Rogers, what about your uncanny ability to do everything backwards? Women have demanded the right to enter the classic domain of men: the workplace.

Feminists insist that we are capable of doing everything a man can do and we can do it better. When we don’t do it better it’s because men had the environment rigged to our disadvantage. Where did those high heels go? Remember dear Woxan, you can do everything backwards and in your sleep. Don’t like the crude jokes? Don’t like kissing ass to get ahead? Don’t like being ordered around like a toddler? So then, at what point did you find evidence that men never navigated the same odorous oceans just to put lard in you larder and a new SIM card in your iPhone?

Alice Schwarzer debated with Esther Vilar, and made her case for the oppressive life of the housewife. If the husband comes home exhausted and drained, worried about his career not going anywhere, she then has the onerous task of having to give him courage again, saying “Oh Darling! But you are so brave!”

To Schwarzer, and her feminist posse, this expectation stands out as a subtle abuse of the female psyche. Oddly, when a woman asserts her workplace is asking too much of her, she totters back on her high heels as society grinds to a halt. With a smirk on her powdered face she claps her hands as the government raids their coffers to bail her out. Then of course, the entire workplace is forced to change to support her emotional needs.

So how have women improved our workplace? Sure, they can do it all but they can’t do it without cryinghuggingbullying each other, or suing their workmates until “sensitivity training” became an industry unto itself. Feminists have proudly developed and grown a wide range of employment sectors based solely on catering to their emotional workplace requirements while simultaneously claiming they can do everything a man can do. That is some fancy footwork indeed, and I agree it is quite backwards.

Of course, the argument goes that making the workplace a blubbering emotional roller coaster with the occasional twist of sociopathic bling has somehow improved productivity. Recently I watched a battery of these gynaecological wonders ejecting their target male out of a position of management. They were busy self-congratulating when I asked the awkward question:

“What are you going to do if they replace him with a woman?”

A sudden, fearful silence resulted. Ahhh, they hadn’t planned that far ahead.

I don’t claim to be the voice of reason here, I only pay attention to the circus because it’s highly entertaining. Despite cries of unfair stereotyping, we women are the first to admit amongst ourselves that working for men is a much easier task. Women are high maintenance, trust me.

I have no doubt that women aspire to be seen as compassionate, life giving, creative, and nurturing by virtue of their nature. We care a great deal about how we are viewed. However, there is a big difference to how you are perceived and how you really are. If you believe what Schwarzer said, then that means being supportive of others, including your life partner, is a lot of hard work for women. Thus, it’s not our nature after all is it?

Feminists thrive on presenting women as the helpless child. They cheerlead their own methods of making life easier for women by blaming it all on men because, with infantile ineptitude, they believe all of our flaws stem from an outside source.

To believe the droll quotes they are so fond of, you must forget that men are controlled by the women in their lives. Only then can we see that feminists are hiding behind their myth of “Patriarchy” to explain their own shortcomings. They can’t work in the same building with a man unless the man has completed a “sensitivity” training course on how women expect him to behave. Women don’t want to learn how to use wit and savvy to stand their ground when it’s more convenient to eliminate all social challenges. Why have a sense of humour when it’s so much easier to just get someone else fired?

Women ask for your indulgence and special attention, but indulgence usually comes at a cost. Sometimes that price tag reflects the value, but sometimes it would have been better spent in a condom dispenser. A woman claiming she can handle the workplace is often as deceiving as her assertion that she is on the pill while strategically forgetting to take her daily dose. While feminists struggle to expand ownership of their sexuality they insist on punishing those who view them sexually. While they insist they are tough enough to stand high-heel to workboot, they want the workplace to adapt to their feminine needs.

Might we dare to ask ourselves if they are serving the greater good or just fucking with us?

If women want to dance in the boardroom they don’t need high heels, they don’t need a fluffer for their crying pillows, and they don’t need a donut shaped conch to pass from bitch to bitch; they need to get a backbone and stop expecting to be treated like vulnerable children playing at being grown-ups.

In the dystopian boardroom of the Woxan world everyone joins the circle and holds hands. They take a moment to affirm the beauty of their inner spiritual selves. “Repeat after me,” their metronome leader conducts, “I am divine. People like me. I radiate perfection and bring a unique light to the world around me.” This mantra fills the room in a self-reverent chant until it reaches a crescendo and shudders to a quiet sigh.

The clock ticks, but they have learned that time robs. That clock on the wall is an evil man-device used by “the Patriarchy” to control the creative energy of the female. The circle collapses because they seat their royal behinds and whip out a tit. Those with present offspring suckle the infant served to their laps by male attendants. These men display the appropriate reverence for this basic life-giving task and acknowledge their inability to produce the required mammalian bodily fluids while averting their eyes in shame.

Before reviewing the quarterly stats the Woxen take a moment to complete any unfinished tasks that might disrupt their ability to multi-task. Once the phone calls are completed and their make-up repaired in ever-handy compact mirrors stashed within purses, it is announced that business is hovering at a happy medium somewhere between “good” and “fulfilling.” In celebration they pass around a tray full of unfertilized eggs and ceremoniously hurl them at a new male intern who dutifully steps forward to receive their blessings. The ritual is complete, the roses hit the stage and the lights dim. The meeting is proclaimed to be a success for the mere fact that it happened.

Surely I jest? I wish it were the case. While the modern Woxan waxes poetic and moans about the growing “Peter Pan” epidemic, the concern is that young men are spending their time playing video games while women buckle down and do the hard work of shopping. Men are simply slacking off with their duty to marry a woman who will strip them of their dreams and laden them with guilt for not placing her materialistic goals above his own happiness.

Feminism has staked its claim: It wants women to have greater access to more stuff. It wants to improve the purchasing power of women under the guise that owning shit makes you happy. In order to accomplish this, women didn’t tackle the job of competing for resources, they have simply demanded the resources lay themselves at their pedicured feet. Women haven’t gotten bored of pleasing men, they got bored of waiting for men to please them.

We now live in a world in which if you take the time to actually ask a man what his dreams are he will probably speak to you of his fractured sleeping pattern. He has long since forgotten what it means to have a dream.

It’s time for us to meet in a different boardroom. We need to stop being in the business of shutting down dreams for the sake of trying to dance backwards and sideways in six inch stilettos.

My dream keeps me awake at night. How well do you sleep?

Also posted on avoiceformen.com

The Pulpit Of Poon

Greek goddess

How do I love thee? Let me count the dead things.

When Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned the words “… if God choose, I shall but love thee better after death,” I’m pretty sure she didn’t intend that you should kill things for her. I can see how that might have been misinterpreted given that courtship is more like Goddess worship and we all know that divine beings love dead things. As a classic poem capturing the nature of love, only the last line, taken out of context, describes the rites and expectations of romantic culture.

The problem in a dinner date isn’t about who is going to pay for it, I believe the real issue is that you didn’t go out and kill the fucking thing yourself to lay it at her feet. Now that independent women can buy their own food the ante has been raised. The purchase of slaughter by proxy has lost its value and the standards of worship have increased.

The consumerism of modern dating is conspicuous. A woman requires evidence that you have resources and are willing to expend large sums of them, preferably on items with no intrinsic value — with which to decorate her person as proof that you will honor no other Gods before her. It’s a pantheon out there with other Deities who may steal your worship away, and she is a jealous God.

There are two divine battles being waged; acquiring the adoration of numerous worshippers whilst making sure they follow her covenant of rules, and the battle to defeat other rivals who might offer a better harvest. Hence the importance of rule number one: Worship no other Gods before me or, as the Highlander would say: “There can be only One.”

So here I sit in meditation, preparing myself to approach her altar. Cold sweat trickles down my side and over my belly as I run through the checklist of my offering. Mistakes can be deadly. I’ve learned the rules of approach so well I can recite them by heart. Avert your eyes; It is foolish to stare directly into the sun for too long and her beauty will overwhelm me if I try.

Only enter her presence in a state of purity; anoint myself in pleasant oils before entering the temple and think only clean thoughts because she is omnipotent and reads minds. Not only are my thoughts bare before her, she knows them better than I do. If I break a rule, I’m smote. If it’s a bad day she’ll have the whole tribe wiped out. I shall keep no false idols (titty pics) and shall never worship at the shrine of a lesser divinity. I will offer regular sacrifices of the approved sort, preferably flowers which have been severed from their life giving stems so that they may sit and decay on her kitchen table. This is an important ritual, as it reminds us not only that beauty exists to serve her but that she enjoys watching life wither away before her eyes.

The flowers should accurately represent her own perfection and remind us that, whilst they rot in a vase she survives, immortal, to throw their corpses in the trash. She is not a God to be fucked with.

Why am I enduring such uncertainty and cowering to please such a cruel being? How can such a malevolent, narcissistic creature be called a loving god? Certainly these queries have been made, but the questioner is quickly brim-stoned and cast from the sight of others. These outcasts now find their numbers growing because she is such a wrathful and vengeful god and we are mere humans. They have left the Temple of Twat, abandoned the Altar of Arse, shunned the Shrine of Snatch, and have formed the Coven of Cloven Foot Soldiers called the MHRM.

I scratched out the following words in a moment of inspiration. It’s simple as poems should be and proposes a change to the meaningless sacrificial rituals of servitude to which we’ve become so accustomed. This is my soliloquy to the value of life over death.

 Please Don’t Bring Me Dead Things Anymore

A fire burned smouldering embers
Of lost amour; your sweet whispers
As you placed dead things at my door
Like the mouse my cat left so
Lovingly in the old shoe on my porch.

I felt guilty.
I thought I should put it in a jar.
That’s what one is supposed to do with
Such things.

Those blossoms that once dripped dew
And offered their beauty to
The morning light.
Now severed and decaying on my stoop
Because you thought me pretty.

I waited until you left before
I cremated them.
The embers glowed greedily for
Pretty things.

I wiped off the rot from their stems residing
On the tips of my fingers.
At least it wasn’t a mouse.
Perhaps the next one will bring me
A plant.

published on avoiceformen.com