The new video from Girl Writes What is as great as ever, though it takes awhile to build up to its sublime peaks. I hope she doesn't mind me taking the digital scissors to her piece to get to the good bits all the sooner but a shorter, more concise statement is easier to recommend to the masses. Brevity is the essence of wit, after all:
Full video here: http://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Saturday, 25 February 2012
by Phyllis Schlafly, February 7, 2012
The re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 2 on a straight party-line vote. That proves again that the feminists control the Democratic Party, and also is a refreshing indication that Republicans are no longer intimidated by feminist demands.
VAWA was originally passed by Congress in 1994, with Bill Clinton pushing the law as a payoff to the feminists for supporting his election as President. Joe Biden claims credit as a major sponsor and likes to say it is the legislation of which he is most proud.
In its 17 years of operation, it has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence, while its funds have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws. Although every spending bill should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud, VAWA has somehow ducked accountability for the nearly a billion dollars a year it doles out to radical feminist organizations.
Despite rigid feminist dogma that there are no gender differences, VAWA is totally grounded in feminist-created gender stereotypes. Starting with its title, Violence Against Women, its fundamental assumption is that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.
In other words, men are always guilty, and women must always be believed without fear of being punished for perjury. VAWA assumes there is no violence against men, and VAWA doesn’t provide services for men who are victims of domestic violence.
The feminists have so broadened the definition of domestic violence that it doesn’t have to be violent and can be whatever a woman alleges. Definitions of domestic violence include vague and overbroad concepts such as emotional distress, harassment, annoyance, or merely unpleasant speech.
Feminist recipients of VAWA’s handouts use the money to train legislators, judges and prosecutors in feminist ideology and goals. This has resulted in dozens of state laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone, so guess who), and no-drop prosecution (i.e., the man must be prosecuted even in the large percentage of cases where the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).
Instead of promoting divorce, breakup of marriage, and hatred of men, VAWA should be revised to encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary. Some VAWA money should be used for programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs and reduce the use of alcohol.
Any man who is accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation with his own children, and even the right to bear arms.
The woman is provided with legal representation even though she has not presented any evidence of injury or harm. The man gets no such help.
About a fourth of divorces involve an allegation of domestic violence, which in many cases is false or without any evidence. Those allegations usually result in the issuance of restraining orders which the Illinois Bar Association has referred to as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
It’s no surprise that VAWA is often referred to as the hate-men law. The attitude of many judges and prosecutors who have been trained by the feminists with VAWA funds was expressed by one New Jersey judge whose extravagant statement was even reported in the New Jersey Law Journal: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’”
Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse is presented. This usually results in the complete severing of child’s relationship with his father.
VAWA should be completely revised to provide meaningful definitions of domestic violence that are specific enough to identify real victims, to stop the over-criminalization of minor partner discord, to emphasize counseling rather than incarceration, to assure that training programs for prosecutors and judges are objective, to assure accountability by tracking the large flow of taxpayers’ money, to respect fathers’ rights, to inspect shelters to evaluate success and fairness, and to develop programs to address the common problem of mutual partner abuse.
If VAWA is not reformed to respect constitutional rights, it will turn out to be a major embarrassment to all Members of Congress who vote for it.
Friday, 24 February 2012
- "Byron and women"
- "buffys fuckt by spike at bar"
- "genital mutilation christopher hitchens"
- "fully exposed uncircumcisedwomen pussies images"
- "xander giles misandry"
- "how to know if a guy is a rapist"
- "rape is the solution"
- "how often do 55-60 year old lesbians make love in a month"
- "pussies shaved"
- "is catherine kieu becker a heroin feministe?"
Monday, 13 February 2012
Being English, circumcision has always seemed a rather strange, foreign & frankly barbaric practice to me. Until a couple of years ago, I, like many others, believed it an almost exclusively Jewish religious practice, & had literally no idea that as many as 60% of all American males had undergone genital mutilation.
Which is what it is, of course: mutilation. There is no difference between taking a scalpel & cutting off part of the healthy genitals of a female infant & taking a scalpel & cutting off part of the healthy genitals of a male infant. Male & female circumcision are carried out in many parts of the world by the same religions, or were until relatively recently, & for similar reasons. There is no society that practices female circumcision that does not also carry out the same practice on its males. The only difference being that female circumcision is illegal in just about every nation in the world & considered by us all to be just about the worst thing imaginable, whereas male circumcision is legal everywhere, & at most a source of amusement.
How did this come about? How did one of these come to be seen as the ultimate horror to all civilized folk & the other a respectable 'medical procedure' in the most powerful country in the world? Why did America of all places adopt such a practice when the rest of the developed world continued on as perfectly happily without it as they always had before?
To answer this, we have to go back a hundred years or more. In Europe, Victorian-era fear of sexuality, & the popularly held belief that masturbation resulted in physical & mental illness, led to straitjackets, electric shock devices, & the apparatus pictured above becoming commonly advertised in the backs of newspapers & widely implemented among the upper & middle classes - the logical end result of 1600 years of legalized Christianity.
In America, though, a different approach became widespread thanks largely to John Harvey Kellogg, an American medical doctor - & yes, the guy who invented the cornflake. Wikipedia tells us:
He was an especially zealous campaigner against masturbation; this was an orthodox view during his lifetime, especially the earlier part. Kellogg was able to draw upon many medical sources' claims such as "neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism," credited to one Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg strongly warned against the habit in his own words, claiming of masturbation-related deaths "such a victim literally dies by his own hand," among other condemnations. He felt that masturbation destroyed not only physical and mental health, but the moral health of individuals as well. Kellogg also believed the practice of this "solitary-vice" caused cancer of the womb, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical debility; "dimness of vision" was only briefly mentioned. Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris.
In his Plain Facts for Old and Young, he wrote: “ A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed... ”As an alternative to this he also recommended
“..the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ”
Well, the long & the short of it is that Kellogg's ideas took off, & in America became the norm. Circumcision became accepted for men raised there - as it had been for Jewish men for countless generations - as something your parents did to you as a child 'For Your Own Good' - because they cared for you - & continues to this day to be referred to as a 'medical' procedure, even though for practically all of the infant boys who are made to suffer the ordeal, there is no medical reason or benefit to it whatsoever, & in fact introduces life-threatening dangers: in America more than 117 boys die of complications arising from circumcision each year.
Returning to the initial topic, here's the thing:
HIV is spread by the exchange of bodily fluids. Circumcision does nothing to prevent the exchange of bodily fluids. Why then is the WHO supporting this program? If you still have to use a condom after being circumcised so as not to catch AIDS, why bother circumcising African men in the first place?
The U.S has the highest rate of HIV infections in the western world, yet also has the highest rate of male circumcision of all developed countries: clearly, circumcision does not prevent the spread of HIV. It seems likely that whatever health benefits show up statistically are more likely to be related to the religious life an orthodox Jew or Muslim is practising rather than the act of circumcision itself. It seems also likely that the impetus for the WHO program is coming from sources with a religious &/or imperialistic agenda. The whole thing is very strange, very scary, & very suspicious too.
Please don't mutilate your children. And please don't support the mutilation of other peoples children, either.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Latest video from the presently reigning coolest woman in the world, GirlWritesWhat. Let me take this opportunity to state, for the record, that I agree with & support everything I have ever heard her say one hundred & ten percent. That means I could backtrack 10% & still be 100% behind her. Hear her roar:
Friday, 3 February 2012
"The inseparability of the male and female entities in the Universe was recognized by Indians as early as the Vedic times. This beautiful sentiment is manifested through the representation of Goddess Parvathi (Uma) and Lord Siva (Maheswara), known as “the parents of the Universe”, as UmaMaheswara or Ardhanareeswara (half-man, half-woman). This representation indicates that while both the female and male forms have their own individual identities and strengths, they are still interdependent. They complement each other and, it is only by combining their individual strengths that they are able to create and nurture life in the Universe. This divine couple is considered by Indians as an example to be emulated by all human beings.
"Import of Western thought on individualism over the last few centuries has led to the erosion of many wonderful Indian values, including the one of male-female unity. Equating individualism with independence has caused many cracks in the much-envied Indian family structure. Radical feminist ideas, which are based on anti-male, anti-family ideologies, have resulted in a gender war. Consequently, divorce rates, numbers of fatherless children, violence against men and numbers of men committing suicides are all on the rise. The time has come to remind ourselves of our pride-worthy Indian values and to restore stability in the society by promoting harmony between men and women."
- Uma Challa, https://uchalla.wordpress.com/. Thanks to Fidelbogen for first pointing this out.