Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Why Don't Men Just Robotically do Whatever Women Demand!?!?!?!

Up next, a law requiring men to become fathers. unless and until such time a woman wants to be a single mom, then the father gives all his money to her. the end.

May 27, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

I think we’re seeing the leading edge of an epidemic in the United Kingdom. Its symptoms have so far appeared only in feminist women. They include high fever, childlessness, a pronounced tendency to blame men for the absence of children and a propensity for just making stuff up. The only known treatment requires the victim to write lengthy screeds damning men for her problems. Therefore, if any feminist in your life is exhibiting these symptoms, please direct her to The Guardian, The Daily Mail or any other major daily paper.
It was just a few days ago that I posted a piece on an article in The Guardian by Barbara Ellen. Now we’re treated to this by Melissa Kite who seems to be in the advanced stages of the disease (Daily Mail, 5/22/13). Plainly, she needs help.
Kite is now 41. She doesn’t have a child, a situation she tells us is OK with her. But she once wanted one and the fact that she’s without just isn’t her fault. It’s the fault of not one but two men with whom she had relationships in her late 20s to her late 30s. She was scheduled to marry the first one, but broke it off at the last minute in order to be with the second one.
I called off a wedding in my early 30s amid serious doubts about the direction in which my fiancé and I were heading - doubts made worse when he kept saying 'maybe next year' to the prospect of a baby.
So she took up with the other man, a broker, and they apparently had sex without using any sort of contraception, taking the “if it happens, it happens” approach. No go. Kite didn’t conceive, so the pair went to an assisted reproduction clinic. The man at first agreed to go through with the regimen, but backed out at the last minute. Kite was 38 and her window of opportunity was fast closing.
Well, doubtless the man’s ultimate refusal to follow through with the assisted reproduction try was traumatic for her, but her assumption that, if he had, the process would have been successful, is ill-considered. The fact is, she hadn’t conceived despite the absence of contraception, so there’s a pretty good chance that either her eggs or his sperm were unequal to the reproductive task. Typically, Kite never considers the possibility. She’s too busy calling the broker a coward and a fraud to examine her own behavior and assumptions.
So I guess I’ll have to. Here’s one key quotation:
There are still some stubborn taboos about conception, and one of them involves the myth that deciding to have children is something women and men do together in an open and honest manner.
For some lucky couples it may be like that. But that is not my experience, nor the experience of many of my girlfriends.
It’s a pretty remarkable claim that men and women talking honestly about having or not having a child is a “myth.” In the finest feminist tradition, Kite cites no science for her proposition, when in fact there’s a fair amount that suggests that men and women do discuss and decide these things. Many don’t of course, but many do.
Then there’s Kite’s casual assumption that she and “many of my girlfriends” constitute the entire world of women or, failing that, represent it. In fact, they don’t. As but one example, a study out of Germany finds that a whopping 41% of women in Kite’s demographic of university-educated women “remain childless with a high proportion doing so intentionally.”
Kite of course doesn’t do science, preferring to project her own feelings onto the world.
Behind the smile of every stoical so-called 'freemale' who says she doesn't mind being childless is probably a woman like me, with a story about a difficult man.
Nope, it’s just not true, but Kite is content to pretend to herself and us that whatever’s true of her is true of women generally. What nonsense.
But of course it gets worse — much worse. Kite is so intent on avoiding responsibility for her own childlessness that she never once acknowledges what is surely apparent to her readers — that she behaved passively and therefore ambivalently on the subject of children.
Go back to her claim that men and women don’t discuss “in an open and honest manner” whether to have children. Well Ms. Kite, speak for yourself, because that’s exactly what you didn’t do. Never once did you sit down with any of your boyfriends and say some version of “I really want a child, and I’d love for you to be the father. So I’d like you to tell me if you want to do that or not. If you do, let’s get started. If you don’t, I’ll understand and I hope you’ll understand that I’ll have to move on with my life. If you want some time to make up your mind, that’s OK, but it can’t be indefinite. I’ll give you six months.”
See? That’s all it takes to discuss the matter openly and honestly. It’s simple and straightforward, but Kite never did it. The failure to discuss the matter in adult terms and to put a time limit on the decision clearly reveals ambivalence on her part. If she were sure, she’d have done so as countless women do every day. Instead, she describes this scene.
A few weeks in, he had whisked me away to his godfather's country estate for a weekend with relatives who had brought their young families. As the children played on the lawn, he put his arms around me and said: 'Wonderful, aren't they?' 'Yes,' I said, feeling pangs. 'Although you wonder how people with so many children manage.' 'Oh, you'll manage,' he said.
To Kite, that constituted not only a promise to have children with her, but one that was forever binding. From then on, according to her, he couldn’t change his mind. Her ambivalence is plain for all to see, but he’s not entitled to any. Did she ask him what he meant by his statement? No. It’s clearly open to interpretation, but for Kite, it can only mean what she wants it to mean.
Having refused to behave like an adult, it comes as no surprise that Kite also refuses to examine herself, but we can. According to her description of her two relationships, they both went the same way. At first, the guy looked like a good prospect both as a mate and a father, but as time went on, he became less and less enthusiastic about performing the latter role. I wonder why. Kite never scrutinizes herself, but don’t we have to ask whether the two men found that prolonged exposure to Kite, er, chilled their ardor?
After all, here’s a woman who’s all too ready to blame all her own shortcomings and failures on her partners. She’s a woman who’s perfectly willing to call those men cowards and frauds. She wanted a child, but never once had a “put up or shut up” discussion with them. In short, she comes across as not very nice, not at all responsible, passive-aggressive and immature. What’s not to like?
With such a woman, no one will be surprised to learn that she makes no effort at empathy. For Kite, the men in her life are to function as tools of her desires. They’re there to do for her, not to have lives of their own, wills of their own, wants, needs, etc. She never considers the possibility that they have perfectly good reasons to reject the idea of fathering her children. Just think about what a skirmish or two in family court might look like to a father when Kite is on the other side.
And if we’re to treat those men like human beings instead of automatons, if we’re to try to stand a minute in their shoes, we can see a multitude of reasons — perfectly sound reasons — for their hesitancy at fathering children. Obvious enough is that from here Kite looks like one of the worst possible partners. But beyond that, what every man with a pulse knows is that fathering a child is fraught with peril.
Any father worth his salt will love the child and devote himself to it. He’ll bond with it, work to support it, change himself from free spirit to pram-pusher and on and on. But then one day, for any reason or no reason, his partner can take all that away. She can raid his wallet while she denies him any contact with his child. Meanwhile, she’ll have made sure to slander him in court making him out to be an abuser of her, his child and anything else that comes to mind. If he manages to stay out of prison, the child still grows daily more distant from him and, if it suits his ex’s preference, may be taught to hate and fear him. All the while he’s paying alimony and child support.
Again I ask, what’s not to like?
Would Kite have done those things if she’d managed to convince one of her partners to produce a child? From her description of herself, I wouldn’t be at all surprised. It’s always been all about her, so why would that have changed?
But whatever might or might not have happened, how’s a man to know? Agreeing to father a child is like diving into a lake at midnight. Who knows what’s on the bottom or how close the bottom is?
All of that is beyond Melissa Kite’s grasp. Her narcissistic worldview has room for only one thing — blaming others for her many problems. If she and Barbara Ellen are any indication, it’s a disease, and it’s catching.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Hook-Up Culture: Romance, Emotions Dead, Hollywood and Sex Rule

Could some ultra-left wing liberal who says things have changed, we are more "enlightened," everything is fine, please read this and tell me how the fuck you bother to declare yourself an intelligent human?


When Martha MacCallum shared her reaction this morning to an op-ed she read recently on what's being termed the nation's "hookup culture." In the article, MacCallum said a female college student talked about how the routine of drinking and having sex, then pretending you don't know each other, was getting her down, adding that she thought it would be nice if 'you could at least acknowledge each other' on campus the next day.
Questioning the root of this new trend and what it means for our society in the big-picture, MacCallum took it upon herself to find out ... by going to the source. College.
One male student sitting with a group of his guy friends said, laughing, "Most of my female friends I have hooked up with or tried to."
And forget going on "dates." In the hook-up culture, getting to know each other means getting it on ... and without the promise of any follow-up.
"The next morning you wake up, see what she looks like, and then maybe she gets your number," said another male student. [JB: emphasis my own]
Sigh. Is chivalry dead? Watch the full segment and let us know what you think!

Read more:

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

EIGHT TIMES?!?!!? Officer Kills Hostage and Perp

I know its hard being a cop. I know cops. But I'm afraid this one doesn't smell right.

First off, the Press is fellating the police department. ASK SOME POINTED QUESTIONS! YOU ARE THE PRESS! ITS YOUR JOB!

But no. Instead they spent THIS entire column making excuses. Wow, GREAT job, Huff Post. As always.

The officer was confronted with a hostage situation. First off, you always try to talk the guy down. Well, that didn't work. Instead, the perpetrator pointed a gun at him while using a hostage as a human shield.

No good options there. You have to defend yourself as the cop. However, I might insist you wait for the guy to shoot first, as before he shoots, its still just a threat. But then again, it wasn't me he was aiming at!

The officer fired his weapon - that's understandable.

What's confusing is that he seems to have TOTALLY disregarded the hostage! I'm sorry, but the hostage here is HIS FIRST AND ONLY CONCERN. And YES, that means he puts himself second. Don't like that? THEN DON'T BE A POLICEMAN.

Its a TOUGH job and that's why. Lives are on the line, including yours.

Now the cop shot. EIGHT TIMES. That's a lot of shooting people. Now he was a good shot. He hit the perpetrator SEVEN TIMES. Problem is he hit the INNOCENT HOSTAGE, once in the head. And killed her.

SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF A COP IN THAT SITUATION? Killing both people? If the perpetrator killed the hostage, he himself would almost certainly be caught (he was a low-level thug with a long record on parole!) and dealt with appropriately, perhaps given the death penalty. But if the Perp is left alone, he may not harm the hostage, and he may eventually surrender, turn himself in, etc.. Remember. If the cop simply leaves or backs up, or whatnot and REMOVES HIMSELF from the equation, the guy could take the hostage inside and it turns into a standoff. Then you have him. WHY you ask?

BECAUSE HE WILL RUN OUT OF FOOD! He can't stay in there forever! He has no means of escape and killing hostages only gets him the death penalty. Unless he has a death wish, HE'S SCREWED.

So if the cop can get a REALLY CLEAN SHOT, with VERY LOW chance of hitting the hostage, that may be a good idea, BUT you have to consider that if you just back away and get him in the house, HE'S SCREWED, EVENTUALLY. So why take that chance?

And the cop shoots EIGHT TIMES? How about twice and assess? Pop, pop. Ok, is the perp still standing? Is he hit? Is he a threat? Can the hostage clear the line of fire (can she get away)?

No, no, no, no?

Ok. Shoot again, Pop. Assess. Same questions. No on all? Shoot again.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The guy shot EIGHT TIMES INSTEAD. That's Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop. That's panic shooting. Cops are NOT supposed to panic fire. Why? Because innocent people are killed that way. Its reckless.

Remember, its HARD to stay on target the more times you shoot BECAUSE OF THE RECOIL OF THE GUN. A 9 mm has LESS recoil than most guns, but it sill kicks in your hand. SO THE MORE  YOU SHOOT, THE LESS YOUR ACCURACY.


The cops KNOW THIS AS WELL. So any cop will tell you, when accuracy counts, DO NOT rapid fire. One or two shots at most. Remember, HE HIT HIM SEVEN TIMES. So he wasn't missing. All he had to do was pause for a second after the first, second, third, etc..

Unless he hit the victim with the first shot (she was hit in the head).

In that case, she's dead.

And he has no reason not to unload on the perp at that point. Although, AGAIN, once the man is no longer a threat, YOU STOP SHOOTING. Period. He's a perp, not a shooting target. The point of shooting him IS NOT. TO. KILL. HIM. Its to eliminate the threat he poses to lives. Once that's done, he's given to the courts to assess the crime. Period.

Instead there are two bodies and it turns out the bad guy DID NOT SHOOT ONCE.

The bad guy had better judgement than the cop. Yeah. He did. He was threatening, trying to get the cop to back off. He was scared. The cop got scared (understandably), AND OPENED FIRE.


The military has a saying; DO NOT FIRE UNTIL FIRED UPON. They play "escalation" games; our enemies will make threatening moves towards us. But if we fire first, WE STARTED THE ENGAGEMENT. And the enemy is retaliating. So you ALWAYS wait for the enemy to fire; because he almost never does. I mean almost NEVER. Because he knows what he's starting.

That, like it or not, is what happened here. Only the good guy was supposed to wait for that first shot. AND EVEN THEN, he should hesitate before firing! Why? BECAUSE THE HOSTAGE'S LIFE COMES FIRST. The cop acted as though the hostage WASN'T EVEN THERE. EIGHT TIMES.

The bad guy was in the driver's seat. And he knew it. That's why he was so threatening. He had the advantage. He had a shield.

By the way, the bad guy had a pistol. Not a bazooka. Not a machine gun. The cop had a bullet-proof vest on. Pistols aren't ultra-deadly people. Unless you're shot at close range in the chest or head, you'll probably survive a pistol shot. They're not laser beams. They're not high-powered hunting rifles. The cop had a vest on. The bad guy didn't. And the bad guy, LIKE MOST BAD GUYS, didn't realize his pistol was NOT a laser beam. He's also probably not a crack shot. The odds of him shooting the cop in the head at that range? Not great. He had one hand on the pistol. This ain't the movies.

Cops, UNFAIRLY, must control their fear, put themselves at risk, and make choices ON BEHALF OF THE HOSTAGE.

We have entered into this era of the cops coming first, second, and last. Uh, THAT'S NOT "serving and protecting."  That's saving their own ass and leaving yours out to twist in the wind. I know someone has a right so protect their own life. I support that right.

But shooting eights times, in this case, was a STUPID decision, and the policeman should've known better. Fire him, at a bare minimum. Remember, THIS WAS NOT A SHOOTOUT. The bad guy NEVER FIRED HIS GUN. There are people who can have a gun pointed at them and not panic. THOSE people can be cops. The people who panic and unload half their magazine? NOT COP-ELIGIBLE. PERIOD.

The authorities USED TO attempt to figure out which one you were. Not anymore.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Obama Outraged Over IRS Abuse


Oh, that's right, they will apologize because the law doesn't apply to them.

You know what that amounts to? It amounts TO THEM DECLARING THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

A Sip of Poison from The Chemist's Hand

I'm trying really hard not to laugh in Ms. Grossman's ignorant, dumb-struck, pathetic face, HARD, here. 

I'll settle for this:

Hey Ms. Grossman, what GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND, BABY. Poison the well, AND NOW YOU CAN DRINK FROM IT. 


April 24th, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

There used to be a saying, a joke really, with a point to make. My memory of it isn't perfect, but it went something like this: a conservative is a liberal who's just been mugged; a liberal is a conservative who's just lost his job. Or words to that effect. So in the same vein, I guess a fathers'/men's rights activist is a feminist who had this happen to her son (Wall Street Journal, 4/16/13).

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women's rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of "nonconsensual sex" that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.
It began with a text of desperation. "CALL ME. URGENT. NOW."

"Could not possibly have believed existed..."? Really? Ms. Grossman is a feminist who doesn't know what much feminism consists of. The idea that she has a son in college and didn't know about the feminist-inspired and backed attacks on male sexuality, particularly on college campuses beggars belief. After all, how long has it been since we heard about The Antioch Rules under which every male student must obtain clear verbal assent to every single thing he does with a woman. Failure to do so can result in academic discipline up to and including expulsion. "Is it perfume from a dress that makes me so digress?"

Needless to say, no woman on Antioch's campus need do the same toward her male date. That's because, in the time-honored feminist tradition, women are deemed incapable of any form of sexual offense against men, but men are pretty much walking rape machines.

So Ms. Grossman wants us to believe that, highly intelligent, highly educated feminist that she is, she's never heard of the Antioch rules or the agitprop that passes for education about healthy male/female relationships on college campuses. She claims to be a shocking revelation the "Dear Colleague" letter sent to every college and university in the land by the director of the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights, feminist Russlyn Ali, last year informing them that henceforth allegations of sexual assault must be adjudicated by campus officials using the lowest standard of evidence in American jurisprudence, that of a "preponderance of evidence." This informed feminist pretends that she's never heard of the many cases of false allegations or the railroading of men off campus and sometimes into prison. She claims she doesn't know about the more than 100 separate organizations that have spoken out against Russlyn Ali's "Dear Colleague" letter.

I, for one, am not buying it. Her WSJ piece comes directly under the heading of the famous line from "Casablanca." Grossman is "shocked, shocked!" at the news that college campuses are traps for male students accused of even the slightest sexual impropriety.

Still, she's writing in the pages of a very influential and widely-read newspaper, so her "discovery" that campus sexual assault policies come close to Stalinism in their "guilty till proven innocent" mindset is welcome.

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today's college campuses, neither "beyond a reasonable doubt," nor even the lesser "by clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.

These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as "a preponderance of the evidence." What this means, in plain English, is that all my son's accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were "more likely than not" to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.

How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?

The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens' protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?

My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.

The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school's committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.

The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of "witnesses" deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.

That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser's email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to "discuss this matter" with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.

And that, my friends, is a pretty fair summary of what's laughingly called "due process" regarding allegations of sexual misconduct on campus. It's a perfect description of a system that's designed to do one thing - convict. Noon is a dark time on campus these days.

And of course, lest anyone think the consequences of said system stop at the campus gates, think again. The accused is essentially required to defend himself and without access to an attorney, so he'll likely say a lot to try to clear his name. What he probably doesn't know is that, if he's ever brought before a criminal tribunal, every word he said at the college hearing can be used against him in the criminal trial.

Grossman is an attorney and was able to help her son through his Star Chamber ordeal without punishment. Good for her. Better is her "death row" conversion.
I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does...

I fear that in the current climate the goal of "women's rights," with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

Has her son's experience truly made her understand her own complicity in it? She's a feminist, so what was she doing while Russlyn Ali and countless other feminists were doing everything in their power to make sexual assault an ever broader term and sexual assault claims ever easier to prove? Did she, as part of her activist zeal, ever write a letter to NOW, to Ms., to any of the feminist organizations that blatantly demand one set of standards for the sexual behavior of men and another for that of women? She's a lawyer, so what's she done about false claims of domestic or sexual abuse as part of a campaign to deny children real, ongoing relationships with their fathers?

We hear a lot from feminists to the effect that there's a Great Silent Majority of them who aren't radical, who don't hate men, who would never lie about domestic violence, the wage gap, patriarchy, the "rape culture," etc. But the fact is that if there were that many feminists who differed from what feminism has become, well, it wouldn't have become what it is. Grossman's anguish is real enough, but only because it was her son whose head was on the block. Had it been another young man's - and it has been far more than she has any idea - she'd have ignored it completely.

But of course, that's how the fathers' and men's rights movements get so many of their adherents. Second wives of fathers who pay too much child support but don't get to see their kids, or who pay alimony to an ex who wouldn't dream of getting a job and off the gravy train are a constant stream of new recruits for us. Mothers whose sons find themselves the victims of paternity fraud or see their children adopted away without their consent are too. And of course there are many others.

Judith Grossman should be ashamed of herself. She was always oh-so aware of injustice except when it was done to others and when it was done by those on "her side." It's only when her ox is gored that she wakes up and sees what she and her comrades have wrought over the years.

On the other hand, at least she sees it now and wrote a piece for millions to see about her tardy epiphany.

The National Parents Organization is a non-profit organization that is educating the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents and extended families. If you would like to get involved in our organization, you can do so several ways. First, we would love to have you as an official member of the National Parents Organization team. Second, the National Parents Organization is an organization that believes in the importance of using social media as a means to spread the word about shared parenting and other topics, and you can visit us on our Facebook Page to learn more about our efforts. Last, we hope you will share this article with other families using the many social networking sites so that we can bring about greater awareness of shared parenting. Thank you for your support.