You have to love the "litmus test" the feminazis have handed to the legislature/judicial systems - and which those systems, palms greased, swallowed, hook, line and sinker without so much as a whisper of doubt or question. You see, in legal terms, courts like imaginary "tests" that they can use as criteria on which to base their judgement. Its notoriously unsound and easy to manipulate. For example, in the 70s, when people wanted pornography banned, but didn't want to limit free speech, they came up with the L.A.P.S. test. So that any pornography was banned unless it provided some measure of literary, artistic, political, or social value. So at the end of every porn, they'd flash a quick ad that said "smoking is bad for you" to satisfy the LAPS test. What a joke. Finally the courts had no choice but to rule, guess what, in a FREE country, adults can have sex and film it and sell it, as horrible as that is. This is the cost of freedom - some disgusting things are legal. Don't buy them, don't watch them - its your choice and not Big Brother's. That's the point.
So in feminazi land, er, I mean, the U.S. Family Court system, we have a similar test for whether grown men are allowed to see the children that they half-created. The cool part is, no one has any idea this test exists or that they will be judged by it. Further, if they do something on behalf of their family (that's everyone, not just mom, gasp!) and its not included in the family court's "LAPS" test for custody, well then, it just doesn't count. (Laugh or cry now, I don't care which).
For instance, the court has a line item in their "test" which demands a father "support the pregnancy." (as if the pregnancy were in some bubble on the back lawn and not in their wife/girlfriend). What it means of course, is that dad is judged on supporting his wife/girlfriend during her pregnancy (after all they are the one who is pregnant). I have no idea what this means and the courts refuse to elaborate. So if you didn't bring your hormonal, pregnant wife her slippers, this could be construed as "not supporting the pregnancy." If you don't make enough money to buy maternity clothes, that could be construed as "not supporting the pregnancy." If you got a woman pregnant AND WERE NEVER TOLD SHE WAS PREGNANT, you could be accused and convicted of "not supporting the pregnancy!!!!" Oh yes! The person who is pregnant? THEY ARE NEVER MENTIONED IN THIS LITTLE "TEST." So their actions HAVE NO BEARING ON YOUR "supporting" or "not-supporting (whatever that is)" the pregnancy! How Clever, no?
Legal folks are not stupid. They went to law school. And they know DAMN WELL what this is - a law written so broadly that nearly anything can be considered as "unsupportive of the pregnancy." ITS A SETUP. With the test so broad, not coming home every night after work/school (or both) and immediately putting a pillow under your wife's back could be considered a failure to support "the pregnancy." The language for this test was deliberately made so broad. Laws are typically quite specific in order to weed out the slimy lawyers who would use them for their own spurious lawsuits, accusations or tricks that the law was never intended to apply to. With a law like this so broadly written, it allows for any bad behavior of the person who is pregnant; it is essentially a "one-way" statute - designed to judge only one of the two people who created this "pregnancy." Mom could come home every night drunk and smoking and belly-butt her husband ten times - its not legally relevant so far as custody is concerned, under this statute.
Absurd.
This is a setup. And when something is a setup - you're bound to fail. Pretty much regardless of what you do. Period.
Below is the story of Christian Diaz. He has a son, born out of wedlock. The mother put his son up for adoption and split, it seems. She did not notify her son's FATHER. You may recall in the previous article the "best interests of the child" were often cited as the reason for doing one thing over another. Well in this case, mom is out of the picture and we should be grateful - if she's unstable enough to ditch her own child with THE STATE (who cares nothing about you, private citizen, do not be fooled) and not even notify her baby's FATHER, then she's no asset to her child, clearly. Further she could be considered very immature and possibly unstable. Additionally, let's all wake the Hell up for a second and treat this woman like she's not stupid - she had sex. She knows what sex is. She's old enough. She knows how babies are made. She's old enough. She decided to engage - as the father did - in risky behavior and have unprotected sex - this made a baby. Then she decided she made a mistake, and abandoned her child - this was very irresponsible of her. Why isn't the court passing judgement on her? Two people did something risky, and only ONE is coming forward to claim responsibility and the court's angle is "he didn't do enough to support the pregnancy?!?!?!?!?!" Does that sound like a big, fat excuse for mom's behavior to you? It does to me.
The baby is now in this world and he's a problem. He needs food and care and a family. His father is quite young BUT he does have a part-time job and is 18 years old. He also clearly loves his son and bought clothes and furniture while his girlfriend was pregnant. He has a stable family with whom he lives and is clearly able to care for his son's basic needs with the help of his family. The best situation? No. BUT - this IS the baby's FATHER - his FLESH AND BLOOD. This baby is HIS son. Not yours, dear reader. Not mine. Not the foster family's and not the judge's. In a FREE nation, like it or not, this man has the right to attempt to raise his son. He's not a drug user, dealer, alcoholic, criminal, or Dr. Evil. He's a 18 year old man growing up a bit fast. Such is life. He has a son and he intends to care for him. THAT IS HIS RIGHT. LIKE IT OR NOT. PERIOD.
The "court," which I struggle not to call a "kangaroo court," whips out their litmus test and holds the boy to it. They point out "..he was not married to the mother and didn't do enough to support her during pregnancy." Uh, What the fuck are they talking about? He wasn't married because he was in no condition to marry, #1. Not to mention, he may have wanted to marry his girlfriend but she split town or left him first. She gave up her baby to foster parents and didn't tell him about it. (Um, that's kidnapping and possibly fraud where I come from). Intentionally giving away someone else's family and not notifying them of it? What if I sold my girlfriend's car and didn't tell her? That would be a crime. And that's just some stupid car. This is a man's SON. HIS FAMILY. His family was given away and he was told nothing. Kidnapping is A FELONY. So his ex is a criminal and he's being accused of not marrying her (not a crime, last I checked), and not "supporting her during her pregnancy." Um, the best thing he can do to support his new family is work, graduate, and get a better job. Baby comes soon and that means the family needs money. All his girlfriend had to do here was have the baby and not leave the guy making money to support said baby, but she couldn't even do that much. He's already working and will be graduating soon. What the Hell else does the court want? Further, should he not be informed at some point that he may lose his rights TO HIS OWN SON if he does not abide by some made-up judicial test? Testing someone's behavior without their knowledge of that test and then condemning them on the basis of the test results is ENTRAPMENT where I come from. Further, what EXACTLY was he supposed to do that he didn't? They act as though his ex ABANDONMENT of his child was his fault, but he did nothing abusive or neglectful.
And this: "When he bought clothes and furniture for his baby during the pregnancy, the court actually criticized him for not sending them to the foster parents."
What the fuck is that? Is the court joking? This is what grown adults in family court deal with, dear reader. Shit so bizarre you must think the judge is literally just making this shit up as she goes along.
Lastly, consider your mom ditched you at birth and your father tried to take you in with he and your grandparents and some stranger called a "judge," decided to give you to total strangers instead based upon the fact that your father didn't make your mother not abandon you even though he had no knowledge she would do that. What sound reasoning.
Brilliant family court. Just frickin' brillant.
JOSE GASPAR: 18-year-old continues fighting for custody of son adopted to another family
BY JOSE GASPAR, Californian contributing columnist
jgaspar@bakersfield.com | Sunday, Jun 12 2011 03:31 PM
Last Updated Sunday, Jun 12 2011 03:32 PM
Next Sunday millions of families will be celebrating Father's Day, acknowledging the man who raised, loved and cared for them. Fathers hold a special place in a child's life. Dads can become involved in their child's sports, while others enjoy teaching their kids new skills or just spending precious time together. One young father admits it will be a difficult day for him.
"It's going to suck," said 18-year-old Christian Diaz.
That's because Diaz will not have his one-year-old son with him. You may remember Diaz from an earlier column. His then-girlfriend placed their son in adoption, without Diaz' consent. Both were teenagers when she became pregnant.
After a lengthy court battle, a Kern County Superior Court Judge ruled in January in favor of placing the baby with the adoptive parents. Diaz has never been able to see or hold his son, whom he has named Liam. The decision was a hard one for Diaz and his mother, Guadalupe, to accept. And it's taken an emotional toll on the family.
"He's been stressed over the court's decision denying him his father's rights," said Guadalupe, who also lost in having her first grandson.
In summary, the court never found Diaz to be an unfit parent. He has no criminal record and no record of drug or alcohol abuse. He holds a part-time job and plays football and baseball for his high school team. The court did find that he was not married to the mother and didn't do enough to support her during pregnancy. When he bought clothes and furniture for his baby during the pregnancy, the court actually criticized him for not sending them to the foster parents. Why should he send them to the foster parents when he is expecting to raise his own child?
"I tell him, 'Mi hijo, have patience, don't do anything rash. God is watching over this and he will help you'," said Guadalupe Diaz, a working single mother who's been supportive of her son's efforts.
The family is not rich by any means and had to rely on a court-appointed attorney to represent them.
"I feel helpless not being able to do anything," said Guadalupe Diaz.
She said her son who recently graduated from North High School is saddened by the court's ruling but is not giving up.
He has gotten help along the way.
The National Coalition for Men is supporting Diaz. And a nonprofit group devoted to family court reform called Fathers and Families got wind of the story and obtained the services of Marc Angelucci, a Glendale family law attorney to help out during the appellate process at no cost to Diaz.
Angelucci is convinced the Kern County Court erred against Diaz in several ways.
First, the judge denied Diaz a fundamental constitutional right to parent his child, for no good reason except that he's an unmarried father and that the court felt he did not support the pregnancy enough, said Angelucci. Second, the evidence did not support the decision; instead it was based on gender-biased laws that violate the equal protection rights of fathers like Diaz, claims the attorney.
Young mothers have a presumed right to their child; so should young fathers like Diaz, said Angelucci.
The baby turned one on June 4 and remains with his adoptive parents described as a well-to-do middle-class couple.
"I've been told that if I agree to consent to this adoption, I will get pictures of my son sent to me periodically," said Diaz. "There's no way I will ever agree to give up my son."
The issues involved in this case raise a host of questions over the legal complexities regarding an unmarried father's rights to gain custody of his child. In this case, the mother made the decision to give up her child for adoption most likely thinking it was in the child's best interest. But what is difficult to understand is how a father, who is willing to raise his child can legally be denied his own blood.
Last year around this time, President Barack Obama reminded deadbeat dads about their emotional and financial responsibility to their children. Kern County is a good example of that.
Now we have a case where an 18-year-old father who, well, wants to be a dad under all expectations but is rebuffed by a system many feel is biased toward single men.
In the meantime, Diaz still keeps intact the baby's room he set aside at his house, and it remains filled with a crib, clothing and everything a baby needs, in anticipation his dream may one day be fulfilled.
"I still don't have my son, so I don't have any plans for Father's Day," said Diaz.
Jose Gaspar is a reporter for "29 Eyewitness News, " and contributing columnist. These are the opinions of Gaspar, not necessarily The Californian's.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING
The government does not make jobs. They are not Big Brother. They are not your mommy and daddy. They need to get out of the way. But now they're too deeply involved to get out. So in trying to make things better, they will make them FAR, FAR WORSE.
Women Earn Less: Not Due to a Conspiracy
5 Reasons Women (Should) Earn Less
Margaret Bogenrief, Beautifully Complex
Fact: “Women in financial activities earn only 71% of what men earned: women made $732 a week, compared to $1,039 a week for men.”
Fact: “Men (are) twice as likely as women to be at the CEO/senior executive level.”
Fact: “A recent study of 2,000 of the world’s top performing companies revealed that only 29 of them (1.5 percent) have female CEOs. Of the Fortune Global 500, 2.6 percent have female CEOs .”
We all know the broad-strokes, if not the specifics: women make less. They’re less “powerful.” They do not, in most women’s opinions anyway, get a “fair shake” in the finance/business world.
In turn, a cottage industry has emerged making girls feel better about underperforming. Initiatives like “2020 Women on Boards” are gaining momentum. “Girl-in-Finance-Blogs” whine “I’m a pretty girl and no one takes me seriously!” while women cling to books like “Suits: A Woman on Wall Street,” a tome outlining one girl’s horrifying journey through the annals of banking…well, her 2 years of it, anyway. Until she quit, wrote a book about it, and now…travels the country, speaking about her harrowing 2 years spent in banking.
Here’s the one fact lost amongst the crying sisterhood: in this humble finance girl’s opinion, women DESERVE to be treated less seriously at work, in the boardroom, and on Wall Street. It’s their fault. Most behave, work, and operate against their own best interests.
Here are the 5 reasons why/how:
1) Opt-Out, Cop Out: This is the typical “Oh, I’ve put in a few years in finance, but don’t really want to put in any more ‘hard work.’ But I keep b1tching about how unfair the world is!’
Say there’s a girl – let’s call her JC – who fancies herself a finance mogul (or at least would be – if not for men!). Her resume reads impressively: A few years as an Analyst at one bulge-bracket, a Summer Associate at another (in addition to a few other “financey” jobs); she’s a Top-Tier MBA who now runs a web-start-up. Also, she never shuts the hell up about how much she’s doing to empower girls who should be, again, if not for men!, ruling the (business) world.
But what a girl like JC doesn’t (or refuses to) recognize, is that once you leave the finance/business game – you do your fashion, media, or web start-up or enter the often-less-demanding-corporate-ranks - you don’t matter anymore. No one cares (particularly men whose faces you're no longer in) about what you have to say (other than fellow women who want to believe it’s men – not their choices – that’s keeping them from the top ranks of power). Work – or, more importantly, success – does.
An average Opt-Out, Cop Out, like the author of “Suits: A Woman on Wall Street,” spends much more time concentrating on how difficult her career was in finance than she ever did actually becoming good at it.
2) Gender Ghettoization: “We girls need to stick together!” is seemingly the motto of every ridiculous woman’s group, gathering, and cupcake reception. “Screw boys – girl power!” is all but written in candy-colored icing consumed at these events, along with champagne and self-entitled self-righteousness.
My counter-point: yes, being in any minority is often extremely lonely. In my experience, it’s natural to want a connection with someone “like you.” This only works, however, to a point: by cornering in romantically-lit champagne bars, girls in finance/business are ghettoizing themselves.
To wit: if women make up such a low percentage of those in management ranks, doesn’t it make sense that instead of networking exclusively with each other, women should instead reach out to the power base in their fields, not other girls “oppressed” by the almighty-male? My anatomy has never excluded me from an industry-networking event. In my humble opinion, women would do better to network with those who matter, not those who look like they do. By gaining power from the inside, we will more effectively pave the way for those who come after.
3) “Men are why I don't make as much Ken Griffin!”: Here’s the thing, girls. I love that so many of you run web-start-ups, work at major fashion/CPG firms, and rock the marketing, human resources, and business development (and Associate – before most opt out) areas of trading and investment shops. These are not, however, profit centers.
On average, those who manage, invest, etc. money, make more than those who don’t. So, dear fellow women, while it’s great that you’re “focused on the sales part of sales and trading,” you ARE going to earn less than those who work in other, more central, roles (who are, coincidentally, mostly men). Same goes for quitting banks, funds, etc., for the corporate – or, even worse, non-profit - track. The attrition rate for women is atrocious, and is reflected in income, snr. management, etc. stats. Girls – if you’re comfortable quitting, supporting men in marketing, bus dev, etc. roles, or starting a “feel-good” company (i.e. motivational speaking, social-networking, etc.), your income/power stats will reflect that. These roles are accessories to those who make the money. And are simply worth less.
4) “But boys are so mean!”: Without naming names here – and giving press to those who don’t deserve it - I’m referencing here a terrifyingly mundane Private Equity Blog (msg me if you’re curious), written by one of the few girls in a PE shop on Wall Street.
PEB’s femme-de-finance spends her days gossiping about the mean boys of finance! how she is one of the few girls at her PE firm, and how she hopes the mean boys! who mistake her for an admin (which is a statistically-easy mistake to make) don’t drive her out finance.
In short, this girl sounds like a teenager upset ta boy tricked her into sleeping with her, then never called her back. PEB’s thesis about changing the finance world involves anonymously complaining and gossiping, then quitting PE (most likely to write a book about her tough few years in finance)? Look, I’m with her - it’s frustrating when a doltish-dude treats you like his assistant. But quitting isn’t going to change anything. Work harder, better, and smarter, and he’ll be working for you one day.
PS: should anyone who works or contracts for me be caught writing a blog like PEB’s, I’d be furious. Like, fire-you-so-fast-you-won’t-remember-your-name-furious.
5) And finally…Laziness, aka When you can't do, marry!: This is purely observational, but mesenses many girls go into finance because, well, graduating from an Ivy-League, getting immediately married, and putting-on-the-just-got-married-15 (while eschewing work) just isn’t done now-a-days.
So instead, many of my female “peers” go to college, work on Wall Street for a few years, do the MBA-thing (many treating grad school as their personal dating pools), then, after getting married, slowly and almost imperceptively stop working. Do these girls quit entirely? No. But they certainly take on less stressful, important, and central roles, retreating instead in the corporate, marketing, and HR ranks.
Nothing’s necessarily wrong with this, but these shifts from the career track to the mommy/social one is INEVITABLY reflected in income and power stats. Let’s be honest: most of these women were never REALLY into working in finance. Otherwise, why do so many leave so quickly (in my merely anecdotal experience, anyway)? To that end, let’s check in with PEB’s author in a few years and see where she’s at…I'm guessing the life-script will have written itself (and she's married to a guy in private equity.)
So there we have it. Sure, women, on average, earn less and have less power in the finance/corporate world. But it’s hardly the gender-war most girls would have you believe. Yeah, finance is tough – and I’ll concede it IS tougher as a woman – but so’s anything worth changing. Let’s hope at least a few girls read this, start focusing on taking over the world, and start working to do so. And hopefully become so competent in the process, we all stop crying like little girls and start performing like competent finance professionals.
Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Margaret Bogenrief on Twitter.
Margaret Bogenrief, Beautifully Complex
Fact: “Women in financial activities earn only 71% of what men earned: women made $732 a week, compared to $1,039 a week for men.”
Fact: “Men (are) twice as likely as women to be at the CEO/senior executive level.”
Fact: “A recent study of 2,000 of the world’s top performing companies revealed that only 29 of them (1.5 percent) have female CEOs. Of the Fortune Global 500, 2.6 percent have female CEOs .”
We all know the broad-strokes, if not the specifics: women make less. They’re less “powerful.” They do not, in most women’s opinions anyway, get a “fair shake” in the finance/business world.
In turn, a cottage industry has emerged making girls feel better about underperforming. Initiatives like “2020 Women on Boards” are gaining momentum. “Girl-in-Finance-Blogs” whine “I’m a pretty girl and no one takes me seriously!” while women cling to books like “Suits: A Woman on Wall Street,” a tome outlining one girl’s horrifying journey through the annals of banking…well, her 2 years of it, anyway. Until she quit, wrote a book about it, and now…travels the country, speaking about her harrowing 2 years spent in banking.
Here’s the one fact lost amongst the crying sisterhood: in this humble finance girl’s opinion, women DESERVE to be treated less seriously at work, in the boardroom, and on Wall Street. It’s their fault. Most behave, work, and operate against their own best interests.
Here are the 5 reasons why/how:
1) Opt-Out, Cop Out: This is the typical “Oh, I’ve put in a few years in finance, but don’t really want to put in any more ‘hard work.’ But I keep b1tching about how unfair the world is!’
Say there’s a girl – let’s call her JC – who fancies herself a finance mogul (or at least would be – if not for men!). Her resume reads impressively: A few years as an Analyst at one bulge-bracket, a Summer Associate at another (in addition to a few other “financey” jobs); she’s a Top-Tier MBA who now runs a web-start-up. Also, she never shuts the hell up about how much she’s doing to empower girls who should be, again, if not for men!, ruling the (business) world.
But what a girl like JC doesn’t (or refuses to) recognize, is that once you leave the finance/business game – you do your fashion, media, or web start-up or enter the often-less-demanding-corporate-ranks - you don’t matter anymore. No one cares (particularly men whose faces you're no longer in) about what you have to say (other than fellow women who want to believe it’s men – not their choices – that’s keeping them from the top ranks of power). Work – or, more importantly, success – does.
An average Opt-Out, Cop Out, like the author of “Suits: A Woman on Wall Street,” spends much more time concentrating on how difficult her career was in finance than she ever did actually becoming good at it.
2) Gender Ghettoization: “We girls need to stick together!” is seemingly the motto of every ridiculous woman’s group, gathering, and cupcake reception. “Screw boys – girl power!” is all but written in candy-colored icing consumed at these events, along with champagne and self-entitled self-righteousness.
My counter-point: yes, being in any minority is often extremely lonely. In my experience, it’s natural to want a connection with someone “like you.” This only works, however, to a point: by cornering in romantically-lit champagne bars, girls in finance/business are ghettoizing themselves.
To wit: if women make up such a low percentage of those in management ranks, doesn’t it make sense that instead of networking exclusively with each other, women should instead reach out to the power base in their fields, not other girls “oppressed” by the almighty-male? My anatomy has never excluded me from an industry-networking event. In my humble opinion, women would do better to network with those who matter, not those who look like they do. By gaining power from the inside, we will more effectively pave the way for those who come after.
3) “Men are why I don't make as much Ken Griffin!”: Here’s the thing, girls. I love that so many of you run web-start-ups, work at major fashion/CPG firms, and rock the marketing, human resources, and business development (and Associate – before most opt out) areas of trading and investment shops. These are not, however, profit centers.
On average, those who manage, invest, etc. money, make more than those who don’t. So, dear fellow women, while it’s great that you’re “focused on the sales part of sales and trading,” you ARE going to earn less than those who work in other, more central, roles (who are, coincidentally, mostly men). Same goes for quitting banks, funds, etc., for the corporate – or, even worse, non-profit - track. The attrition rate for women is atrocious, and is reflected in income, snr. management, etc. stats. Girls – if you’re comfortable quitting, supporting men in marketing, bus dev, etc. roles, or starting a “feel-good” company (i.e. motivational speaking, social-networking, etc.), your income/power stats will reflect that. These roles are accessories to those who make the money. And are simply worth less.
4) “But boys are so mean!”: Without naming names here – and giving press to those who don’t deserve it - I’m referencing here a terrifyingly mundane Private Equity Blog (msg me if you’re curious), written by one of the few girls in a PE shop on Wall Street.
PEB’s femme-de-finance spends her days gossiping about the mean boys of finance! how she is one of the few girls at her PE firm, and how she hopes the mean boys! who mistake her for an admin (which is a statistically-easy mistake to make) don’t drive her out finance.
In short, this girl sounds like a teenager upset ta boy tricked her into sleeping with her, then never called her back. PEB’s thesis about changing the finance world involves anonymously complaining and gossiping, then quitting PE (most likely to write a book about her tough few years in finance)? Look, I’m with her - it’s frustrating when a doltish-dude treats you like his assistant. But quitting isn’t going to change anything. Work harder, better, and smarter, and he’ll be working for you one day.
PS: should anyone who works or contracts for me be caught writing a blog like PEB’s, I’d be furious. Like, fire-you-so-fast-you-won’t-remember-your-name-furious.
5) And finally…Laziness, aka When you can't do, marry!: This is purely observational, but mesenses many girls go into finance because, well, graduating from an Ivy-League, getting immediately married, and putting-on-the-just-got-married-15 (while eschewing work) just isn’t done now-a-days.
So instead, many of my female “peers” go to college, work on Wall Street for a few years, do the MBA-thing (many treating grad school as their personal dating pools), then, after getting married, slowly and almost imperceptively stop working. Do these girls quit entirely? No. But they certainly take on less stressful, important, and central roles, retreating instead in the corporate, marketing, and HR ranks.
Nothing’s necessarily wrong with this, but these shifts from the career track to the mommy/social one is INEVITABLY reflected in income and power stats. Let’s be honest: most of these women were never REALLY into working in finance. Otherwise, why do so many leave so quickly (in my merely anecdotal experience, anyway)? To that end, let’s check in with PEB’s author in a few years and see where she’s at…I'm guessing the life-script will have written itself (and she's married to a guy in private equity.)
So there we have it. Sure, women, on average, earn less and have less power in the finance/corporate world. But it’s hardly the gender-war most girls would have you believe. Yeah, finance is tough – and I’ll concede it IS tougher as a woman – but so’s anything worth changing. Let’s hope at least a few girls read this, start focusing on taking over the world, and start working to do so. And hopefully become so competent in the process, we all stop crying like little girls and start performing like competent finance professionals.
Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Margaret Bogenrief on Twitter.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Wondering Where the Men Went Ladies?
Running for their goddamn lives.
Without getting into it, you see men and women once risked close to the same "amount" of what have you. Feelings, wealth, happiness, etc.. It wasn't perfectly even - men might've had a little bit more money and are considered sexier later into life, etc. But it was ultimately the same. Men didn't leave their "aging" wives in droves - they stay married. Women didn't leave their men in droves either because - why would you want to? The other men out there are essentially much like your husband and being divorced will give you an added stigma as well as less money. Might as well stay put and work on your marriage.
With the advent of radical, extremist, man-hating-psychos-sponsored divorce laws, men become TOTALLY expendable. Marry one, or don't, breed with him and you own him. You bought him, he's yours. Dump him and blow him out for his house and everything he's ever made PLUS 50% of what HE WILL MAKE IN THE FUTURE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE (child support + alimony), and go shopping for another. Hell, you could just run through the men with divorce after divorce and get steady income stream after steady income stream - its like franchising. This is the truth, this is reality, this is the state of marriage and divorce.
Men have finally BEGUN to wake up. Over half of marriages end in divorce and anything you have will be hers, more or less, leaving you LITTLE TO NOTHING to offer your next girlfriend or wife, so men have become effectively disenfranchised from the marriage institution. Why? For the simple fact they have everything to lose and little to gain. Their wives are not really "required" or expected, from a legal or societal point of view to cook, clean, or even to stay in shape. They may have as many kids as they want, work as long as they want, never touch their husband, then divorce him at their leisure - it does not matter IF women will really do this, it matters that THEY CAN do this, and some have. I would say more than "some." Men have done the math and realized, marriage is simply not in their best interests.
One man has written this all down - his name is Carl Weisman and his book is called "Why men avoid marriage." It is simply a long version of what I have written above. Men like women, would rather like to get married, but all in all are simply terrified of a bad marriage. A bad marriage renders them penniless, alone, barely able to "visit" any children they may have had and may very well plop them in their parents' home, for want of being able to afford even their own residence. Yes, this is true, look it up. What I am describing is a veritable nightmare for most men. And its happening. To all men? No. To enough of men? Yes. How do I know its happening to "enough" men? Because men talk to their friends. And they hear the stories of bad divorces. Divorces they did not want or deserve. Men divorced by cheating wives, "unhappy" wives that are better described as spoiled, sulking children, by silent, stoic, anxiety-riddled wives who refuse therapy, but kept their divorce lawyer on speed dial, by frolicking, tempestuous, flirtatious wives, who "upgraded" to a wealthier man, by ordinary women who simply hit a rough patch in their marriage and decided they would start over with someone t.v. commercials promised them would be "new and exciting." Regardless of the reasons, men are not guaranteed fair treatment in divorced. Broadly speaking women are treated as handicapped children who are being abandoned and men are treated as wealthy, philandering tight-wads who are sure to starve their own children without the threat of jail. In essence, men are presumed to be guilty.... of something, the moment they walk into family court. And then they are bankrupted. I wish I was exaggerating - I am not. Not even a little. Again, ask around.
What do men do when they discover the TRUTH about what they are risking in marriage? They DON'T GET MARRIED. Period. Honestly... what took them so long!?!?!?
Single, lonely ladies.... there you have it. Stop donating to the National Organization for Women or else kindly shut the Hell up about being lonely and the lack of "real" men available.
Why men avoid marriage
Bachelor Carl Weisman got fed up of being classified as a playboy, a loser or a commitment-phobe so he set out to find out exactly why he and a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage.
Weisman, 49, conducted a survey of 1,533 heterosexual men to research a book aiming to give women an insight into why some smart, successful men opted to stay single -- and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties.
He concluded that most men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.
"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures."
The release of his book "So Why Have You Never Been Married? - Ten Insights into Why He Hasn't Wed," comes amid a growing trend for more people to stay single, with less social or religious pressures on men -- and women -- to tie the knot.
Weisman said U.S. figures showed that in 1980 about 6 percent of men aged in their early 40s had never married but this number had now risen to 17 percent.
AFRAID TO MAKE MISTAKES
Weisman said his online survey found there are three groups of bachelors -- about 8 percent who never want to marry, 62 percent want to marry but of which half won't settle for anything less than perfection, and about 30 percent who are on the fence.
Four out of 10 bachelors did not want children compared to three out of 10 wanting to be a father. The rest were undecided.
But while 72 percent of respondents said they were not afraid of marriage, about half of them said the situation that scared them most was marrying the wrong person.
"It's so important to these men to get it right. My best advice to single women after bachelors is to be patient. If you're in a hurry to get married you'll be frustrated," he said.
Weisman also found that financial issues, both positive and negative, played a large part in men's fear of commitment.
"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman, an engineer-turned-author with two books now published.
"While those who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."
Weisman said his research blew away any idea that single men were unhappy.
"A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."
For him, researching the book made him also look at himself -- and he ended up living with a girlfriend for the first time.
"Now we're looking at getting married. As I researched the book I found I was looking at men 10 years older than me and it was like looking into the future. If I didn't change, nothing would," he said.
Without getting into it, you see men and women once risked close to the same "amount" of what have you. Feelings, wealth, happiness, etc.. It wasn't perfectly even - men might've had a little bit more money and are considered sexier later into life, etc. But it was ultimately the same. Men didn't leave their "aging" wives in droves - they stay married. Women didn't leave their men in droves either because - why would you want to? The other men out there are essentially much like your husband and being divorced will give you an added stigma as well as less money. Might as well stay put and work on your marriage.
With the advent of radical, extremist, man-hating-psychos-sponsored divorce laws, men become TOTALLY expendable. Marry one, or don't, breed with him and you own him. You bought him, he's yours. Dump him and blow him out for his house and everything he's ever made PLUS 50% of what HE WILL MAKE IN THE FUTURE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE (child support + alimony), and go shopping for another. Hell, you could just run through the men with divorce after divorce and get steady income stream after steady income stream - its like franchising. This is the truth, this is reality, this is the state of marriage and divorce.
Men have finally BEGUN to wake up. Over half of marriages end in divorce and anything you have will be hers, more or less, leaving you LITTLE TO NOTHING to offer your next girlfriend or wife, so men have become effectively disenfranchised from the marriage institution. Why? For the simple fact they have everything to lose and little to gain. Their wives are not really "required" or expected, from a legal or societal point of view to cook, clean, or even to stay in shape. They may have as many kids as they want, work as long as they want, never touch their husband, then divorce him at their leisure - it does not matter IF women will really do this, it matters that THEY CAN do this, and some have. I would say more than "some." Men have done the math and realized, marriage is simply not in their best interests.
One man has written this all down - his name is Carl Weisman and his book is called "Why men avoid marriage." It is simply a long version of what I have written above. Men like women, would rather like to get married, but all in all are simply terrified of a bad marriage. A bad marriage renders them penniless, alone, barely able to "visit" any children they may have had and may very well plop them in their parents' home, for want of being able to afford even their own residence. Yes, this is true, look it up. What I am describing is a veritable nightmare for most men. And its happening. To all men? No. To enough of men? Yes. How do I know its happening to "enough" men? Because men talk to their friends. And they hear the stories of bad divorces. Divorces they did not want or deserve. Men divorced by cheating wives, "unhappy" wives that are better described as spoiled, sulking children, by silent, stoic, anxiety-riddled wives who refuse therapy, but kept their divorce lawyer on speed dial, by frolicking, tempestuous, flirtatious wives, who "upgraded" to a wealthier man, by ordinary women who simply hit a rough patch in their marriage and decided they would start over with someone t.v. commercials promised them would be "new and exciting." Regardless of the reasons, men are not guaranteed fair treatment in divorced. Broadly speaking women are treated as handicapped children who are being abandoned and men are treated as wealthy, philandering tight-wads who are sure to starve their own children without the threat of jail. In essence, men are presumed to be guilty.... of something, the moment they walk into family court. And then they are bankrupted. I wish I was exaggerating - I am not. Not even a little. Again, ask around.
What do men do when they discover the TRUTH about what they are risking in marriage? They DON'T GET MARRIED. Period. Honestly... what took them so long!?!?!?
Single, lonely ladies.... there you have it. Stop donating to the National Organization for Women or else kindly shut the Hell up about being lonely and the lack of "real" men available.
Why men avoid marriage
Bachelor Carl Weisman got fed up of being classified as a playboy, a loser or a commitment-phobe so he set out to find out exactly why he and a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage.
Weisman, 49, conducted a survey of 1,533 heterosexual men to research a book aiming to give women an insight into why some smart, successful men opted to stay single -- and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties.
He concluded that most men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.
"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures."
The release of his book "So Why Have You Never Been Married? - Ten Insights into Why He Hasn't Wed," comes amid a growing trend for more people to stay single, with less social or religious pressures on men -- and women -- to tie the knot.
Weisman said U.S. figures showed that in 1980 about 6 percent of men aged in their early 40s had never married but this number had now risen to 17 percent.
AFRAID TO MAKE MISTAKES
Weisman said his online survey found there are three groups of bachelors -- about 8 percent who never want to marry, 62 percent want to marry but of which half won't settle for anything less than perfection, and about 30 percent who are on the fence.
Four out of 10 bachelors did not want children compared to three out of 10 wanting to be a father. The rest were undecided.
But while 72 percent of respondents said they were not afraid of marriage, about half of them said the situation that scared them most was marrying the wrong person.
"It's so important to these men to get it right. My best advice to single women after bachelors is to be patient. If you're in a hurry to get married you'll be frustrated," he said.
Weisman also found that financial issues, both positive and negative, played a large part in men's fear of commitment.
"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman, an engineer-turned-author with two books now published.
"While those who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."
Weisman said his research blew away any idea that single men were unhappy.
"A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."
For him, researching the book made him also look at himself -- and he ended up living with a girlfriend for the first time.
"Now we're looking at getting married. As I researched the book I found I was looking at men 10 years older than me and it was like looking into the future. If I didn't change, nothing would," he said.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
First Among Equals.
Women do not want men to be equals. They want men to be superior. Have you heard them? Have you heard them talk? "Bill is taking me to the movies, to the bahamas, to the carribean, to europe, is taking me dancing, to a play, to dinner, to lunch, to breakfast." They brag to their friends about it. They love it. They feel romanced and impressed. They feel swept away. Men make gestures WITH THEIR WALLET. They "take" women places, do things for them, buy things for them, make their life easier and more pleasing and easy. Women, WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY "EQUAL" TO MEN, don't "take" men ANYWHERE.
WHY IS THAT, DEAR READER!?!?!?!?
Ask any woman and you'll get the same answer: HE IS THE MAN, I AM THE WOMAN. HE ROMANCES ME, THEREFORE HE TAKES ME PLACES TO IMPRESS ME AND GODDAMMIT DON'T YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO "DODGE" THAT - MEN ARE SUPPOSED TO "COURT" WOMEN AND YOU CAN'T "GET OUT OF THAT," SO DON'T EVEN ASK.
Pointing out that she makes what many men make or more and that it is irresponsible of her to expect so much of her "equal partner" is a WASTE OF YOUR PRECIOUS BREATH. She doesn't want to be equals. Not unless its time to make money or have an apartment or car or buy shoes. During dating, women want to be a distant 2nd place. They want Prince Charming to open doors, pay bills, plan evenings, court, court, and lastly court. Impress them with money, thoughtfulness, gifts, trips, and generally act like Mr. Bigshot who thinks nothing is "too good" for her. Basically spoil her rotten (cough, like daddy?, cough).
And that's it. Women hate equality. Ask any man. At least when the check for dinner arrives. When she's shoe shopping, her money is her own and buying you gifts is just silly (don't you have your own money, Mr. Man?!?!?), and you ARE the one who is "supposed" to do the courting, so pick her up at 8 and don't be late, she hates to wait in line.
-JB
p.s. I have seen many ladies who picked up the check for dinner and bought me birthday and holiday presents. That said, day-to-day, they clearly DID NOT expect to pick up the bill for things and at times they did and were clearly uncomfortable about it; bear in mind these were otherwise kind, caring, generous people. I'm not calling women selfish. I'm calling them people who believe in a given role for each gender. A role that is as traditional as "traditional" can get. This is ironic and hysterical to me given the liberties women enjoy that they did not in the past (those are their "right" to have, ahem). In this way, women have made "progress" (what does that even mean, anyway?), while men have.... have.... well what have men done? They have gotten less and less and less and less so far as I can tell. And now young men are not even motivated to get married or court a woman. Let's all act surprised why.
WHY IS THAT, DEAR READER!?!?!?!?
Ask any woman and you'll get the same answer: HE IS THE MAN, I AM THE WOMAN. HE ROMANCES ME, THEREFORE HE TAKES ME PLACES TO IMPRESS ME AND GODDAMMIT DON'T YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO "DODGE" THAT - MEN ARE SUPPOSED TO "COURT" WOMEN AND YOU CAN'T "GET OUT OF THAT," SO DON'T EVEN ASK.
Pointing out that she makes what many men make or more and that it is irresponsible of her to expect so much of her "equal partner" is a WASTE OF YOUR PRECIOUS BREATH. She doesn't want to be equals. Not unless its time to make money or have an apartment or car or buy shoes. During dating, women want to be a distant 2nd place. They want Prince Charming to open doors, pay bills, plan evenings, court, court, and lastly court. Impress them with money, thoughtfulness, gifts, trips, and generally act like Mr. Bigshot who thinks nothing is "too good" for her. Basically spoil her rotten (cough, like daddy?, cough).
And that's it. Women hate equality. Ask any man. At least when the check for dinner arrives. When she's shoe shopping, her money is her own and buying you gifts is just silly (don't you have your own money, Mr. Man?!?!?), and you ARE the one who is "supposed" to do the courting, so pick her up at 8 and don't be late, she hates to wait in line.
-JB
p.s. I have seen many ladies who picked up the check for dinner and bought me birthday and holiday presents. That said, day-to-day, they clearly DID NOT expect to pick up the bill for things and at times they did and were clearly uncomfortable about it; bear in mind these were otherwise kind, caring, generous people. I'm not calling women selfish. I'm calling them people who believe in a given role for each gender. A role that is as traditional as "traditional" can get. This is ironic and hysterical to me given the liberties women enjoy that they did not in the past (those are their "right" to have, ahem). In this way, women have made "progress" (what does that even mean, anyway?), while men have.... have.... well what have men done? They have gotten less and less and less and less so far as I can tell. And now young men are not even motivated to get married or court a woman. Let's all act surprised why.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Good Sex = Bad
No one deserves to be slave to anyone. That said, anyone who thinks you shouldn't listen to your spouse and try hard to keep them happy as best as you can in all ways PROBABLY ISN'T MARRIED AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE.
The author tries very hard to spin this entire article into an assault on women. Unfortunately its just a little overzealous advice from an extra conservative culture. Being a man's slave is a bit much. Having good sex with him (or trying to) and keeping up your end of things at home while he works all day for money for the family? Um, that's what most married couples do. The single women I know? They're pretty much DYING for that setup. Seriously. EXACTLY that setup. Good sex INCLUDED, and thanks for asking. I think they'll even let you call them submissive fools if it makes you happy. They're just looking for a good man with a job who will stay with them. They have friends who have both men and kids and these ladies are OUT FOR THE SAME. They just want to know what to do. And trust me when I tell you these young women ARE MOT-I-VATED. I know because they ask me 10 times a week what men want. They don't ask HOW TO BE SELFISH. They ask WHAT CAN I DO TO GET AND KEEP A MAN.
The info below is more or less good advice and women in the West that take it have an ABOVE AVERAGE shot of finding and keeping a man (just don't sleep around). Doing the opposite of what this article describes is the best recipe you can find for remaining alone for a VERY. LONG. TIME.
For some reason we all accept a man must work hard and make money. And if he doesn't, few people call him a man. But a woman who doesn't sleep with her husband or listen to him? She's still called a woman. Hell, she's called a wife in many instances. She can live at work and cook once a month and that's a-ok with everyone, especially the media, as wives in America have but one role: their career. Men don't marry women's careers. Men prize sex, affection, caring, and cooperation with domestic responsibilities. The women below appreciate that. Most Western women can't, don't and won't (mainly because they're told their career and personal happiness is more important and many believe it, even after they end up alone).
Between the Western nations and the eastern, more conservative ones, do you want to guess who has the 55% divorce rate? DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK?!!?!??
BTW, I do NOT support polygamy. Although you do have to wonder how countries that even support that outrage STILL manage to have less divorce than we do, with our "better" ways.
Malaysia 'obedient wives' club: Good sex is a duty
In this picture taken Saturday, June 4, 2011, Malaysian Muslim Ishak Md Nor, second from right, 40, and his two wives, Aishah Abdul Ghafar, left, 40, and Afiratul Abidah Mohd Hanan, 25, who are members of the 'Obedient Wife Club,' pose with their children after the club's launch in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A Malaysian Muslim group has launched the 'Obedient Wives Club' to teach women to be submissive and keep their spouses happy in the bedroom as a cure to social ills. In this picture taken Saturday, June 4, 2011, Malaysian Muslim Ishak Md Nor, second from right, 40, and his two wives, Aishah Abdul Ghafar, left, 40, and Afiratul Abidah Mohd Hanan, 25, who are members of the "Obedient Wife Club," pose with their children after the club's launch in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A Malaysian Muslim group has launched the "Obedient Wives Club" to teach women to be submissive and keep their spouses happy in the bedroom as a cure to social ills. (AP Photo)
By Eileen Ng
RAWANG, Malaysia—As a new bride, 22-year-old Ummu Atirah believes she knows the secret to a blissful marriage: obey her husband and ensure he is sexually satisfied.
Ummu and some 800 other Muslim women in Malaysia are members of the "Obedient Wives Club" that is generating controversy in one of the most modern and progressive Muslim-majority nations, where many Muslim Malaysian women hold high posts in the government and corporate world.
The new club, launched Saturday, says it can cure social ills such as prostitution and divorce by teaching women to be submissive and keep their men happy in the bedroom.
"Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said Ummu, who wore a yellow headscarf.
The club, founded by a fringe Islamic group known as Global Ikhwan, has been dismissed by politicians and activists as a throwback to Medieval times and an insult to modern women of Malaysia. But the group's activities, which previously included the setting up of a Polygamy Club, show that pockets of conservative Islamic ideas still thrive in Malaysia.
Groups such as Global Ikhwan are unlikely to gain much popularity beyond generating shock value. Still, there is concern that radical groups could garner support among other Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the 28 million population, and upset decades of carefully nurtured racial and religious harmony.
"Unfortunately even today, there are still many Muslim women who are ignorant of their rights or culturally inhibited to exercise their rights in full," said Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, a female Muslim minister in charge of family policy.
Despite the group's conservative Islamic background, Rohayah Mohamad, one of the founders of the club, openly talks about the virtues of marital sex even though most of her colleagues are shy about the topic.
"Sex is a taboo in Asian society. We have ignored it in our marriages but it's all down to sex. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore ... to your husband?" she said.
"This way, the family institution is protected and we can curb social ills," said Rohayah, the club's vice president who is also a trained physician.
She said wives must go beyond the traditional roles as good cooks or good mothers and learn to "obey, serve and entertain" their husbands to prevent them from straying or misbehaving.
Indirectly, "disobedient wives are the cause for upheaval in this world" because men are not happy at home and their minds and souls are disturbed, she said.
Authorities recently said Malaysia's divorce rate has doubled from 2002 to 2009 with higher rates among Malay Muslims.
"When husbands come home, wives do not welcome their husbands with warm alluring smiles and sexy dressing ... That is the reality today," she said.
The Global Ikhwan group is an offshoot of former members of the Al-Arqam sect outlawed in 1994 after its teachings were found to have deviated from Islam. It is funded by the group's restaurants, grocery stores, poultry and other businesses abroad.
Most of the 800 women who are members of the new club, including Ummu the new bride, also belong to Al-Arqam.
Expectedly, the club has faced intense criticism.
Some Malaysians started a Facebook page called "We do not want sexist nonsense from Global Ikhwan."
One Muslim man, Amirul Aftar, wrote: "I do not want a wife to submit to my every beck and call. I want a wife who understands me ... we are not your masters, we are your equal."
Women's group, Sisters in Islam, said Islam advocates marriages based on mutual cooperation and respect. It said domestic violence happens regardless of women's behavior.
"Communication, not submission, is vital to sustain any healthy relationship," it said.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The author tries very hard to spin this entire article into an assault on women. Unfortunately its just a little overzealous advice from an extra conservative culture. Being a man's slave is a bit much. Having good sex with him (or trying to) and keeping up your end of things at home while he works all day for money for the family? Um, that's what most married couples do. The single women I know? They're pretty much DYING for that setup. Seriously. EXACTLY that setup. Good sex INCLUDED, and thanks for asking. I think they'll even let you call them submissive fools if it makes you happy. They're just looking for a good man with a job who will stay with them. They have friends who have both men and kids and these ladies are OUT FOR THE SAME. They just want to know what to do. And trust me when I tell you these young women ARE MOT-I-VATED. I know because they ask me 10 times a week what men want. They don't ask HOW TO BE SELFISH. They ask WHAT CAN I DO TO GET AND KEEP A MAN.
The info below is more or less good advice and women in the West that take it have an ABOVE AVERAGE shot of finding and keeping a man (just don't sleep around). Doing the opposite of what this article describes is the best recipe you can find for remaining alone for a VERY. LONG. TIME.
For some reason we all accept a man must work hard and make money. And if he doesn't, few people call him a man. But a woman who doesn't sleep with her husband or listen to him? She's still called a woman. Hell, she's called a wife in many instances. She can live at work and cook once a month and that's a-ok with everyone, especially the media, as wives in America have but one role: their career. Men don't marry women's careers. Men prize sex, affection, caring, and cooperation with domestic responsibilities. The women below appreciate that. Most Western women can't, don't and won't (mainly because they're told their career and personal happiness is more important and many believe it, even after they end up alone).
Between the Western nations and the eastern, more conservative ones, do you want to guess who has the 55% divorce rate? DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK?!!?!??
BTW, I do NOT support polygamy. Although you do have to wonder how countries that even support that outrage STILL manage to have less divorce than we do, with our "better" ways.
Malaysia 'obedient wives' club: Good sex is a duty
In this picture taken Saturday, June 4, 2011, Malaysian Muslim Ishak Md Nor, second from right, 40, and his two wives, Aishah Abdul Ghafar, left, 40, and Afiratul Abidah Mohd Hanan, 25, who are members of the 'Obedient Wife Club,' pose with their children after the club's launch in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A Malaysian Muslim group has launched the 'Obedient Wives Club' to teach women to be submissive and keep their spouses happy in the bedroom as a cure to social ills. In this picture taken Saturday, June 4, 2011, Malaysian Muslim Ishak Md Nor, second from right, 40, and his two wives, Aishah Abdul Ghafar, left, 40, and Afiratul Abidah Mohd Hanan, 25, who are members of the "Obedient Wife Club," pose with their children after the club's launch in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A Malaysian Muslim group has launched the "Obedient Wives Club" to teach women to be submissive and keep their spouses happy in the bedroom as a cure to social ills. (AP Photo)
By Eileen Ng
RAWANG, Malaysia—As a new bride, 22-year-old Ummu Atirah believes she knows the secret to a blissful marriage: obey her husband and ensure he is sexually satisfied.
Ummu and some 800 other Muslim women in Malaysia are members of the "Obedient Wives Club" that is generating controversy in one of the most modern and progressive Muslim-majority nations, where many Muslim Malaysian women hold high posts in the government and corporate world.
The new club, launched Saturday, says it can cure social ills such as prostitution and divorce by teaching women to be submissive and keep their men happy in the bedroom.
"Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said Ummu, who wore a yellow headscarf.
The club, founded by a fringe Islamic group known as Global Ikhwan, has been dismissed by politicians and activists as a throwback to Medieval times and an insult to modern women of Malaysia. But the group's activities, which previously included the setting up of a Polygamy Club, show that pockets of conservative Islamic ideas still thrive in Malaysia.
Groups such as Global Ikhwan are unlikely to gain much popularity beyond generating shock value. Still, there is concern that radical groups could garner support among other Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the 28 million population, and upset decades of carefully nurtured racial and religious harmony.
"Unfortunately even today, there are still many Muslim women who are ignorant of their rights or culturally inhibited to exercise their rights in full," said Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, a female Muslim minister in charge of family policy.
Despite the group's conservative Islamic background, Rohayah Mohamad, one of the founders of the club, openly talks about the virtues of marital sex even though most of her colleagues are shy about the topic.
"Sex is a taboo in Asian society. We have ignored it in our marriages but it's all down to sex. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore ... to your husband?" she said.
"This way, the family institution is protected and we can curb social ills," said Rohayah, the club's vice president who is also a trained physician.
She said wives must go beyond the traditional roles as good cooks or good mothers and learn to "obey, serve and entertain" their husbands to prevent them from straying or misbehaving.
Indirectly, "disobedient wives are the cause for upheaval in this world" because men are not happy at home and their minds and souls are disturbed, she said.
Authorities recently said Malaysia's divorce rate has doubled from 2002 to 2009 with higher rates among Malay Muslims.
"When husbands come home, wives do not welcome their husbands with warm alluring smiles and sexy dressing ... That is the reality today," she said.
The Global Ikhwan group is an offshoot of former members of the Al-Arqam sect outlawed in 1994 after its teachings were found to have deviated from Islam. It is funded by the group's restaurants, grocery stores, poultry and other businesses abroad.
Most of the 800 women who are members of the new club, including Ummu the new bride, also belong to Al-Arqam.
Expectedly, the club has faced intense criticism.
Some Malaysians started a Facebook page called "We do not want sexist nonsense from Global Ikhwan."
One Muslim man, Amirul Aftar, wrote: "I do not want a wife to submit to my every beck and call. I want a wife who understands me ... we are not your masters, we are your equal."
Women's group, Sisters in Islam, said Islam advocates marriages based on mutual cooperation and respect. It said domestic violence happens regardless of women's behavior.
"Communication, not submission, is vital to sustain any healthy relationship," it said.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
HE'LL CHEAT! But not my guy. He's a sweetheart, actually.
Carrie Underwood is a successful pop star who sings a song called "Before He Cheats." (lyrics below). This song is a little confusing. Apparently the singer's boyfriend has cheated... but she never really says that. She implies it. She simply describes a man who is "probably" doing some cheating type behavior. Then she describes her revenge on what he is "probably" doing. The revenge is to destroy his private property, his car; she describes this in VIOLENT detail. Enough to make you wince at the thought of it. This is supposedly justified by the fact that he "probably" cheated.
Let me let you in on something. Even if he did cheat, its not OK to tear is car apart. Its called crazy land. And I suggest you don't visit. Its a crime to destroy someone's private property and its wildly intimidating, violent and indicative of unstable behavior. You don't have to be with this person who cheated on you. Walk away. Move on. You may call them some bad names or leave an insulting message on their voicemail but destroying their car is in ANOTHER LEAGUE and its CRIMINAL behavior. It is NOT OK. It is CRAZY. It means you have serious emotional problems, you don't know where the line is on revenge and you probably need some therapy. NOW.
To make this story even more comical is the fact that the woman who sings it, Carrie Underwood, is in love, and happily married to NHL hockey star Mike Fisher. Further, she admits that she's crazy about him and becomes a "sentimental weenie" around him.
["He loves it here, and I love having him here," the former Idol champ added, admitting that life as a wife has softened her up considerably. "I've never been one for mushy songs. I just don't do mush. I can do mad. I can do sassy," she explained. But with her guy? "The more I was around him...I'm becoming a sentimental weenie!"]
NHL hockey stars, like other athletes, have been suspected of extra marital affairs. Traveling 6 months a year doesn't help. So Carrie, are you worried your hubby will cheat? Guess not. She's too busy being in love. And it seems she has faith in marriage. But don't follow what she does... Please. Listen to her songs. Especially the ones that tells you to expect "him" to cheat and retaliate by going loco and destroying his car. Women drive down the road singing that song at the top of their lungs. I've even spoken with plenty of women in bars who HAVE BOYFRIENDS or are seeing someone. When I dig a little, it seems they are trying to "upgrade," or else they tell me they are "half seeing someone," "thinking of leaving him" or are "convinced he's cheating, or will soon because their sex life is really bad right now." Is this song the cause of all that? No. But it sure doesn't help. Its like the theme song to these women's lives. It preys on women's insecurities and inflames them.
Singing "angry, girl-power" type songs makes you money. It just doesn't make you happy. Loving someone who loves you back does. But it seems Mrs. Underwood has decided to let that be her little secret. She doesn't sing about her darling husband whom she plainly adores. I find it to be a bit horrifying. Do you think women don't listen to that song and get ideas about men... or about THEIR man!?!?!? Read through the comments section and tell me it has no effect.
Before He Cheats lyrics
Songwriters: Tompkins, Chris; Kear, Josh;
Right now he's probably slow dancing
With a bleached-blond tramp
And she's probably getting frisky
Right now, he's probably buying
Her some fruity little drink
'Cause she can't shoot whiskey
Right now, he's probably up behind her
With a pool stick
Showing her how to shoot a combo
And he don't know
I dug my key into the side
Of his pretty little souped-up 4 wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seat
I took a Louisville slugger to both head lights
Slashed a hole in all 4 tires
And maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
Right now, she's probably up singing some
White-trash version of Shania karaoke
Right now, she's probably saying, "I'm drunk"
And he's a thinking that he's gonna get lucky
Right now, he's probably dabbing on 3 dollars
Worth of that bathroom Polo
[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/c/carrie-underwood-lyrics/before-he-cheats-lyrics.html ]
Oh and he don't know
That I dug my key into the side
Of his pretty little souped-up 4 wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seat
I took a Louisville slugger to both head lights
Slashed a hole in all 4 tires
And maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
I might've saved a little trouble for the next girl
'Cause the next time that he cheats
Oh, you know it won't be on me!
No, not on me
'Cause I dug my key into the side
Of his pretty little souped-up 4 wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seat
I took a Louisville slugger to both head lights
Slashed a hole in all 4 tires
Maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
Oh, maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
Oh, before he cheats
Oh
And if you think girls and women don't take simple little radio tunes seriously....
From the Comments section:
COMMENTS (recent 15 of 199 total comments)
jessica T. 06/08/11,09:26
i love this song it is awsome and carrie is such a great role model and a good influence and is down to earth and that anything is possible if you follow your dreams i love her
chris 06/08/11,08:28
lol Just wanted 2 see what the hell the lyrics were didnt hear them too clear !
somebody 06/07/11,17:50
This song is stuck in my head after Carrie and Lauren sang it on the Idol season 10 finals... Love it though!
Raul ibanez 06/05/11,07:14
Awesome song! I'm gonna watch her concert live for the like 1,000000000 time! It's so good! Yayay baby
CountryGirl 06/01/11,16:03
Go Louisville!
SLE 05/31/11,18:58
man i love this song especially since my last bf cheated on me wit 2 girls ha stupid and im bout to take it out on him XD
Carrie Underwood 05/30/11,20:40
I love this song like I love my life.
tiffany 05/30/11,13:30
OMG i love this song i have had many boyfriends that were all buttheads
meow 05/29/11,13:32
OMG I love this song! My friend and I are performing it for open mic and I'm Soo excited!!
Let me let you in on something. Even if he did cheat, its not OK to tear is car apart. Its called crazy land. And I suggest you don't visit. Its a crime to destroy someone's private property and its wildly intimidating, violent and indicative of unstable behavior. You don't have to be with this person who cheated on you. Walk away. Move on. You may call them some bad names or leave an insulting message on their voicemail but destroying their car is in ANOTHER LEAGUE and its CRIMINAL behavior. It is NOT OK. It is CRAZY. It means you have serious emotional problems, you don't know where the line is on revenge and you probably need some therapy. NOW.
To make this story even more comical is the fact that the woman who sings it, Carrie Underwood, is in love, and happily married to NHL hockey star Mike Fisher. Further, she admits that she's crazy about him and becomes a "sentimental weenie" around him.
["He loves it here, and I love having him here," the former Idol champ added, admitting that life as a wife has softened her up considerably. "I've never been one for mushy songs. I just don't do mush. I can do mad. I can do sassy," she explained. But with her guy? "The more I was around him...I'm becoming a sentimental weenie!"]
NHL hockey stars, like other athletes, have been suspected of extra marital affairs. Traveling 6 months a year doesn't help. So Carrie, are you worried your hubby will cheat? Guess not. She's too busy being in love. And it seems she has faith in marriage. But don't follow what she does... Please. Listen to her songs. Especially the ones that tells you to expect "him" to cheat and retaliate by going loco and destroying his car. Women drive down the road singing that song at the top of their lungs. I've even spoken with plenty of women in bars who HAVE BOYFRIENDS or are seeing someone. When I dig a little, it seems they are trying to "upgrade," or else they tell me they are "half seeing someone," "thinking of leaving him" or are "convinced he's cheating, or will soon because their sex life is really bad right now." Is this song the cause of all that? No. But it sure doesn't help. Its like the theme song to these women's lives. It preys on women's insecurities and inflames them.
Singing "angry, girl-power" type songs makes you money. It just doesn't make you happy. Loving someone who loves you back does. But it seems Mrs. Underwood has decided to let that be her little secret. She doesn't sing about her darling husband whom she plainly adores. I find it to be a bit horrifying. Do you think women don't listen to that song and get ideas about men... or about THEIR man!?!?!? Read through the comments section and tell me it has no effect.
Before He Cheats lyrics
Songwriters: Tompkins, Chris; Kear, Josh;
Right now he's probably slow dancing
With a bleached-blond tramp
And she's probably getting frisky
Right now, he's probably buying
Her some fruity little drink
'Cause she can't shoot whiskey
Right now, he's probably up behind her
With a pool stick
Showing her how to shoot a combo
And he don't know
I dug my key into the side
Of his pretty little souped-up 4 wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seat
I took a Louisville slugger to both head lights
Slashed a hole in all 4 tires
And maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
Right now, she's probably up singing some
White-trash version of Shania karaoke
Right now, she's probably saying, "I'm drunk"
And he's a thinking that he's gonna get lucky
Right now, he's probably dabbing on 3 dollars
Worth of that bathroom Polo
[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/c/carrie-underwood-lyrics/before-he-cheats-lyrics.html ]
Oh and he don't know
That I dug my key into the side
Of his pretty little souped-up 4 wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seat
I took a Louisville slugger to both head lights
Slashed a hole in all 4 tires
And maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
I might've saved a little trouble for the next girl
'Cause the next time that he cheats
Oh, you know it won't be on me!
No, not on me
'Cause I dug my key into the side
Of his pretty little souped-up 4 wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seat
I took a Louisville slugger to both head lights
Slashed a hole in all 4 tires
Maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
Oh, maybe next time he'll think before he cheats
Oh, before he cheats
Oh
And if you think girls and women don't take simple little radio tunes seriously....
From the Comments section:
COMMENTS (recent 15 of 199 total comments)
jessica T. 06/08/11,09:26
i love this song it is awsome and carrie is such a great role model and a good influence and is down to earth and that anything is possible if you follow your dreams i love her
chris 06/08/11,08:28
lol Just wanted 2 see what the hell the lyrics were didnt hear them too clear !
somebody 06/07/11,17:50
This song is stuck in my head after Carrie and Lauren sang it on the Idol season 10 finals... Love it though!
Raul ibanez 06/05/11,07:14
Awesome song! I'm gonna watch her concert live for the like 1,000000000 time! It's so good! Yayay baby
CountryGirl 06/01/11,16:03
Go Louisville!
SLE 05/31/11,18:58
man i love this song especially since my last bf cheated on me wit 2 girls ha stupid and im bout to take it out on him XD
Carrie Underwood 05/30/11,20:40
I love this song like I love my life.
tiffany 05/30/11,13:30
OMG i love this song i have had many boyfriends that were all buttheads
meow 05/29/11,13:32
OMG I love this song! My friend and I are performing it for open mic and I'm Soo excited!!
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
What's Wrong with American Women
Its like this girl never had a mother.
From the Boston Globe:
Dear Meredith,
I'm an avid reader. I frequent the comments under an alias and often submit entries for your various contests (and have won!). I've not yet written in about my own search for love ... until now.
The facts: 27-year-old single female, active lifestyle. I am resilient, extremely caring (admittedly sometimes to a fault), thoughtful, very happy, and energetic. My friends often come to me for advice. Many times a bridesmaid.
Relationship background: 7-year, off-and-on roller-coaster relationship (now very close friends and only friends, finally, thank god), some fun flings, one 5-month relationship -- 9 men in total. Some of my friends describe me as a hopeless romantic with the mind of a teenage boy. I absolutely love the sweet stuff/affection yet I'm slightly driven by that other part of my brain.
I called the shots. I was disappointed when things didn't move forward physically rather than emotionally.
Friday, I met up with him and his friends (I brought a friend so I had back up as well) and things seemed to be going great. And then he disappeared. No goodbye, no "gotta jet," no anything. His friends mentioned he does this sometimes. They all stayed and we all continued to hang out but I was completely baffled. Of course, no response to texts and calls. Two days and still nothing. The typical "He wasn't that into you" seems the obvious answer. But I guess my real question is ... how can I prevent this? One week? One week and I was in tears over a guy? I feel completely pathetic and also resentful because he broke me ... again.
– Lola Wants More, Boston
You've read this column for a long time, right? So you probably know what I'm going to say about dating. Yes, LWM, it can be awful. And yes, it's high risk. But you have to do it. And you can't manipulate it. You can number these guys, assign them nicknames -- whatever you want to do to make them seem less human -- but as soon as you meet one you actually like, your silly rules and games will go out the window.
From the Boston Globe:
Dear Meredith,
I'm an avid reader. I frequent the comments under an alias and often submit entries for your various contests (and have won!). I've not yet written in about my own search for love ... until now.
The facts: 27-year-old single female, active lifestyle. I am resilient, extremely caring (admittedly sometimes to a fault), thoughtful, very happy, and energetic. My friends often come to me for advice. Many times a bridesmaid.
Relationship background: 7-year, off-and-on roller-coaster relationship (now very close friends and only friends, finally, thank god), some fun flings, one 5-month relationship -- 9 men in total. Some of my friends describe me as a hopeless romantic with the mind of a teenage boy. I absolutely love the sweet stuff/affection yet I'm slightly driven by that other part of my brain.
Honey, you sound like slut. Is this unfair, as men behaving as you are would not be chided for their behavior? Absolutely. So what. Get over it. Men are men, women are women. We are different. We expect and want different things. Let me let you in on a little secret; men don't want anything serious with a girl who sleeps around. What if you don't stop sleeping around? I'll tell you what: we have to wonder if those kids you tell us are ours, really are. Yeah, that's a feeling we're just dying to have. Don't sleep around. Period. If we know that you do, or even suspect that you do, we're done with you. First step to convincing us? DON'T SLEEP WITH US OR TRY TO BEFORE DATE #9. Yeah, date 9. You read that right. THREE MONTHS at least. Maybe more. Girls are girls, but our wife? She will be special. And let's face it, you ain't special to hardly anyone.I decided at New Year's that I needed to expand my dating pool and not get so attached so quickly -- and NOT think with my "teenage boy" instincts.
You are a girl, dear. Not a boy. Understand? Want a boy to cry on your shoulder and try to snuggle with you during a sappy movie? Probably not. I have no doubt you'd rather he were a man, not a girl. Even when women "complain" about men not being women, I've yet to see a girl who didn't try to sleep with the captain of the football team - you know, the sweaty, healthy, hairy, strapping jock; basically the manliest man around. Women go for men. The Marlboro man usually. Men? They go for women. If you're acting like a teenage boy, expect to get a teenage girl, or else a guy who will treat you like a sexual conquest and then ditch you. Honestly, that's all men think a girl with instincts like a "teenage boy" are good for.After reading your advice to so many people about relaxing a bit and not paying attention to the big push around your late 20s and 30s to find THE ONE, I decided I'd be patient and date and see what happens. And so began the numbering system. I decided to keep all the guys I dated numbered in my phone to remind myself this is just #4, there will be a #5 and #6 and so on. I tried to take on a more masculine approach to dating. If I kept them numbered, I'd stay detached and learn from them and just have fun. Little notches rather than huge pieces taken from my heart.
You have a healthy libido? Few inhibitions with sex? GREAT! Save them for your husband! Can't get a husband? Then I guess your libido will have nearly nowhere to go. The solution? Get serious about finding a husband! Go to therapy, get married arranged, I don't know. But sleeping around is NOT YOUR ANSWER!
Its fine to date around, but Jesus honey, it sounds like you're just desperate for attention and physical affection. Slow the Hell down and stop sleeping with everyone. Do you even like these people? Or are you just happy to be pleased? Give it up already. Find just someone you like and play it slow; be honest and direct. Good God, you have the morals of an alley cat. Ever think that doesn't really help you in finding someone "special!?!?!?!?"My friends found it hilarious. I went from the overzealous hopeless romantic to, well, the "dude" in the relationships.
What? You were already the dude. What do you call sleeping with everyone? Now you're going to "play the field?" What does that mean? Be cold and distant and play games? Haven't you been playing games this whole time? Do you think changing the game will fix anything?
I called the shots. I was disappointed when things didn't move forward physically rather than emotionally.
You are NOT THE MAN here. You think you're doing something great by using the guy physically INSTEAD of emotionally? Oh yeah, great work! Oh, touchdown, sweetie. Now the guys get used physically (and you get turned into a veritable roulette wheel for disease), you become a wall of ice and stone, emotionally and everyone lives happily ever after, eh?I sometimes dated four of them at a time (to be clear, I was never physical with more than one at a time and I was always safe)
Another great achievement. You mean you only screwed, or made out with one at a time? What a nun you are, honey. And foreign men think American women are fast and easy. Gee, WHERE EVER DID THEY GET THAT IDEA!?!?!? But so long as he's got a condom on, you can rest with a clear conscious, eh? Oh my holy God. Is your bedpost full of notches?and I stayed levelheaded and really learned a little more about what I was looking for from each one ... until stupid #9.
So you screwed one at a time (or made out) until you hit nearly TEN MEN?!?!?! If the first 8 were just practice to figure out who you were, fine - but why do you have to get physical with them all!??!?! What does that do for you in the grande scheme of things (other than indicate you are quick and easy)!?!?!?I didn't number him in my phone because he seemed completely my counterpart. Literally zero red flags. He is extremely social, outgoing, active, loyal, caring, genuine, and incredibly sweet, so I didn't run in the other direction. And after a week (yep, one week), I was slipping out of my detached dating scheme and into the "Oh man, I'm a goner" phase. We texted all day, every day (again, for a week). I found it completely impossible to keep my hands off of him. He came back to my house after our dates and while the grilled cheese and playtime was fun and irresistible, I did resist (barely) sleeping with him.
Wow, didn't sleep with one, for a change? Let's throw a goddamn parade in your honor sweetie. Holy cow. High five! Well done! Ahem, does he know how special he is to be one of the VERY FEW people you HAVEN'T SCREWED after a few dates? Because let me tell you, that would REALLY crank up his respect and admiration for you. I mean, what guy isn't dying to sleep with a girl who is a real sex "pro," right!?!?
By the way, if you "barely" kept from sleeping with him, then I'm guessing you had, ahem, ORAL sex - that is the same thing as real sex to men, in case you're wondering. And again, right or wrong (does it matter?), he will lose his respect for you at that point. Its not a conscious decision, its just the instinct that the girl you're with is too quick to volunteer to get naked with you. And its a red flag to men's instincts, even if they do really like you. We're supposed to pursue and you are supposed to say, "Things are great, BUT, I have to know if you really want this to last - do you?" Men will stiffen and mumble and know they have more work to do. So for all your "hard work," you blew it (pun not intended).
Friday, I met up with him and his friends (I brought a friend so I had back up as well) and things seemed to be going great. And then he disappeared. No goodbye, no "gotta jet," no anything. His friends mentioned he does this sometimes. They all stayed and we all continued to hang out but I was completely baffled. Of course, no response to texts and calls. Two days and still nothing. The typical "He wasn't that into you" seems the obvious answer. But I guess my real question is ... how can I prevent this? One week? One week and I was in tears over a guy? I feel completely pathetic and also resentful because he broke me ... again.
You're just too easy, honey. Sorry, but that's it. Listen to yourself. One week? You were all over this guy, physically, after one week? Wow, great discipline. One week is nothing. You barely knew eachother. Listen to yourself. This man doesn't really know you yet and vice versa. You hit it off. Good for you. So what. I've hit it off plenty of times. You still don't know squat about one another. His ex's, his emotional health, his life, his parents - what about that stuff? When you're so bubbly and friendly and REALLY forward with everyone? It sends out the signal that you're easy - and look, you are. Be friendly, that's fine. But have a bit of reserve about you. He figured he got all he was going to get for the most part and moved on; he's probably quite damaged - JUST LIKE YOU - so he got what he came for and shoved off; its not like you're some precious, priceless gift now, is it? You're pants are off after a week. This is just pure sport for him at that point. Its just LUST in the near term - for both of you - quit pretending its anything but.I understand the dating rules, that it's all about trial and error and someone is bound to be a little more disappointed than the other when things don’t work out. I know all this -- yet this one seemed to be just as much a kick in the stomach as the end of the 7-yr relationship ...
You don't really know what his intentions are until lots of time passes - lots meaning 6 months. Guys don't chase girls for 6 months just to sleep with them. Not unless the guy is a real hard-nosed player, I guess. Its just too much damn work unless you really like the girl. What did you wait with this guy? 1 week? Probably not even that.
– Lola Wants More, Boston
You understand the dating rules? Are you kidding? Then why are you still single? Let me help you: because you don't have the first clue to what the "dating rules" are. Not even close. On a 35 question quiz you would get one question right: that you have to show up. This guy may have been a player - after all, you weren't really going to stop him, were you? Sounds like you two had gotten very "close" to full blown sex for a while. Don't you get it? He was encouraged to keep trying as he was almost "there." Just keeping from the act of penetration isn't much of a victory honey. Kissing ONLY. For a while. Then a minor upgrade. Then cool it. Jesus, are you looking for a husband, or not?!?!?The love doctor's response (barely skims the surface of the problems this girl has):
You've read this column for a long time, right? So you probably know what I'm going to say about dating. Yes, LWM, it can be awful. And yes, it's high risk. But you have to do it. And you can't manipulate it. You can number these guys, assign them nicknames -- whatever you want to do to make them seem less human -- but as soon as you meet one you actually like, your silly rules and games will go out the window.
My advice is to mourn this one, but not for too long. In the end, it was just one week. You listed this guy's qualities -- but there's no way he could have proven himself to be all of those things after just seven days. You were projecting those attributes because you wanted No. 9 to be THE ONE.
As you look for No. 10, don't try to be a "dude." Because "dudes" are just like girls. Really. They can number women (or men) and date 15 of them at a time, but as soon as they meet their own version of No. 9, they go soft. They wait around for a call back. They cry if they lose someone they liked after a week.
Don't gender your dating experiences. Don't listen to one part of your brain and ignore the other. Let yourself cry. Embrace your interest in the emotional and the physical. Try not to make assumptions about a guy's character until he proves that he can be consistent. Remember that these awful experiences make the good stuff that much better.
And now I'm going to say what I always say to 27-year-olds who are sick of dating and scared of getting hurt. Let's say it together, shall we? Relaxxxxx. Keep on truckin'.
Readers? Why was No. 9 so significant? Can she protect herself by numbering her relationships? Can she speed up the mourning process? How can she avoid becoming miserable with the dating process? Is this what the movie "I Am Number 4" was about? Discuss.
– Meredith
INTIMIDATION by Police Officers: GROUNDS FOR REVOLT
Its called POLICE INTIMIDATION.
That is, WHEN POLICE ARREST SOMEONE FOR A CRIME THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED.
Police Officers are paid BY THE TAXPAYERS to enforce the law and ONLY enforce the law; beyond local law, the Constitution IS THE ULTIMATE TREATISE BY WHICH THIS COUNTRY IS GOVERNED. ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED AND ARE STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURT SYSTEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Police intimidating public citizens for their own purposes IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO. Cops doing just that, MUST BE DISMISSED IMMEDIATELY and WITH PREJUDICE.
IF POLICE AND/OR THE STATE CANNOT BE SUED OR ELSE RECEIVE SOME KIND OF PUNISHMENT OR DISINCENTIVE FOR FALSELY ARRESTING PEOPLE, THEN THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT.
THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY. OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO KNOW THE LAW. IF POLICE OFFICERS ARREST PEOPLE FOR CRIMES THAT ARE DEMONSTRABLY AND CLEARLY FALSE ON THEIR FACE, THOSE COPS SHOULD BE FIRED. WHEN YOU FAIL AT YOUR JOB, AND THAT JOB REGARDS THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS, YOU ARE FIRED. PERIOD. ANYTHING LESS CREATES COPS THAT ARE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THUGS; above the law, and unafraid of BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
That is, WHEN POLICE ARREST SOMEONE FOR A CRIME THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED.
Police Officers are paid BY THE TAXPAYERS to enforce the law and ONLY enforce the law; beyond local law, the Constitution IS THE ULTIMATE TREATISE BY WHICH THIS COUNTRY IS GOVERNED. ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED AND ARE STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURT SYSTEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Police intimidating public citizens for their own purposes IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO. Cops doing just that, MUST BE DISMISSED IMMEDIATELY and WITH PREJUDICE.
IF POLICE AND/OR THE STATE CANNOT BE SUED OR ELSE RECEIVE SOME KIND OF PUNISHMENT OR DISINCENTIVE FOR FALSELY ARRESTING PEOPLE, THEN THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT.
THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY. OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO KNOW THE LAW. IF POLICE OFFICERS ARREST PEOPLE FOR CRIMES THAT ARE DEMONSTRABLY AND CLEARLY FALSE ON THEIR FACE, THOSE COPS SHOULD BE FIRED. WHEN YOU FAIL AT YOUR JOB, AND THAT JOB REGARDS THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS, YOU ARE FIRED. PERIOD. ANYTHING LESS CREATES COPS THAT ARE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THUGS; above the law, and unafraid of BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
My Sister and Women Everywhere
When I was 13, my sister was 16, and she was after the attention of men, as many 16 year old girls are. 'Men' at that time were 17-18 and far from being 'men.' They were boys on hormones. Bound for college and interested in sex. It doesn't take a Ph.d to figure that out. The girls like my sister simply wanted to pretend the boys were really after them. But the truth is that the boys were not. The boys were most certainly not. Why? Boys don't have much in common with girls. They don't share the same interests, the same motives, the same goals, the same instincts (except to breed), or the same passions. And why would we? We barely share the same chromosomal make-up (males, x,y; girls x,x).
But my sister wanted the attention. So she would wear tight dresses sometimes. My mother would yell at her, of course. I knew what my sister was thinking: I'll get plenty of attention wearing this. My mother was thinking, yeah, and all that attention is bad. My sister was thinking, well, I'll weed the good attention from the bad.
But that's where she was wrong. NONE of the attention was good. It winds up being for sexual purposes. Sexual purposes from hormonal boys. Boys who have pretty much nothing in common with girls. Sorry, but this can't result in anything good. Even boys with good intentions aren't yet emotionally or psychologically developed enough to really understand who they are, what they're doing, or what they truly want.
My mother knew this. My sister did not. So they fought. My sister rather won out in the end, but it was one of those "Even when you win, you really lose" type of victories.
She didn't get pregnant or raped or anything of the sort. And if you knew the shrew my sister can be, you'd know why. That said, I'm sure she had a few regrets and I know she got involved with one guy, who had good intentions, and yet she was very badly hurt by it, as was he. This poor guy was trying to do right by her, but just didn't understand how. And he didn't understand what she wanted, what she was really after, or anything of the sort. He was a young man, more of a man than the rest, but still a boy. Jesus Christ. What the Hell could he know? Nothing, of course. And of course, he had the emotional IQ the rest of the boys had; probably around 30. More than my own certainly, but really quite low overall.
Men are simple creatures. Women are not. Young men and young women have little long-term chances of a stable union with eachother until they grow up a bit and acquire some maturity. This used to happen by 18 or 19. Now I doubt it happens until we are 25. Women mature MUCH faster than men. I'm sure its closer to 20 or 21 for girls. Maybe a bit older. Kids in high school have no business being sexually active. They're simply not prepared. And they're not instructed well either. They may dress and talk like adults, but they don't act like them, and they sure as Hell don't have the responsibility of them.
In my parents day, you got the "old handshake" at the door when you hit 18. You grew up pretty goddamn fast after that. I'm sure. My gramps left home at 15. He grew up even faster. Kids today leave home at 18 for college, but from what I hear and from what I've seen at college, college has become nothing more than an extension of home. Especially for the girls (boys are supposed to 'man up' and take care of... things, you know). Everyone seems so afraid for the girls. They treat them like children. Making excuses for them, spoiling them, and generally trying to protect them. This makes nothing more than a stupendous disaster in the end as women throw off responsibility and then start making risky decisions.
The term 'drunk college girls' was an exciting lie two, three decades ago. Now its a Google search result with 11.5 million hits. The first 5 dozen or so hits you need to be at least 18 years old to view. But it may be more than that.
There is no illegitimacy attached to 'slutty' behavior anymore. Being wild and flirtatious is like some kind of rite of passage for young women. They're emotional health or even their long term sexual health is not considered. They're treated like men, or at least they are by the wrong people. Men sure as Hell don't consider them to be men. Men know goddamn well what they are: different creatures; creatures with breasts and a vagina that have multiple orgasms, that have sensitive feelings, wear thong underwear and have babies. Men may relax more around women and tell them more than they once did, but at the end of the day sex will always be the primary motivation for men when it comes to women. If women actually knew this and cared about, or were taught to care about, themselves and what is in their own best interests, you would see a lot fewer girls in tight skirts at school. And you would see a lot fewer of them on the internet or in court, suing someone for making a video of what they did on spring vacation.
But women are not told these things, so they misbehave. They build bad reputations and they wind up unhappy and used. This will continue I'm afraid. It will continue until it gets so bad, we simply have a kind of social reset. Its coming. It always does - look back through history. When man becomes rich, spoiled, and self-gratified, he gets careless and sloppy. Women are no different. And the lesson is no different; careless and sloppy gets a lot of children out of wedlock, the breakdown of the nuclear family and mass unhappiness, frustration, anger, depression, poverty and ultimately societal breakdown.
I don't know when things will change, but I know we can't keep going as we have been. Change will come. And when it does, it will be long, long overdue.
But my sister wanted the attention. So she would wear tight dresses sometimes. My mother would yell at her, of course. I knew what my sister was thinking: I'll get plenty of attention wearing this. My mother was thinking, yeah, and all that attention is bad. My sister was thinking, well, I'll weed the good attention from the bad.
But that's where she was wrong. NONE of the attention was good. It winds up being for sexual purposes. Sexual purposes from hormonal boys. Boys who have pretty much nothing in common with girls. Sorry, but this can't result in anything good. Even boys with good intentions aren't yet emotionally or psychologically developed enough to really understand who they are, what they're doing, or what they truly want.
My mother knew this. My sister did not. So they fought. My sister rather won out in the end, but it was one of those "Even when you win, you really lose" type of victories.
She didn't get pregnant or raped or anything of the sort. And if you knew the shrew my sister can be, you'd know why. That said, I'm sure she had a few regrets and I know she got involved with one guy, who had good intentions, and yet she was very badly hurt by it, as was he. This poor guy was trying to do right by her, but just didn't understand how. And he didn't understand what she wanted, what she was really after, or anything of the sort. He was a young man, more of a man than the rest, but still a boy. Jesus Christ. What the Hell could he know? Nothing, of course. And of course, he had the emotional IQ the rest of the boys had; probably around 30. More than my own certainly, but really quite low overall.
Men are simple creatures. Women are not. Young men and young women have little long-term chances of a stable union with eachother until they grow up a bit and acquire some maturity. This used to happen by 18 or 19. Now I doubt it happens until we are 25. Women mature MUCH faster than men. I'm sure its closer to 20 or 21 for girls. Maybe a bit older. Kids in high school have no business being sexually active. They're simply not prepared. And they're not instructed well either. They may dress and talk like adults, but they don't act like them, and they sure as Hell don't have the responsibility of them.
In my parents day, you got the "old handshake" at the door when you hit 18. You grew up pretty goddamn fast after that. I'm sure. My gramps left home at 15. He grew up even faster. Kids today leave home at 18 for college, but from what I hear and from what I've seen at college, college has become nothing more than an extension of home. Especially for the girls (boys are supposed to 'man up' and take care of... things, you know). Everyone seems so afraid for the girls. They treat them like children. Making excuses for them, spoiling them, and generally trying to protect them. This makes nothing more than a stupendous disaster in the end as women throw off responsibility and then start making risky decisions.
The term 'drunk college girls' was an exciting lie two, three decades ago. Now its a Google search result with 11.5 million hits. The first 5 dozen or so hits you need to be at least 18 years old to view. But it may be more than that.
There is no illegitimacy attached to 'slutty' behavior anymore. Being wild and flirtatious is like some kind of rite of passage for young women. They're emotional health or even their long term sexual health is not considered. They're treated like men, or at least they are by the wrong people. Men sure as Hell don't consider them to be men. Men know goddamn well what they are: different creatures; creatures with breasts and a vagina that have multiple orgasms, that have sensitive feelings, wear thong underwear and have babies. Men may relax more around women and tell them more than they once did, but at the end of the day sex will always be the primary motivation for men when it comes to women. If women actually knew this and cared about, or were taught to care about, themselves and what is in their own best interests, you would see a lot fewer girls in tight skirts at school. And you would see a lot fewer of them on the internet or in court, suing someone for making a video of what they did on spring vacation.
But women are not told these things, so they misbehave. They build bad reputations and they wind up unhappy and used. This will continue I'm afraid. It will continue until it gets so bad, we simply have a kind of social reset. Its coming. It always does - look back through history. When man becomes rich, spoiled, and self-gratified, he gets careless and sloppy. Women are no different. And the lesson is no different; careless and sloppy gets a lot of children out of wedlock, the breakdown of the nuclear family and mass unhappiness, frustration, anger, depression, poverty and ultimately societal breakdown.
I don't know when things will change, but I know we can't keep going as we have been. Change will come. And when it does, it will be long, long overdue.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Going to Go Against the Men on This One
As anyone knows, I give most men the benefit of the doubt, especially in a court of law, where you must be convicted "beyond a shadow of a doubt," and especially when the alleged "victim" is too drunk to remember much.
But this case stinks to high Hell.
Two ON DUTY cops were called to help a drunk woman out of a cab. That means she was so drunk someone thought to call the police - THE POLICE - those folks PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS to SERVE AND PROTECT. And here was their chance to do so.
What happened?
No one is sure. They took her up to her apartment and let themselves in.
And then stayed a while. The woman claims she woke up and was being raped by one of the cops.
The cops declare one of them was asleep ON HER COUCH and the other was "cuddling with her to comfort her."
WTF is that, I ask? You guys get paid to assist the public. Assisting here meant getting her in the front door and getting the fuck out of her PRIVATE RESIDENCE. In fact, I'd be happier if you left her in the hallway if that wasn't also a little risky. WITH NO WARRANT, YOU ARE NOT TO ENTER A PRIVATE RESIDENCE. PERIOD. This case warranted a little dash into her place to set her down.
And that's what they should've done.
Instead one decided to get a little "cuddle time?" And for whose benefit was that!?!?!? She was too drunk to consent to ANYTHING including holding her hand. You set her down and walk away. Instead he lies down with her? To do what, read her a story? And the other cop decided to sleep on her couch. WHY? Its not his couch. IS HE STUPID? Is he making himself at home?!?! He has no right to be there. Period.
These things make me EXTREMELY suspicious that these two clowns were up to no good.
When a woman is drunk most guys will tell you they do and say things they ordinarily wouldn't do and say. Many men have probably gotten things they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. I don't blame men for this. They will naturally gravitate to sex with a woman. Women ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES - THAT MEANS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE DRUNK IS YOUR PROBLEM. PERIOD.
But these men - POLICEMEN - showed up KNOWING this lady was drunk and were asked TO HELP HER. If this woman stripped naked in her apartment and demanded a threesome, these cops should know enough to politely refuse, turn around and walk straight out. Instead they made themselves at home and it seems may very well have taken advantage of her, KNOWING she was drunk. Later they even lied to get back to her block and speak to her. What hoodlums.
Later this woman met with one of the cops (how did she get his contact info?) and asked him if he wore a condom during their sex. He said he didn't have sex with her, but when she asked him this question he said "Yes," but later said he was just trying to calm her down. This guy is doing this girl way too many favors. What he should've done was left her the Hell alone. Further, I think he did have sex with her. She was setting him up and that's entrapment, but frankly, he's a cop and she's not. He can clearly get away with more than the average person can: the entrapment was justified. He had no business being in her place longer than it took to set her down and he did commit a crime. What happened? HE WALKED. And his sleeze-bag partner too. They were fired as cops - these days, that's quite something, considering off-duty cops that physically assault people in front of witnesses WALK SCOTT FREE without even losing EMPLOYMENT OR RANK. Rape might've been a stretch given there was little physical evidence; and that's really horrible because the lack of evidence is due to the fact she was drunk and immobile and the cops knew this and exploited it, CLEARLY. Motive is also HUGE here. Why would she want to cuddle with a total stranger? She wouldn't. Period.
BTW, ladies, take a hint here: DON'T GET FALL DOWN DRUNK. Ever wonder why conservative cultures like Islam insist women don't drink? ITS NOT FOR THE MEN'S SAKE!
No one MUST help you, and now it appears you can't even trust the cops!
Given this woman's totally inebriated state and some physical evidence, along with the fact these men WERE IN HER APARTMENT MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN NECESSARY with one near the door and one IN HER BEDROOM WITH HER, these guys were on VERY thin ice. Then he affirms to her that he "wore a condom." Sexual Assault or Gross Sexual Misconduct seemed a given here at least. Rape also possible. Instead they walked. SCOTT FREE.
You want to trust a cop these days? HOW DO YOU TELL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD. These two idiots couldn't even help a drunk woman to her own apartment without getting mixed up in mischief.
By the way, the perp in question was a SEVENTEEN YEAR POLICE VETERAN.
By Pei-Sze Cheng
Two NYPD officers were cleared of rape and burglary charges but found guilty of official misconduct in the case of a woman who said she was assaulted when the officers brought her home after a night of drinking.
A jury deliberated seven days and on Thursday acquitted Kenneth Moreno, 43, and Franklin Mata, 29, of the most serious charges in the December 2008 incident, including several counts of falsifying business records.
"I'm glad it's over," an emotional Moreno said outside court.
"I just want to get on with my life," Mata said.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said later that the official misconduct conviction "warrants immediate termination from the department" and said the officers would be fired from the NYPD "today."
On the night of the incident, Moreno and Mata were initially called to help the drunken woman out of a cab. Prosecutors argued that when they took her up to her apartment, Moreno raped her while Mata stood as a lookout. Both officers denied the charges.
The accuser testified that she was so drunk she did not remember parts of the night, but told the jury that she woke up in her bed as she was being raped.
During testimony in court, Moreno said he cuddled with the woman to try and comfort her because she was ill from drinking, but said no sex took place. Mata testified that he was asleep on the woman's couch while his partner was in the other room.
Moreno did make a fake 911 call about a vagrant so that they had an excuse to return to the woman's block.
No DNA evidence was presented in the case, and experts were divided over whether an internal mark on the woman was the result of a rape. A doctor testifying for the defense said he didn't interpret it as evidence of rape.
The woman had secretly taped Moreno in an encounter a few days later, and he denied they'd had sex. But he also said "yes" when she asked if he had worn a condom. He later said he was trying to calm her down because she was threatening him.
Mata was on the force for about five years and Moreno for 17.
Defense attorney Joseph Tacopina said outside court that "we're obviously elated with this verdict today."
They face up to one year in prison for the misconduct charge and are set to be sentenced on June 28.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said in a statement that prosecutors "respect the jury's verdict, which acknowledges that the defendants' actions that night not only violated the law, they violated the victim's rights, and the public's trust."
But this case stinks to high Hell.
Two ON DUTY cops were called to help a drunk woman out of a cab. That means she was so drunk someone thought to call the police - THE POLICE - those folks PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS to SERVE AND PROTECT. And here was their chance to do so.
What happened?
No one is sure. They took her up to her apartment and let themselves in.
And then stayed a while. The woman claims she woke up and was being raped by one of the cops.
The cops declare one of them was asleep ON HER COUCH and the other was "cuddling with her to comfort her."
WTF is that, I ask? You guys get paid to assist the public. Assisting here meant getting her in the front door and getting the fuck out of her PRIVATE RESIDENCE. In fact, I'd be happier if you left her in the hallway if that wasn't also a little risky. WITH NO WARRANT, YOU ARE NOT TO ENTER A PRIVATE RESIDENCE. PERIOD. This case warranted a little dash into her place to set her down.
And that's what they should've done.
Instead one decided to get a little "cuddle time?" And for whose benefit was that!?!?!? She was too drunk to consent to ANYTHING including holding her hand. You set her down and walk away. Instead he lies down with her? To do what, read her a story? And the other cop decided to sleep on her couch. WHY? Its not his couch. IS HE STUPID? Is he making himself at home?!?! He has no right to be there. Period.
These things make me EXTREMELY suspicious that these two clowns were up to no good.
When a woman is drunk most guys will tell you they do and say things they ordinarily wouldn't do and say. Many men have probably gotten things they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. I don't blame men for this. They will naturally gravitate to sex with a woman. Women ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES - THAT MEANS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE DRUNK IS YOUR PROBLEM. PERIOD.
But these men - POLICEMEN - showed up KNOWING this lady was drunk and were asked TO HELP HER. If this woman stripped naked in her apartment and demanded a threesome, these cops should know enough to politely refuse, turn around and walk straight out. Instead they made themselves at home and it seems may very well have taken advantage of her, KNOWING she was drunk. Later they even lied to get back to her block and speak to her. What hoodlums.
Later this woman met with one of the cops (how did she get his contact info?) and asked him if he wore a condom during their sex. He said he didn't have sex with her, but when she asked him this question he said "Yes," but later said he was just trying to calm her down. This guy is doing this girl way too many favors. What he should've done was left her the Hell alone. Further, I think he did have sex with her. She was setting him up and that's entrapment, but frankly, he's a cop and she's not. He can clearly get away with more than the average person can: the entrapment was justified. He had no business being in her place longer than it took to set her down and he did commit a crime. What happened? HE WALKED. And his sleeze-bag partner too. They were fired as cops - these days, that's quite something, considering off-duty cops that physically assault people in front of witnesses WALK SCOTT FREE without even losing EMPLOYMENT OR RANK. Rape might've been a stretch given there was little physical evidence; and that's really horrible because the lack of evidence is due to the fact she was drunk and immobile and the cops knew this and exploited it, CLEARLY. Motive is also HUGE here. Why would she want to cuddle with a total stranger? She wouldn't. Period.
BTW, ladies, take a hint here: DON'T GET FALL DOWN DRUNK. Ever wonder why conservative cultures like Islam insist women don't drink? ITS NOT FOR THE MEN'S SAKE!
No one MUST help you, and now it appears you can't even trust the cops!
Given this woman's totally inebriated state and some physical evidence, along with the fact these men WERE IN HER APARTMENT MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN NECESSARY with one near the door and one IN HER BEDROOM WITH HER, these guys were on VERY thin ice. Then he affirms to her that he "wore a condom." Sexual Assault or Gross Sexual Misconduct seemed a given here at least. Rape also possible. Instead they walked. SCOTT FREE.
You want to trust a cop these days? HOW DO YOU TELL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD. These two idiots couldn't even help a drunk woman to her own apartment without getting mixed up in mischief.
By the way, the perp in question was a SEVENTEEN YEAR POLICE VETERAN.
By Pei-Sze Cheng
Two NYPD officers were cleared of rape and burglary charges but found guilty of official misconduct in the case of a woman who said she was assaulted when the officers brought her home after a night of drinking.
A jury deliberated seven days and on Thursday acquitted Kenneth Moreno, 43, and Franklin Mata, 29, of the most serious charges in the December 2008 incident, including several counts of falsifying business records.
"I'm glad it's over," an emotional Moreno said outside court.
"I just want to get on with my life," Mata said.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said later that the official misconduct conviction "warrants immediate termination from the department" and said the officers would be fired from the NYPD "today."
On the night of the incident, Moreno and Mata were initially called to help the drunken woman out of a cab. Prosecutors argued that when they took her up to her apartment, Moreno raped her while Mata stood as a lookout. Both officers denied the charges.
The accuser testified that she was so drunk she did not remember parts of the night, but told the jury that she woke up in her bed as she was being raped.
During testimony in court, Moreno said he cuddled with the woman to try and comfort her because she was ill from drinking, but said no sex took place. Mata testified that he was asleep on the woman's couch while his partner was in the other room.
Moreno did make a fake 911 call about a vagrant so that they had an excuse to return to the woman's block.
No DNA evidence was presented in the case, and experts were divided over whether an internal mark on the woman was the result of a rape. A doctor testifying for the defense said he didn't interpret it as evidence of rape.
The woman had secretly taped Moreno in an encounter a few days later, and he denied they'd had sex. But he also said "yes" when she asked if he had worn a condom. He later said he was trying to calm her down because she was threatening him.
Mata was on the force for about five years and Moreno for 17.
Defense attorney Joseph Tacopina said outside court that "we're obviously elated with this verdict today."
They face up to one year in prison for the misconduct charge and are set to be sentenced on June 28.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said in a statement that prosecutors "respect the jury's verdict, which acknowledges that the defendants' actions that night not only violated the law, they violated the victim's rights, and the public's trust."
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
To All the Princesses: Wake Up
The younger generation disgusted with some of its own members for the same reason many men are: outrageous feelings of entitlement.
No one owes you a GODDAMN THING ladies of America. Not a baby, not a house, not a car, not a diamond ring. You deserve NOTHING. You must GIVE, you must EARN gifts and respect and love. Want to be given things? Want to be a trophy wife? Find a really stupid jock and hope he goes in the first round of the draft.
No one owes you a GODDAMN THING ladies of America. Not a baby, not a house, not a car, not a diamond ring. You deserve NOTHING. You must GIVE, you must EARN gifts and respect and love. Want to be given things? Want to be a trophy wife? Find a really stupid jock and hope he goes in the first round of the draft.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Indian Killed for Carving Wood
Not running at a cop with the knife over his head and screaming. Not throwing a knife at a cop.
A native American woodcarver carving wood on the side of the street, SHOT FIVE TIMES AND KILLED after being told to "drop the knife."
When asked why he shot him, the officer said, "He was sitting there carving the wood with the knife; I told him to drop it and he didn't so I took him down."
Fellow Officer: "Good Job."
Me: Just what the fuck did they teach you idiots at the police academy?!?!!?!?
This was murder. I mean, WHAT THE %$^$&*#$$% WAS THAT COP THINKING? I've held a gun and held a knife. When you have a gun, you're not too afraid of people with knives, especially at a distance. This cop is a trigger-happy psycho.
If he did have to shoot him (HIGHLY doubtful), what is wrong with one or two shots in the leg? FIVE TIMES AT CLOSE RANGE? Against a man NOT CARRYING A FIREARM?
THAT'S AN EXECUTION.
A native American woodcarver carving wood on the side of the street, SHOT FIVE TIMES AND KILLED after being told to "drop the knife."
When asked why he shot him, the officer said, "He was sitting there carving the wood with the knife; I told him to drop it and he didn't so I took him down."
Fellow Officer: "Good Job."
Me: Just what the fuck did they teach you idiots at the police academy?!?!!?!?
This was murder. I mean, WHAT THE %$^$&*#$$% WAS THAT COP THINKING? I've held a gun and held a knife. When you have a gun, you're not too afraid of people with knives, especially at a distance. This cop is a trigger-happy psycho.
If he did have to shoot him (HIGHLY doubtful), what is wrong with one or two shots in the leg? FIVE TIMES AT CLOSE RANGE? Against a man NOT CARRYING A FIREARM?
THAT'S AN EXECUTION.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Dear VP Biden: GROW A BRAIN
VP Biden: ‘Biggest thing to overcome - society views women as chattel’
May 11th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
With this guy at the top, it’s no wonder we don’t know anything about domestic violence. OK, he’s only second from the top, but it’s close enough for government work, don’t you know.
This article is reprinted from Glamour magazine and it’s an interview with Vice President Joe Biden about domestic violence (Huffington Post, 5/6/11). Well, it’s not exactly about domestic violence. It’s more about the myth of domestic violence that’s been repeated interminably for 40 years and that the interviewer, Joe Biden and his wife (also interviewed) have all accepted without question.
It’s about 1,500 words and, by the end, knowledgeable readers are left with the burning question “Can this guy be this dumb?” Or maybe he’s just lived his life as if all his actions were directed by a GPS system manufactured by feminists. I can just hear it: “Turn left at the next corner. Read Catharine MacKinnon’s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.”
Seriously, this is the Vice President of the United States and he volunteers this:
This attitude of how society views women as chattel — that’s the biggest thing to overcome.
Really? Chattel? It’s a fascinating theory. I suppose it would be better if it had a single iota of anything to support it. But for Biden, it’s not only self-evident but “the biggest thing to overcome.”
Chattel? Let’s see, this is a society in which women have more of the good and less of the bad than men in almost every imaginable category. Longevity? Check. Education? Check. Exemption from military conscription? Check. Exemption from combat if they do serve? Check. Lower rates of homelessness? Check. Higher rates of health insurance coverage? Check. Lower rates of suicide? Check. Numerous laws like VAWA and sexual harassment laws that are designed specifically to protect women but not men. Check. Fewer killed or injured on the job? Check.
And that doesn’t even mention family law and adoption law that seem as much as anything to be enacted for mothers, by mothers. I could go on forever about how those areas of law privilege women and mothers.
So maybe the Veep could explain to us ignorant savages how he figures that women are seen as chattel in this society. Someone should tell him to lay off the Kool-Aid.
May 11th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
With this guy at the top, it’s no wonder we don’t know anything about domestic violence. OK, he’s only second from the top, but it’s close enough for government work, don’t you know.
This article is reprinted from Glamour magazine and it’s an interview with Vice President Joe Biden about domestic violence (Huffington Post, 5/6/11). Well, it’s not exactly about domestic violence. It’s more about the myth of domestic violence that’s been repeated interminably for 40 years and that the interviewer, Joe Biden and his wife (also interviewed) have all accepted without question.
It’s about 1,500 words and, by the end, knowledgeable readers are left with the burning question “Can this guy be this dumb?” Or maybe he’s just lived his life as if all his actions were directed by a GPS system manufactured by feminists. I can just hear it: “Turn left at the next corner. Read Catharine MacKinnon’s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.”
Seriously, this is the Vice President of the United States and he volunteers this:
This attitude of how society views women as chattel — that’s the biggest thing to overcome.
Really? Chattel? It’s a fascinating theory. I suppose it would be better if it had a single iota of anything to support it. But for Biden, it’s not only self-evident but “the biggest thing to overcome.”
Chattel? Let’s see, this is a society in which women have more of the good and less of the bad than men in almost every imaginable category. Longevity? Check. Education? Check. Exemption from military conscription? Check. Exemption from combat if they do serve? Check. Lower rates of homelessness? Check. Higher rates of health insurance coverage? Check. Lower rates of suicide? Check. Numerous laws like VAWA and sexual harassment laws that are designed specifically to protect women but not men. Check. Fewer killed or injured on the job? Check.
And that doesn’t even mention family law and adoption law that seem as much as anything to be enacted for mothers, by mothers. I could go on forever about how those areas of law privilege women and mothers.
So maybe the Veep could explain to us ignorant savages how he figures that women are seen as chattel in this society. Someone should tell him to lay off the Kool-Aid.
Girls March With 'Slut Walk': No, I'm Not Making That Up
Where do I even begin here.
'Slut Walk'? Is that someone's idea of a really bad joke? It sounds like some VERY confused young girls (women would know better) have latched onto a REALLY stupid idea.
Having read the article MANY, MANY times it seems these women are standing up in defense of women who were sexually assaulted and were accused of being "sluts" to justify the attack.
First of all, not all sexual assaults have anything to do with assault. Hell, I've seen very many rape charges that pretty much boiled down to a misunderstanding, bruised feelings, pride, or just plain vindictiveness, especially in the absence of ANY physical evidence. Further, I've seen others made from women who were quite frankly an ABSOLUTE MESS. Drunk, half-asleep, passed out, breasts falling out of their FAR TOO SMALL top, missing a shoe, and struggling to even identify or describe who they had sex with, where they were or what happened when, and no, there was no evidence of them being drugged.
Pretty tough for the police to arrest a man when you can't even tell us what happened, when you were with him, never mind what he looked like or what he did that was illegal. I'll leave out the fact that throwing yourself at the alpha male in the bar while wearing a cut-to-your-navel top and a pin saying "I like to F--k" is going to lead to a guy thinking you'll sleep with him in the near future. And if you think that doesn't happen, you didn't read the Ben Rothlesburger case very closely.
These ladies seem to be parading around the fact that women should be able to dress however they want, whenever they want and that however they are dressed, 1) that does not make them a 'slut,' and 2) being a slut does not justify sexual assault.
#1 - Yes, you can dress however you want - this is the United States of America and you can dress in whatever you like. Welcome to Freedom. But guess what? Women dress to show off their figure (or perhaps hide it) and this attracts men (or repulses them) depending on the shape of the female's body and the clothing covering it. This is just mother nature. We are mammals and that's what we do. Look it up. Its science. That said, if you dress VERY provocatively, men, right or wrong, are going to think you're cruising for some physical affection; further men are going to be VERY turned on, in a VERY PRIMAL way if you are a very well-built woman. EXPECT IT. Women are VERY intuitive. They can see men stare. They know goddamn well what reaction they're causing... that's what they're after in most cases.
If you are dressed provocatively enough, many men will consider what you're wearing to be simply TOO revealing. And men HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT. TELLING YOU that judgement may be rude or undeserved, but it is their opinion and may I remind you, that a woman who sleeps around WILL RUIN A MAN FOR LIFE if he's one of the men that sleeps with her - he will be forced to support "his" baby (that she keeps and raises). And guess what? Men don't like to be bankrupted by a child they didn't want and further, they don't like to be cheated on. So any hints that this woman sleeps around or could be unfaithful, is rather important to men; a woman with children that may or may not be yours, a woman who has incentive to lie, cheat or steal is NOT someone you want to sleep with. This has always concerned men. Dress too provocatively and men will think you may be sexy and worth having sex with, BUT ARE NOT A WOMAN WORTH COMMITTING TO. Men have the right to make that judgement and further, they should and they must.
#2 - No, looking like a 'slut' DOES NOT justify any assault of any kind. But I am forced to reiterate an older point. When you dress like a 'slut' you are inviting attention. Some of that attention is good - alpha males want you. And some of it is bad - sleazy, desperate, crazy men also want you. Now, women want to breed with the best mate they can find - again, this is entirely natural of them. And to do that you need attention and that means casting a wide net. I would further argue that the discriminatory practices of the feminazis have REMOVED good, earning, potential mates for women and that has made them MORE competitive with one another for the remaining men and that means dressing more provocatively. That said, drawing attention, especially sexual attention in heavy doses IS NOT in women's best interests. Period. In the old days (as few as 10 or 15 years ago), MODESTY in a woman was considered by many men to be attractive. And given there were plenty of men to choose from, women didn't have to try hard to 'attract' one. If anything, a form-fitting, or slightly form-fitting outfit is plenty to let men see your figure. Trust me. Every man I've ever known could make out a woman's shape in anything better than a burlap sack. Women used to know that. Today they dress like a dime store prostitute and scream at anyone that suggests they could be sending the 'wrong' message. That message is; I'm advertising for sex: interested? And when men try to have sex with them and succeed and then ditch them, these women are emotionally scarred and bitter - frankly, wake up ladies. Wearing what amounts to slightly larger than normal underwear is like giving a robber the address to an unguarded bank: expect him to show up, gun drawn. In other words, respect men's instincts. And don't expect to 'control' a man or his behavior. He's not a woman. You can't just verbally 'massage' the right response from him. He probably doesn't know and doesn't care what the Hell you're talking about. He motivated by hormones. Respect that. Its not asking too much.
Another reason for the extremism in many women's dress is their own insecurity and anxiety. To feel attractive, to feel desired and wanted, is very important to most women. To gather the attention of many men makes many women feel better about themselves and of course, allays any self-doubt they may have about their appearance. Men used to be allowed to be forward and aggressive with women and while I'm sure this was annoying, it did not leave a lot of women who were unsure about their sexual attractiveness.
Today men can do nothing. Hell, staring is practically a crime. I'm not kidding.
With even looking at women being frowned upon, with men castrated in the classroom, with divorce laws RUINING men for life, with college campuses calling a sly grin a form of sexual misconduct, with sexual harassment laws that make it illegal to even imagine women in a sexual way in the office, men have simply been put off from women most, if not all, of the time. They have largely regressed, shrunken from, and abandoned their aggressive nature with women altogether (note 'aggressive' in courting and romancing; aggressive does not entail assault).
Women are have simply become a woven basket of complexities. Men want them, but courting rituals are like the tax code in Rome. You can gawk at her... now.. oh... now. Now, but not..... wrong time. NOW! Missed it. Now she thinks you're a wuss who doesn't know how to conquer a woman like an alpha man should. Try again.....Oh, that was wrong again. Now you've offended her. Whups. Start over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 dollars. You may touch her... now. Whups, not yet. Too soon. Start over. Actually, you have to ask permission as your are on a college campus and you will be prosecuted if you don't. And if she's drunk (pretty common these days) and goes 'too far,' you could be accused of rape and prosecuted. That is a felony. You will go to jail; you will have to check the 'felony' box on every job application you ever fill out. Oh, you say she may have been a little drunk and giggled when you grabbed her butt? That doesn't matter. You should've stopped and taken her straight home so she wouldn't have any regrets the next day. You're a man which means you're supposed to be her lover and father all at the same time and know which one she needs and when.
Men's response? What video games are available for sale, sir?
Do you blame them? I don't.
Yes, men have largely checked out. Women dominate work, they dominate home, and getting close to them requires that you think as they do, that you practically be one of them.
Respectfully, no thanks. How about I be a man and you be a woman and we do this the "old fashioned" way? If not, then you need to find some other guy.
'Slut Walk': feminist folly
This is idiocy, not liberation
May 11, 2011
Have you heard about the "slut walks" sweeping the globe?
No, they aren't being organized by frat boys. Quite the opposite: Thank the gals in the so-called feminist movement for this one.
Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Dallas and London have all seen "slut walks" in recent weeks, with 24 more planned around the world. It was all spawned by a Toronto police officer's boneheaded comment at a January campus-safety forum that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
Women bear responsibility for their rapes? OK, anger at that notion is plenty righteous. So, the Toronto slut walk was born to demand respect for sexual-assault victims. But the idea that being a "slut" is a bad thing also raised ire -- it's why the Toronto organizers announced on their Web site that they were "tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality. [We are] taking the [the word slut] back."
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad 'feminists' romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More 'slut walks' are planned around the world. -
AP
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad "feminists" romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More "slut walks" are planned around the world.
Just what the women of the world have been clamoring for: to call themselves sluts.
No wonder a 2008 Daily Beast poll found that just 20 percent of women call themselves "feminists," and only 17 percent would want their daughters to use the label.
Want to cringe some more? A Slut Walk Boston organizer told a reporter, "We are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut.' " So at one event after another, women held up signs saying, "Proud Slut," "Sluts Say Yes" and "Slut Pride." They marched in bras and fishnet stockings, some with the word "slut" scrawled on their bodies with lipstick.
And slut-supporting men beamed in their "I love sluts" T-shirts. You bet they do.
In Boston, feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman bellowed, "Today we all march under the banner of sluthood!" In Ottawa, revelers chanted, "Slut, slut. Ho, ho. Yes means yes, and no means no!" The Web site "Feministing" described the slut walks as a "movement," with one blogger saying, "Sign me up for Team Sluts." The Slut Walk DC Web site boasts a banner, "Reclaiming the word slut."
This is supposed to pass as progress for women?
Slut-walk defenders say that they're being ironic, that it's supposed to be funny that women are turning a word used to dehumanize them into a badge of pride.
If you don't like the slut walks, then you just don't get the hilarity of women debasing themselves in the name of empowerment.
OK, the early feminists -- from whom the imposters ruining the movement claim to descend -- did manage to turn the pejorative "suffragette," coined to mock the seekers of equality, into a positive word. But a name that meant to mock is different than a word meant to dehumanize.
Here's a prediction: Feminists will no sooner turn "slut" into a positive word outside their ever-shrinking bubble than African-Americans who call each other the "N-word" have taken away the sting of that dehumanizing epithet. Some words should be retired for good.
And many gays may now march proudly as "queer" -- but plenty still bristle when an outsider uses the word. That's unlikely to change, considering the original intent of it.
Sex-positive feminist icon Erica Jong presciently told writer Ariel Levy in 2003: "I was standing in the shower the other day, picking up my shampoo. It's called 'Dumb Blonde.' I thought, '30 years ago you could not have sold this.' I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women. Let's not kid ourselves that this is liberation."
Yes, please, and let's not pretend that women holding "slut walks" is a step forward for womankind or will in any way change the treatment of rape victims.
While the so-called feminists are tarting up themselves to reclaim a vile, misogynist word, perhaps the rest of us should fight to reclaim the word "feminism" and return it to its roots of working for true equality.
If we leave it to this gang, we're screwed.
kirstenpowers@aol.com
Read more:
'Slut Walk'? Is that someone's idea of a really bad joke? It sounds like some VERY confused young girls (women would know better) have latched onto a REALLY stupid idea.
Having read the article MANY, MANY times it seems these women are standing up in defense of women who were sexually assaulted and were accused of being "sluts" to justify the attack.
First of all, not all sexual assaults have anything to do with assault. Hell, I've seen very many rape charges that pretty much boiled down to a misunderstanding, bruised feelings, pride, or just plain vindictiveness, especially in the absence of ANY physical evidence. Further, I've seen others made from women who were quite frankly an ABSOLUTE MESS. Drunk, half-asleep, passed out, breasts falling out of their FAR TOO SMALL top, missing a shoe, and struggling to even identify or describe who they had sex with, where they were or what happened when, and no, there was no evidence of them being drugged.
Pretty tough for the police to arrest a man when you can't even tell us what happened, when you were with him, never mind what he looked like or what he did that was illegal. I'll leave out the fact that throwing yourself at the alpha male in the bar while wearing a cut-to-your-navel top and a pin saying "I like to F--k" is going to lead to a guy thinking you'll sleep with him in the near future. And if you think that doesn't happen, you didn't read the Ben Rothlesburger case very closely.
These ladies seem to be parading around the fact that women should be able to dress however they want, whenever they want and that however they are dressed, 1) that does not make them a 'slut,' and 2) being a slut does not justify sexual assault.
#1 - Yes, you can dress however you want - this is the United States of America and you can dress in whatever you like. Welcome to Freedom. But guess what? Women dress to show off their figure (or perhaps hide it) and this attracts men (or repulses them) depending on the shape of the female's body and the clothing covering it. This is just mother nature. We are mammals and that's what we do. Look it up. Its science. That said, if you dress VERY provocatively, men, right or wrong, are going to think you're cruising for some physical affection; further men are going to be VERY turned on, in a VERY PRIMAL way if you are a very well-built woman. EXPECT IT. Women are VERY intuitive. They can see men stare. They know goddamn well what reaction they're causing... that's what they're after in most cases.
If you are dressed provocatively enough, many men will consider what you're wearing to be simply TOO revealing. And men HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT. TELLING YOU that judgement may be rude or undeserved, but it is their opinion and may I remind you, that a woman who sleeps around WILL RUIN A MAN FOR LIFE if he's one of the men that sleeps with her - he will be forced to support "his" baby (that she keeps and raises). And guess what? Men don't like to be bankrupted by a child they didn't want and further, they don't like to be cheated on. So any hints that this woman sleeps around or could be unfaithful, is rather important to men; a woman with children that may or may not be yours, a woman who has incentive to lie, cheat or steal is NOT someone you want to sleep with. This has always concerned men. Dress too provocatively and men will think you may be sexy and worth having sex with, BUT ARE NOT A WOMAN WORTH COMMITTING TO. Men have the right to make that judgement and further, they should and they must.
#2 - No, looking like a 'slut' DOES NOT justify any assault of any kind. But I am forced to reiterate an older point. When you dress like a 'slut' you are inviting attention. Some of that attention is good - alpha males want you. And some of it is bad - sleazy, desperate, crazy men also want you. Now, women want to breed with the best mate they can find - again, this is entirely natural of them. And to do that you need attention and that means casting a wide net. I would further argue that the discriminatory practices of the feminazis have REMOVED good, earning, potential mates for women and that has made them MORE competitive with one another for the remaining men and that means dressing more provocatively. That said, drawing attention, especially sexual attention in heavy doses IS NOT in women's best interests. Period. In the old days (as few as 10 or 15 years ago), MODESTY in a woman was considered by many men to be attractive. And given there were plenty of men to choose from, women didn't have to try hard to 'attract' one. If anything, a form-fitting, or slightly form-fitting outfit is plenty to let men see your figure. Trust me. Every man I've ever known could make out a woman's shape in anything better than a burlap sack. Women used to know that. Today they dress like a dime store prostitute and scream at anyone that suggests they could be sending the 'wrong' message. That message is; I'm advertising for sex: interested? And when men try to have sex with them and succeed and then ditch them, these women are emotionally scarred and bitter - frankly, wake up ladies. Wearing what amounts to slightly larger than normal underwear is like giving a robber the address to an unguarded bank: expect him to show up, gun drawn. In other words, respect men's instincts. And don't expect to 'control' a man or his behavior. He's not a woman. You can't just verbally 'massage' the right response from him. He probably doesn't know and doesn't care what the Hell you're talking about. He motivated by hormones. Respect that. Its not asking too much.
Another reason for the extremism in many women's dress is their own insecurity and anxiety. To feel attractive, to feel desired and wanted, is very important to most women. To gather the attention of many men makes many women feel better about themselves and of course, allays any self-doubt they may have about their appearance. Men used to be allowed to be forward and aggressive with women and while I'm sure this was annoying, it did not leave a lot of women who were unsure about their sexual attractiveness.
Today men can do nothing. Hell, staring is practically a crime. I'm not kidding.
With even looking at women being frowned upon, with men castrated in the classroom, with divorce laws RUINING men for life, with college campuses calling a sly grin a form of sexual misconduct, with sexual harassment laws that make it illegal to even imagine women in a sexual way in the office, men have simply been put off from women most, if not all, of the time. They have largely regressed, shrunken from, and abandoned their aggressive nature with women altogether (note 'aggressive' in courting and romancing; aggressive does not entail assault).
Women are have simply become a woven basket of complexities. Men want them, but courting rituals are like the tax code in Rome. You can gawk at her... now.. oh... now. Now, but not..... wrong time. NOW! Missed it. Now she thinks you're a wuss who doesn't know how to conquer a woman like an alpha man should. Try again.....Oh, that was wrong again. Now you've offended her. Whups. Start over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 dollars. You may touch her... now. Whups, not yet. Too soon. Start over. Actually, you have to ask permission as your are on a college campus and you will be prosecuted if you don't. And if she's drunk (pretty common these days) and goes 'too far,' you could be accused of rape and prosecuted. That is a felony. You will go to jail; you will have to check the 'felony' box on every job application you ever fill out. Oh, you say she may have been a little drunk and giggled when you grabbed her butt? That doesn't matter. You should've stopped and taken her straight home so she wouldn't have any regrets the next day. You're a man which means you're supposed to be her lover and father all at the same time and know which one she needs and when.
Men's response? What video games are available for sale, sir?
Do you blame them? I don't.
Yes, men have largely checked out. Women dominate work, they dominate home, and getting close to them requires that you think as they do, that you practically be one of them.
Respectfully, no thanks. How about I be a man and you be a woman and we do this the "old fashioned" way? If not, then you need to find some other guy.
'Slut Walk': feminist folly
This is idiocy, not liberation
May 11, 2011
Have you heard about the "slut walks" sweeping the globe?
No, they aren't being organized by frat boys. Quite the opposite: Thank the gals in the so-called feminist movement for this one.
Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Dallas and London have all seen "slut walks" in recent weeks, with 24 more planned around the world. It was all spawned by a Toronto police officer's boneheaded comment at a January campus-safety forum that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
Women bear responsibility for their rapes? OK, anger at that notion is plenty righteous. So, the Toronto slut walk was born to demand respect for sexual-assault victims. But the idea that being a "slut" is a bad thing also raised ire -- it's why the Toronto organizers announced on their Web site that they were "tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality. [We are] taking the [the word slut] back."
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad 'feminists' romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More 'slut walks' are planned around the world. -
AP
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad "feminists" romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More "slut walks" are planned around the world.
Just what the women of the world have been clamoring for: to call themselves sluts.
No wonder a 2008 Daily Beast poll found that just 20 percent of women call themselves "feminists," and only 17 percent would want their daughters to use the label.
Want to cringe some more? A Slut Walk Boston organizer told a reporter, "We are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut.' " So at one event after another, women held up signs saying, "Proud Slut," "Sluts Say Yes" and "Slut Pride." They marched in bras and fishnet stockings, some with the word "slut" scrawled on their bodies with lipstick.
And slut-supporting men beamed in their "I love sluts" T-shirts. You bet they do.
In Boston, feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman bellowed, "Today we all march under the banner of sluthood!" In Ottawa, revelers chanted, "Slut, slut. Ho, ho. Yes means yes, and no means no!" The Web site "Feministing" described the slut walks as a "movement," with one blogger saying, "Sign me up for Team Sluts." The Slut Walk DC Web site boasts a banner, "Reclaiming the word slut."
This is supposed to pass as progress for women?
Slut-walk defenders say that they're being ironic, that it's supposed to be funny that women are turning a word used to dehumanize them into a badge of pride.
If you don't like the slut walks, then you just don't get the hilarity of women debasing themselves in the name of empowerment.
OK, the early feminists -- from whom the imposters ruining the movement claim to descend -- did manage to turn the pejorative "suffragette," coined to mock the seekers of equality, into a positive word. But a name that meant to mock is different than a word meant to dehumanize.
Here's a prediction: Feminists will no sooner turn "slut" into a positive word outside their ever-shrinking bubble than African-Americans who call each other the "N-word" have taken away the sting of that dehumanizing epithet. Some words should be retired for good.
And many gays may now march proudly as "queer" -- but plenty still bristle when an outsider uses the word. That's unlikely to change, considering the original intent of it.
Sex-positive feminist icon Erica Jong presciently told writer Ariel Levy in 2003: "I was standing in the shower the other day, picking up my shampoo. It's called 'Dumb Blonde.' I thought, '30 years ago you could not have sold this.' I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women. Let's not kid ourselves that this is liberation."
Yes, please, and let's not pretend that women holding "slut walks" is a step forward for womankind or will in any way change the treatment of rape victims.
While the so-called feminists are tarting up themselves to reclaim a vile, misogynist word, perhaps the rest of us should fight to reclaim the word "feminism" and return it to its roots of working for true equality.
If we leave it to this gang, we're screwed.
kirstenpowers@aol.com
Read more:
Friday, May 06, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
If I Hear One More Time....
Today on the radio a woman called in to complain about how unfair life is for her. It was a "conservative" radio channel. The host was VERY sympathetic with her.
This was her strife:
She received no public assistance with childcare costs: daycare, food, clothing, etc., while she knew "at least 10" people who, due to low income or other factors, did. They also received housing assistance in the form of section 8 vouchers and/or child support from their children's father(s). This woman received none of this because she made a good income and her child's father had either successfully fled the state or else had some kind of problem that prevented him from paying any child support of any significance (she was rambling, I didn't catch all of that part) - at this point the host jumped in a demanded that it was a father's job AS A MAN to pay for his children - she vehemently agreed.
I must reply to this woman and so I shall:
1) Yes, its terrible that your tax money is going to help those who may be intentionally not helping themselves. My ex received public assistance at one point and firmly believes she deserves more; essentially she believes she deserves much of other people's money. This is absurd. The point of America is that you work hard but get to keep all that you earn. Minor redistribution of wealth by the state is to be tolerated, at best. Massive redistribution of wealth is called COMMUNISM and is not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence guarantees, either in word or spirit. Communism and even some forms of socialism (the twisted kinds) are nothing but ways and means to pervert the freedom of some or many to the benefit of the few, and in some cases, the "few" are lazy, stupid, irresponsible, dysfunctional or all of the above. To see my ex from the outside you would think she was genuinely in need. To listen to her you would think she had been exploited and harmed. To know her, you'd throw up. She has a college education (an expensive one), but quit her white-collar job to work THREE DAYS PER WEEK as a masseuse. Then she has the gall to think I owe her even more than I pay her in "child" support.
Disgusting.
No one owes this woman anything. No one. She's a perfectly healthy, educated and very intelligent 33 year old. The sick, children, elderly, and mentally handicapped cannot genuinely care for themselves and may not have family who can. They can request help. 33 year old college grads who quit middle class jobs deserve squat.
Further many people who need assistance because the politicians have worked with business leaders (Corporate whores) to TOTALLY pervert the domestic economy; foreign countries, especially Asian ones, have lifted even the most basic labor and environmental laws and offer labor and overhead costs that leave America just too damn expensive by comparison. Further, dollar depreciation (Inflation, that is, just printing more money) by the private bank the "Federal" Reserve Board has further made living and raising children in America harder and harder.
Should some people receive assistance in light of these factors? Unrealistically, no. That way, as these factors made living impossible, food riots and revolution would've corrected the problem, starting by implementing tariffs on Chinese imports. Realistically, yes, the very poor - those NOT COLLEGE EDUCATED, unskilled and GENUINELY unable to keep from starving - must have some assistance. The states, borrowing truckloads of cash thanks to interest rates (set by the Federal Reserve Board) at 100-year lows, threw a lot of that money into programs they can't realistically fund long-term. Further, such programs, once started, in many cases encourage those "on the bubble" of being able to help themselves from poor to lower-middle-class STOP their efforts in order to remain "on the dole." This is absurd as well.
As to this woman's claim that she deserves to receive anything from her children's father, the best she deserves is to split costs with the man for the kids. Why? BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUALS. Oh, and by the way, under current law, if her deadbeat ex had by some miracle nabbed custody of the kids, she would loose up to 50% of her after tax income, BUT WOULD HAVE MANY OF THE SAME BILLS FOR HOUSING THE KIDS as they would sleepover on visits. Its a situation that's damn close to visiting your own kids a few times a month, but having ALL THE SAME BILLS AS IF THEY LIVED WITH YOU, yet with ONLY HALF the income. Thousands of divorced men go through this every day and sit late at night staring at calculators asking them questions with no answers through tight lips and watery eyes. Unfortunately this woman doesn't have that nightmare. That's too bad.
Further, she asserts that BY VIRTUE OF BEING A MAN, her ex should support the kids (for all practical purposes they are now solely her kids). #1: No man should pay one nickel for kids he doesn't get to see - for men that voluntarily run away, that's another matter. #2: Since she talks about his role as a man, WHAT IS HER ROLE AS A MOTHER? What about as a WIFE? Did she fulfill her role? Or did she drive him away? Did one of them cheat? Did she? At best she is entitled to HALF custody and split expenses for the kids. She wasn't married it sounds like and if that's the case SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING FOR HERSELF FROM HIM. As she said, she makes a good wage; her bills are hers and his bills are his and they have nothing to do with each other. If he doesn't make any money that's his problem. And if she doesn't, that's her problem. ONE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER, PERIOD. These people are adults. The kids are the issue here and the only issue: since men and women are equal, with equal access to jobs, money and resources (eat your phony statistics), child costs must be split. There. Done.
Further I have too many times heard women whine about not receiving enough "child" support because they make a decent wage. I want to ask them "So you expect to make a great wage and keep much of your ex's money as well? When did you imagine yourself to be a little, spoiled, child princess? Because you're not a little girl anymore! You are a grown woman. You can take care of yourself! Marriage is no picnic. Unless your ex was a dysfunctional monster you deserve NOTHING of his. You keep your money and he keeps his. Child expenses split. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE expecting his money? Does he expect yours?"
Enough of the female "insurance policy." No more woman "guarantee" whereby if you fuck up your relationship with your child's father, he or someone else foots the bill for your children. That's insane and its gone on for years. Children depend on their father, many times financially. So I suggest, women of the world, you either keep your husband happy or help support them or both. Frankly it seems easier to me for many women to simply be moms and wives and forget about working. THAT'S FINE! It makes for clean homes, hot meals, happy husbands and happy children who are kept out of trouble! Somewhere along the line women were convinced they needed a big shot career and 30 years later have discovered THEY ARE NO BETTER OFF for it. That in fact, TO THEM, their relationship was more important. Men have no choice. They must work, they must make money for their family to live. Women had a choice, and still do. If most (not all) women decided to put men first when it came to work they would find a curious side-effect: their own happiness.
In the meantime, please, for the sake of baby Jesus and all the seraphims, cherubs and in the name of St. Peter himself, SPARE ME the I'm-not-that-well-off-because-my-ex-doesn't-give-me-every-cent-he-has story.
Want pity? Then tell me you give your ex $1,200/month after taxes on a $50,000/year income and are expected to support another family - buy a $10k+ wedding ring, house, cars, the works - when you live on just over $2k a month and pay $1k/month in rent.
You wouldn't tell me that. Because after the judge did that to you you would've walked out of court and onto a plane and tried to forget the silly clown-rape that was just perpetrated on you by the joke called a court of justice; a court that did it "on behalf of the kids" and you'd sell pineapples to tourists in Antigua before being someone else's slave in the "free" U.S. of A. You'd probably even join a ultra conservative religion and be happy you were living in a place where people didn't throw you in jail for refusing to be someone else's slave.
This was her strife:
She received no public assistance with childcare costs: daycare, food, clothing, etc., while she knew "at least 10" people who, due to low income or other factors, did. They also received housing assistance in the form of section 8 vouchers and/or child support from their children's father(s). This woman received none of this because she made a good income and her child's father had either successfully fled the state or else had some kind of problem that prevented him from paying any child support of any significance (she was rambling, I didn't catch all of that part) - at this point the host jumped in a demanded that it was a father's job AS A MAN to pay for his children - she vehemently agreed.
I must reply to this woman and so I shall:
1) Yes, its terrible that your tax money is going to help those who may be intentionally not helping themselves. My ex received public assistance at one point and firmly believes she deserves more; essentially she believes she deserves much of other people's money. This is absurd. The point of America is that you work hard but get to keep all that you earn. Minor redistribution of wealth by the state is to be tolerated, at best. Massive redistribution of wealth is called COMMUNISM and is not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence guarantees, either in word or spirit. Communism and even some forms of socialism (the twisted kinds) are nothing but ways and means to pervert the freedom of some or many to the benefit of the few, and in some cases, the "few" are lazy, stupid, irresponsible, dysfunctional or all of the above. To see my ex from the outside you would think she was genuinely in need. To listen to her you would think she had been exploited and harmed. To know her, you'd throw up. She has a college education (an expensive one), but quit her white-collar job to work THREE DAYS PER WEEK as a masseuse. Then she has the gall to think I owe her even more than I pay her in "child" support.
Disgusting.
No one owes this woman anything. No one. She's a perfectly healthy, educated and very intelligent 33 year old. The sick, children, elderly, and mentally handicapped cannot genuinely care for themselves and may not have family who can. They can request help. 33 year old college grads who quit middle class jobs deserve squat.
Further many people who need assistance because the politicians have worked with business leaders (Corporate whores) to TOTALLY pervert the domestic economy; foreign countries, especially Asian ones, have lifted even the most basic labor and environmental laws and offer labor and overhead costs that leave America just too damn expensive by comparison. Further, dollar depreciation (Inflation, that is, just printing more money) by the private bank the "Federal" Reserve Board has further made living and raising children in America harder and harder.
Should some people receive assistance in light of these factors? Unrealistically, no. That way, as these factors made living impossible, food riots and revolution would've corrected the problem, starting by implementing tariffs on Chinese imports. Realistically, yes, the very poor - those NOT COLLEGE EDUCATED, unskilled and GENUINELY unable to keep from starving - must have some assistance. The states, borrowing truckloads of cash thanks to interest rates (set by the Federal Reserve Board) at 100-year lows, threw a lot of that money into programs they can't realistically fund long-term. Further, such programs, once started, in many cases encourage those "on the bubble" of being able to help themselves from poor to lower-middle-class STOP their efforts in order to remain "on the dole." This is absurd as well.
As to this woman's claim that she deserves to receive anything from her children's father, the best she deserves is to split costs with the man for the kids. Why? BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUALS. Oh, and by the way, under current law, if her deadbeat ex had by some miracle nabbed custody of the kids, she would loose up to 50% of her after tax income, BUT WOULD HAVE MANY OF THE SAME BILLS FOR HOUSING THE KIDS as they would sleepover on visits. Its a situation that's damn close to visiting your own kids a few times a month, but having ALL THE SAME BILLS AS IF THEY LIVED WITH YOU, yet with ONLY HALF the income. Thousands of divorced men go through this every day and sit late at night staring at calculators asking them questions with no answers through tight lips and watery eyes. Unfortunately this woman doesn't have that nightmare. That's too bad.
Further, she asserts that BY VIRTUE OF BEING A MAN, her ex should support the kids (for all practical purposes they are now solely her kids). #1: No man should pay one nickel for kids he doesn't get to see - for men that voluntarily run away, that's another matter. #2: Since she talks about his role as a man, WHAT IS HER ROLE AS A MOTHER? What about as a WIFE? Did she fulfill her role? Or did she drive him away? Did one of them cheat? Did she? At best she is entitled to HALF custody and split expenses for the kids. She wasn't married it sounds like and if that's the case SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING FOR HERSELF FROM HIM. As she said, she makes a good wage; her bills are hers and his bills are his and they have nothing to do with each other. If he doesn't make any money that's his problem. And if she doesn't, that's her problem. ONE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER, PERIOD. These people are adults. The kids are the issue here and the only issue: since men and women are equal, with equal access to jobs, money and resources (eat your phony statistics), child costs must be split. There. Done.
Further I have too many times heard women whine about not receiving enough "child" support because they make a decent wage. I want to ask them "So you expect to make a great wage and keep much of your ex's money as well? When did you imagine yourself to be a little, spoiled, child princess? Because you're not a little girl anymore! You are a grown woman. You can take care of yourself! Marriage is no picnic. Unless your ex was a dysfunctional monster you deserve NOTHING of his. You keep your money and he keeps his. Child expenses split. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE expecting his money? Does he expect yours?"
Enough of the female "insurance policy." No more woman "guarantee" whereby if you fuck up your relationship with your child's father, he or someone else foots the bill for your children. That's insane and its gone on for years. Children depend on their father, many times financially. So I suggest, women of the world, you either keep your husband happy or help support them or both. Frankly it seems easier to me for many women to simply be moms and wives and forget about working. THAT'S FINE! It makes for clean homes, hot meals, happy husbands and happy children who are kept out of trouble! Somewhere along the line women were convinced they needed a big shot career and 30 years later have discovered THEY ARE NO BETTER OFF for it. That in fact, TO THEM, their relationship was more important. Men have no choice. They must work, they must make money for their family to live. Women had a choice, and still do. If most (not all) women decided to put men first when it came to work they would find a curious side-effect: their own happiness.
In the meantime, please, for the sake of baby Jesus and all the seraphims, cherubs and in the name of St. Peter himself, SPARE ME the I'm-not-that-well-off-because-my-ex-doesn't-give-me-every-cent-he-has story.
Want pity? Then tell me you give your ex $1,200/month after taxes on a $50,000/year income and are expected to support another family - buy a $10k+ wedding ring, house, cars, the works - when you live on just over $2k a month and pay $1k/month in rent.
You wouldn't tell me that. Because after the judge did that to you you would've walked out of court and onto a plane and tried to forget the silly clown-rape that was just perpetrated on you by the joke called a court of justice; a court that did it "on behalf of the kids" and you'd sell pineapples to tourists in Antigua before being someone else's slave in the "free" U.S. of A. You'd probably even join a ultra conservative religion and be happy you were living in a place where people didn't throw you in jail for refusing to be someone else's slave.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Paternity Fraud: The Worst Kind of Fraud
When I rail about the morality of women and the necessity of having sex only after marriage and people call me some kind of conservative nutcase?
When people are defrauded out of money we all cry foul and demand jail. What do we do when a woman uses AN INNOCENT CHILD to defraud someone out of their money for 18 years or more?
We let her keep the money!
To wit:
Fathers and Families has helped introduce two paternity fraud bills in the the California legislature this year, one of which (SB 377) will address the injustices faced young men like Thomas. In Thomas’ support letter to Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, he explains:
I am writing to you in support of SB 377, because when I was 17 years-old I was victimized by the problem which the bill addresses.
The hospital manipulated me into signing a paternity declaration when my former girlfriend gave birth to a son she said was mine. There was no parental consent nor did I have access to legal counsel or advice. I was never informed of the legal implications of what I was being asked to sign and I did not fully understand them. I thought that because I was a minor, there couldn’t be serious legal implications. I have since learned differently.
The mother of the child has not allowed me to have a relationship with the boy, and several of her relatives have told me that another young man who I knew in our community is in fact the biological father.
I tried to rectify the situation, but the judge ruled me to be the biological father and denied my request to establish paternity, even after the child’s mother initially agreed in court to have DNA testing done.
I am now on the hook for 18 years of child support to support a boy I’m not able to see and who perhaps is not even mine. Moreover, someday I would like to marry and have a family, and I am instead faced with the potential prospect of losing a quarter of my after-tax earnings because I was defrauded.
SB 377 would resolve these kinds of injustices by “invalidating a voluntary declaration of paternity that is signed by a minor parent if it is not also signed by the parent or guardian of the minor parent.” SB 377 would also require that the parent or guardian of the minor parent receive oral and written information relating to the voluntary declaration of paternity.
I wish this legislation had been in place when I was 17—it would have saved me a lot of pain and problems.
Sincerely,
Thomas Rodriguez
Riverside, CA
When people are defrauded out of money we all cry foul and demand jail. What do we do when a woman uses AN INNOCENT CHILD to defraud someone out of their money for 18 years or more?
We let her keep the money!
To wit:
Fathers and Families has helped introduce two paternity fraud bills in the the California legislature this year, one of which (SB 377) will address the injustices faced young men like Thomas. In Thomas’ support letter to Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, he explains:
I am writing to you in support of SB 377, because when I was 17 years-old I was victimized by the problem which the bill addresses.
The hospital manipulated me into signing a paternity declaration when my former girlfriend gave birth to a son she said was mine. There was no parental consent nor did I have access to legal counsel or advice. I was never informed of the legal implications of what I was being asked to sign and I did not fully understand them. I thought that because I was a minor, there couldn’t be serious legal implications. I have since learned differently.
The mother of the child has not allowed me to have a relationship with the boy, and several of her relatives have told me that another young man who I knew in our community is in fact the biological father.
I tried to rectify the situation, but the judge ruled me to be the biological father and denied my request to establish paternity, even after the child’s mother initially agreed in court to have DNA testing done.
I am now on the hook for 18 years of child support to support a boy I’m not able to see and who perhaps is not even mine. Moreover, someday I would like to marry and have a family, and I am instead faced with the potential prospect of losing a quarter of my after-tax earnings because I was defrauded.
SB 377 would resolve these kinds of injustices by “invalidating a voluntary declaration of paternity that is signed by a minor parent if it is not also signed by the parent or guardian of the minor parent.” SB 377 would also require that the parent or guardian of the minor parent receive oral and written information relating to the voluntary declaration of paternity.
I wish this legislation had been in place when I was 17—it would have saved me a lot of pain and problems.
Sincerely,
Thomas Rodriguez
Riverside, CA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
