Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘chivalry’

A few days ago I heard from a dental nurse that her dentist had looked up the address of her patient before deciding how much to charge her. The patient lived in a good part of town, and so the bill for the removal of her wisdom tooth was bumped up – without her knowledge, of course.

That’s not fair! – was my initial reaction.

But then, I suppose, the dentist would argue that she can charge whatever she likes, and, further, that by doing this sort of thing, she would not have to charge so much to her less well-heeled patients.

Hmm.

Well, that sounds a bit fairer.

I suppose.

But, on the other hand, surely she is just squeezing out of her patients as much money as she thinks that she can get away with?

It all depends how you look at it. It depends on the ‘spin’. But what is the right thing to do?

If the dentist charges the same to everyone, then this is a bit unfair on the poorer patients. On the other hand, if she charges the wealthier more, then this would be a bit unfair on the wealthier patients.

But what is the right thing to do?

Charging wealthier people more for the same services seems to be morally acceptable. After all, this is how the income tax system works. The wealthier pay more taxes for the same governmental goods and services that the poorer will pay less taxes to receive.

It sounds fair.

On the other hand, in most situations, regardless of their wealth, people purchase goods and services at the same price. For example, the supermarket and the electricity board do not determine how much to charge people for their goods and services based on their wealth.

So, in practice, both things seem to be generally acceptable. And, on the whole, it all seems to be more a question of balance. Provided that the wealthier are not charged too much more than poorer folk because of their financial position, they do not create too much of a fuss about it.

But for any given differential between the two, a fuss, at some level, is usually made.

For example, there are some considerable forces at work both to try to reduce the tax burdens on the wealthier as well as to increase them.

As a general rule, the right-wing wants the differentials in tax to be reduced, and the left-wing wants them to be increased. And the only point that I am trying to make in this article is that there is no real solution to the problem. There is no right and morally correct thing to do. It is all a question of balance.

And so there will always be a tussle between the two camps.

But ‘tussle’ is surely too tame a word for what is, in fact, much more like a war.

If you think about the huge amount of energy and resources that go into this problem, it is clearly no minor tussle; the form filling, the accountants, the lawyers, the politicians, the Revenue services, the investigations, the financial planning and pension schemes, the hiding of funds in tax havens, the fiddling of accounts, and so on.

The enterprise concerned with this issue alone is positively enormous!

And it will probably remain so for a considerable length of time to come because there is no solution. There is no right and morally correct thing to do. There is nowhere to be found where to draw a line which will be acceptable to everyone.

It is all a question of balance, with some people leaning one way and with other people leaning the other way.

There is a permanent state of war!

But the balance between the two sides can be very much affected by the motives that appear to be behind the policies being applied.

And this is of considerable significance.

For example, the dentist can be portrayed as a Robin Hood figure, helping the poor by taking some more from the rich. But, on the other hand, she can be seen as something of a Scrooge who is simply trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of each of her clients.

The more that she can get away with, the more she charges.

And who could ever really know the truth behind her motives?

Now consider the following.

Should a woman who can carry one brick in her wheelbarrow be paid the same as a man who can carry two?

By and large, the women will answer Yes to this question, and the men will answer No. But, just as in the previous case concerning the dentist, there is no place where to draw the line that is acceptable to everyone.

For example, if the woman is to get paid the same as the man despite the fact that she does only half the work, then the men will see this as unfair. On the other hand, if the woman gets only half the pay because she does only half the work, then the women will argue that this is unfair because women cannot physically do the same job as the men.

And the important point to understand is that there is nowhere to draw the line that will be acceptable to both sides of the argument.

And so it is that the quest for women’s ‘equality’ will never be achieved.

Just as in the case of the dentist charging differential amounts to different patients, there will always be arguments over where to draw the line.

And, just as in the wheelbarrow case, there will always be different ways of portraying the opponents.

“Women are just too selfish. They expect to get paid the same for carrying one brick as we men will get paid for carrying two.”

“Men are just too selfish. They expect to get paid more than women even though women put in the same amount of effort.”

A permanent gender war over pay!

And, of course, the one-brick versus two-brick argument is just a trite metaphor for all the arguments that might surround pay. In the real world, the arguments over pay might be over the issue of, say, women in the military getting the same pay as the men despite the fact that they are very rarely asked to risk their lives. Or, perhaps, the argument might be over whether or not a woman who has chosen to take eight years away from her job in order to have children should get the same pay on returning to work as those men and women who have worked without such long term absence.

And, of course, the arguments concerning the two genders will not be confined solely to issues that arise over pay. These controversial issues will – and do already – extend to the family, the children, the home, the workplace, divorce, the justice system, the health services, and so on; in fact, they will extend to wherever there is an issue where one gender might seemingly be being treated differently, or preferentially, to the other.

And these issues can be made to be controversial wherever men and women function together in their lives – in other words …

… just about everywhere!

And in arguing for the line to be drawn so that it always heavily favours women, the feminists and their supporters have, indeed, managed to invade everybody’s lives just about everywhere.

Thus, in much the same way that there are huge and pervasive industries that have to deal with the ins and outs of our taxes and our welfare system in order to ‘draw the lines’ when it comes to money, other huge and pervasive industries have been growing in order to help to ‘draw the lines’ in the battles of the genders – though, thus far, these industries have been highly prejudicial against men.

But, because there is no way that these lines can be drawn in a manner that will be acceptable to everyone, there will always now be a tussle between the two genders! – with the tussle becoming much more evident – and much worse in nature – now that the men’s movement is growing.

There is no solution even to the problem of how much a woman should be paid relative to a man when it comes to carrying bricks in their wheel barrows.

And there will also certainly be no solution when it comes to most other matters.

The arguments are therefore going to be endless, and the balance is going to swing this way and that way for ever more.

What a terrible thought!

Not just over pay, remember. But in just about every area of life.

Thus far, however, for the past 30 years, the feminists have been arguing the case for women almost unopposed. The case for men has been silenced through the weapons of intimidation and political correctness.

In fact, there has not been much of a tussle at all.

But this is now changing.

Even though it is still the case that huge resources are being put into bolstering the case for women, the case for men, at last, is beginning to garner more and more support.

And, in the not too distant future, billions upon billions of dollars worth of our energies and our resources are going to be bound up in dealing with these insoluble issues – the issues surrounding the differential treatments of the two genders, and where to draw the lines.

What a waste of our time.

But there are three big differences between the tussles over drawing the line between those who have more money and those who have less (the dentist scenario, taxes etc) and between those tussles relating to gender issues.

The first difference is that our personal relationships, which are probably the most important areas of our lives – far more important than money in the eyes of most – are being interfered with by outsiders.

The second difference is that the industries that are being spawned to deal with these gender issues are encroaching upon people to an extent that is rapidly becoming unacceptable, and it is causing relationships to break down.

And the third difference is that the two genders are being divided into opposing sides to an extent that is probably unknown in history.

It is a nightmare scenario.

There is nowhere to draw the line! – and so there will be a permanent gender war; until, that is, the feminists and their phony victim groups are finally kicked into the oblivion where they belong.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

 

If you listen to feminists droning on about the contraceptive pill and explaining how it was that women quickly ‘liberated’ themselves sexually when they were able to get their hands on it, thus reducing their ultimate dependence on men, you might be forgiven for thinking that feminists had actually invented the thing.
They hadn’t. Feminists had nothing to do with it.
It was manufactured by a man – a medical scientist. And his work was mostly based upon the work of the other male scientists who went before him.
You would also be led to believe by feminist disinformation that men, in their desperate desire to keep women on the leash, were totally opposed to the pill. And feminists would further like to persuade you that they, themselves, wrestled politically, and successfully, with the male gender, in order to force men into accepting the pill as a valid means of contraception; a means which gave women the ‘upper hand’.
This is complete and utter rubbish.
I was actually a young man when ‘the pill’ came on to the market, and I can you without reservation that it was men (like me) who couldn’t wait to get their hands on the thing – or, more accurately, who couldn’t wait to get their women to swallow it.
But, as is usual, the feminists have lied and deceived over this issue – and, as is customary, they mostly distort our History in such a way as to portray the men of the past as the most wicked oppressors of women.
Thus, they would also claim, for example, that only when feminists themselves arrived on the scene to protect women from the tyrannical abuse of male power were women truly ‘liberated’ from the oppression of men.
Well, as someone who was sexually active around the time that the pill became available in the UK, here is what the situation was really like in those days.
I remember very clearly the arrival of histrionic groups of hostile, irrational women calling themselves ‘feminists’ in the very late 1960’s and the early 1970’s.
They seemed to appear from nowhere.
‘Normal’ feminists (such as the likes of Erin Pizzey) had been around for some time, and we were accustomed to them. They articulated a female point of view. They were cuddly, loving, very feminine, and they danced around with bare feet, snogging the boys and leading them astray in the grass.
Make love, not war!
These ‘new’ feminists, however, seemed more like a snarling lesbian military. They barked. They screeched. They growled. And they seemed to do little but taunt and deride men in the most appallingly derogatory manner.
Almost anything to do with men was denounced as unwholesome, and their sole purpose really seemed to be nothing more than to inject male hatred into our culture and to manufacture, from thin air, spurious and unjustified accusations in order, so it seemed, to excuse an openly aggressive attitude toward men.
The nation mostly looked upon these women with disdain, and hoped that they would go away.
Regretfully, they didn’t.
They stayed.
By the very late 60’s women were indeed being ‘liberated’ from the kitchen, partly thanks to the advent of the pill, but mostly due to the arrival of many other technologies for the average home (such as the car! – and the washing machine) – just about all of which were created by men.
But men were also being liberated by virtue of the fact that the pill allowed them far greater freedom with regard to their own sexual activities.
When his girlfriend was on the pill, the man stood far less chance of being responsible for a pregnancy which, in those days, virtually forced him into marriage.
Indeed, the young men of the 60s, and those who went before them, seemed to be permanently pestered by their girlfriends into discussing an early marriage whenever they opened their legs wider than nine degrees.
However, it is fair to say that, for most girls, in those days, marriage was actually the best way of escaping from their homes and liberating themselves from the restrictions of their parents. Marriage was considered by young women to be the best route to their own freedoms – not (as feminists would tell you) to one of lifelong oppression by the men whom they wished to marry.
And so, I’ll give you sex if you give me marriage, summed up much of the gender bargaining prior to the advent of the pill.
(The same sort of thing is true today. But, whereas, in those days, living together ‘in sin’ (i.e. unmarried) was not considered appropriate by almost anyone, today, not only is such a thing acceptable, it is almost mandatory.)
If you listen to feminists, however, you’ll be given the impression that young men could hardly wait to entrap prospective females into marriage, for their own domineering purposes, and that getting a wife was a priority that was always on their minds.
This is a preposterous notion. And anyone who knows anything about young men knows full well that their carnal desires have very little to do with establishing permanent, long-term, monogamous relationships.
Indeed, it was the female gender that almost always equated sex with marriage, not the men. This is the TRUTH of the matter.
Women wanted marriage after sex – and often before it – whereas men, most usually, did not.
Marriage was a high priority for women. And so if feminists are right about marriage being a means whereby men oppress women, then it is clearly the case that the women were actually begging to be oppressed!
Also, and most importantly for the lustful young man, the pill dispensed with the need to wear desensitising condoms and/or from having to withdraw his penis just at the point when he really wanted it there.
The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.
And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of ‘liberating’ medical technology is to distort the truth completely. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences – particularly the one of being found out!
Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.
In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.
And, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?” was just about the very first question that young men would want to know about your new girlfriend.
Most women, however, were simply too ‘ashamed’ to use the pill. They saw its use as a ‘sign of promiscuity’ – and so did many others. They were likely to be called ‘sluts’ by their very own mothers and their girlfriends if they were discovered to be ‘on the pill’, and men often, therefore, had a hard time convincing their female partners that the pill was, in fact, a ‘good idea’.
And those women who eventually grew brave enough to use the pill often hid the fact that they did.
Another reason that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was being so heavily advocated by feminists!
The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with a group of hostile unfeminine unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.
It certainly wasn’t women or feminists who succeeded in encouraging women to use the pill to liberate themselves sexually. It was men who eventually persuaded their women to use the pill for the sake of their own sexual freedom.
Of course it was.
It has always been the case that men make up the gender wanting lots more sex, and it is women who tend to restrain it.
As the years went by, the pill became more and more acceptable to women.
It was also true that those women who were known to be on the pill were a lot more sought after by men. This is not surprising, for the same is true today. Women, therefore, began to go on the pill in order to make themselves more ‘available’ and, hence, more attractive.
I find it astonishing that feminists have, for so long, been able to get away with the lie that, somehow, they were the ones who led the way forward when it came to liberating women sexually. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, feminists actually retarded the sexual liberation of women because most women simply did not want to be seen to be like them.
Feminists repelled them.
And the vast majority of women, like the men, saw the ‘new’ feminists as unattractive, cold, hostile and emotionally ‘genderless’.
Younger women today have been indoctrinated with the untruths that they were sexually liberated by feminists. The truth is that men sexually liberated themselves when they created and manufactured the pill, and, in doing so, they liberated those very women with whom they wanted to have sex.
And exactly the same happens today. It is young men who ‘persuade’ and cajole young women into liberating themselves sexually. It is young men who tempt and harass young women into performing.
Indeed, so forceful are some of these young men in their endeavours, that they end up in a whole lot of trouble!
And some even end up in prison.
It is absurd to believe that misandric feminists who can’t get along with men AT ALL actually encouraged women to become more sexually involved with them.
Think about it. If feminists had truly had their way, young women would have isolated themselves in women-only covens shouting abuse at the men who passed by.
It’s pretty much what they do today.
And it is ludicrous to believe that the young men sat by, twiddling their knobs, waiting patiently for feminists to get women to ‘open up’.
When the pill came on to the market, it was the men who went in there, literally, like a shot.
They were desperately encouraging their women to take the pill – emotionally blackmailing them into doing so, pleading with them, at least, ‘to try it’, promising them a possible future marriage if they would, or threatening to leave them if they wouldn’t.
And, among themselves – whisper, whisper – was the ubiquitous question, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?”. If not, her attractiveness plummeted, and their attentions were turned toward other girls on the dance floor who might be on the pill.
It was men who truly sexually liberated women because they were desperately sexually liberating themselves.
And, at the time, they had quite a hard time convincing women that sex without marriage was a positive thing for BOTH genders and, further, that women would not actually rot in Hell if they used sex as a means of enjoying themselves.
The pill allowed men and women to cuddle, stroke, suck and sex each other, without clothes, and without the previously high likelihood of pregnancies, which almost invariably led to both parties having to commit themselves to each other – for life! (as marriage was once wont to be).
The pill liberated both the sexes in this respect.
But, as is usually case, it was men who did the liberating – and the women mostly followed their lead.
The feminist movement at the time did little but retard this progress by demonising men and poisoning the even closer relationships that were then developing between the genders.
And while the ‘Flower Power’ movements of the 60s with their ‘Make Love Not War’ slogans and demonstrations were impacting upon the authoritarianism of the government and of those in power in general, the ‘new’ feminists were busying themselves with stirring up a hatred between the ‘loving’ youths because, I imagine, they were simply too personally unattractive to be a part of it all.
And their growing vindictiveness toward the male gender quickly killed a movement that was bent on fostering “love and peace”, and it replaced it with one that promulgated an ideology based mostly on generating a hatred of men.

If you listen to feminists droning on about the contraceptive pill and explaining how it was that women quickly ‘liberated’ themselves sexually when they were able to get their hands on it, thus reducing their ultimate dependence on men, you might be forgiven for thinking that feminists had actually invented the thing.
They hadn’t. Feminists had nothing to do with it.
It was manufactured by a man – a medical scientist. And his work was mostly based upon the work of the other male scientists who went before him.
You would also be led to believe by feminist disinformation that men, in their desperate desire to keep women on the leash, were totally opposed to the pill. And feminists would further like to persuade you that they, themselves, wrestled politically, and successfully, with the male gender, in order to force men into accepting the pill as a valid means of contraception; a means which gave women the ‘upper hand’.
This is complete and utter rubbish.
I was actually a young man when ‘the pill’ came on to the market, and I can you without reservation that it was men (like me) who couldn’t wait to get their hands on the thing – or, more accurately, who couldn’t wait to get their women to swallow it.
But, as is usual, the feminists have lied and deceived over this issue – and, as is customary, they mostly distort our History in such a way as to portray the men of the past as the most wicked oppressors of women.
Thus, they would also claim, for example, that only when feminists themselves arrived on the scene to protect women from the tyrannical abuse of male power were women truly ‘liberated’ from the oppression of men.
Well, as someone who was sexually active around the time that the pill became available in the UK, here is what the situation was really like in those days.
I remember very clearly the arrival of histrionic groups of hostile, irrational women calling themselves ‘feminists’ in the very late 1960’s and the early 1970’s.
They seemed to appear from nowhere.
‘Normal’ feminists (such as the likes of Erin Pizzey) had been around for some time, and we were accustomed to them. They articulated a female point of view. They were cuddly, loving, very feminine, and they danced around with bare feet, snogging the boys and leading them astray in the grass.
Make love, not war!
These ‘new’ feminists, however, seemed more like a snarling lesbian military. They barked. They screeched. They growled. And they seemed to do little but taunt and deride men in the most appallingly derogatory manner.
Almost anything to do with men was denounced as unwholesome, and their sole purpose really seemed to be nothing more than to inject male hatred into our culture and to manufacture, from thin air, spurious and unjustified accusations in order, so it seemed, to excuse an openly aggressive attitude toward men.
The nation mostly looked upon these women with disdain, and hoped that they would go away.
Regretfully, they didn’t.
They stayed.
By the very late 60’s women were indeed being ‘liberated’ from the kitchen, partly thanks to the advent of the pill, but mostly due to the arrival of many other technologies for the average home (such as the car! – and the washing machine) – just about all of which were created by men.
But men were also being liberated by virtue of the fact that the pill allowed them far greater freedom with regard to their own sexual activities.
When his girlfriend was on the pill, the man stood far less chance of being responsible for a pregnancy which, in those days, virtually forced him into marriage.
Indeed, the young men of the 60s, and those who went before them, seemed to be permanently pestered by their girlfriends into discussing an early marriage whenever they opened their legs wider than nine degrees.
However, it is fair to say that, for most girls, in those days, marriage was actually the best way of escaping from their homes and liberating themselves from the restrictions of their parents. Marriage was considered by young women to be the best route to their own freedoms – not (as feminists would tell you) to one of lifelong oppression by the men whom they wished to marry.
And so, I’ll give you sex if you give me marriage, summed up much of the gender bargaining prior to the advent of the pill.
(The same sort of thing is true today. But, whereas, in those days, living together ‘in sin’ (i.e. unmarried) was not considered appropriate by almost anyone, today, not only is such a thing acceptable, it is almost mandatory.)
If you listen to feminists, however, you’ll be given the impression that young men could hardly wait to entrap prospective females into marriage, for their own domineering purposes, and that getting a wife was a priority that was always on their minds.
This is a preposterous notion. And anyone who knows anything about young men knows full well that their carnal desires have very little to do with establishing permanent, long-term, monogamous relationships.
Indeed, it was the female gender that almost always equated sex with marriage, not the men. This is the TRUTH of the matter.
Women wanted marriage after sex – and often before it – whereas men, most usually, did not.
Marriage was a high priority for women. And so if feminists are right about marriage being a means whereby men oppress women, then it is clearly the case that the women were actually begging to be oppressed!
Also, and most importantly for the lustful young man, the pill dispensed with the need to wear desensitising condoms and/or from having to withdraw his penis just at the point when he really wanted it there.
The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.
And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of ‘liberating’ medical technology is to distort the truth completely. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences – particularly the one of being found out!
Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.
In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.
And, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?” was just about the very first question that young men would want to know about your new girlfriend.
Most women, however, were simply too ‘ashamed’ to use the pill. They saw its use as a ‘sign of promiscuity’ – and so did many others. They were likely to be called ‘sluts’ by their very own mothers and their girlfriends if they were discovered to be ‘on the pill’, and men often, therefore, had a hard time convincing their female partners that the pill was, in fact, a ‘good idea’.
And those women who eventually grew brave enough to use the pill often hid the fact that they did.
Another reason that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was being so heavily advocated by feminists!
The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with a group of hostile unfeminine unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.
It certainly wasn’t women or feminists who succeeded in encouraging women to use the pill to liberate themselves sexually. It was men who eventually persuaded their women to use the pill for the sake of their own sexual freedom.
Of course it was.
It has always been the case that men make up the gender wanting lots more sex, and it is women who tend to restrain it.
As the years went by, the pill became more and more acceptable to women.
It was also true that those women who were known to be on the pill were a lot more sought after by men. This is not surprising, for the same is true today. Women, therefore, began to go on the pill in order to make themselves more ‘available’ and, hence, more attractive.
I find it astonishing that feminists have, for so long, been able to get away with the lie that, somehow, they were the ones who led the way forward when it came to liberating women sexually. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, feminists actually retarded the sexual liberation of women because most women simply did not want to be seen to be like them.
Feminists repelled them.
And the vast majority of women, like the men, saw the ‘new’ feminists as unattractive, cold, hostile and emotionally ‘genderless’.
Younger women today have been indoctrinated with the untruths that they were sexually liberated by feminists. The truth is that men sexually liberated themselves when they created and manufactured the pill, and, in doing so, they liberated those very women with whom they wanted to have sex.
And exactly the same happens today. It is young men who ‘persuade’ and cajole young women into liberating themselves sexually. It is young men who tempt and harass young women into performing.
Indeed, so forceful are some of these young men in their endeavours, that they end up in a whole lot of trouble!
And some even end up in prison.
It is absurd to believe that misandric feminists who can’t get along with men AT ALL actually encouraged women to become more sexually involved with them.
Think about it. If feminists had truly had their way, young women would have isolated themselves in women-only covens shouting abuse at the men who passed by.
It’s pretty much what they do today.
And it is ludicrous to believe that the young men sat by, twiddling their knobs, waiting patiently for feminists to get women to ‘open up’.
When the pill came on to the market, it was the men who went in there, literally, like a shot.
They were desperately encouraging their women to take the pill – emotionally blackmailing them into doing so, pleading with them, at least, ‘to try it’, promising them a possible future marriage if they would, or threatening to leave them if they wouldn’t.
And, among themselves – whisper, whisper – was the ubiquitous question, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?”. If not, her attractiveness plummeted, and their attentions were turned toward other girls on the dance floor who might be on the pill.
It was men who truly sexually liberated women because they were desperately sexually liberating themselves.
And, at the time, they had quite a hard time convincing women that sex without marriage was a positive thing for BOTH genders and, further, that women would not actually rot in Hell if they used sex as a means of enjoying themselves.
The pill allowed men and women to cuddle, stroke, suck and sex each other, without clothes, and without the previously high likelihood of pregnancies, which almost invariably led to both parties having to commit themselves to each other – for life! (as marriage was once wont to be).
The pill liberated both the sexes in this respect.
But, as is usually case, it was men who did the liberating – and the women mostly followed their lead.
The feminist movement at the time did little but retard this progress by demonising men and poisoning the even closer relationships that were then developing between the genders.
And while the ‘Flower Power’ movements of the 60s with their ‘Make Love Not War’ slogans and demonstrations were impacting upon the authoritarianism of the government and of those in power in general, the ‘new’ feminists were busying themselves with stirring up a hatred between the ‘loving’ youths because, I imagine, they were simply too personally unattractive to be a part of it all.
And their growing vindictiveness toward the male gender quickly killed a movement that was bent on fostering “love and peace”, and it replaced it with one that promulgated an ideology based mostly on generating a hatred of men.

 

Read Full Post »

How often do women falsely cry rape? Since an 18-year-old high school student who admitted lying after telling police that five men had tricked her into a bathroom and then gang raped her two weeks ago, that question has been flying around in my head. From my experience the answers to that question fall into one of two camps. “Many feminists argue that the problem of false accusations is so minuscule that to discuss it extensively is a harmful distraction from the far more serious problem of rape. On the other side are men’s-rights activists, claiming that false accusations are as much of a scourge as rape itself.”

But isn’t the rate of false rape charges an empirical question, with a specific answer that isn’t vulnerable to ideological twisting? Yes and no. There has been a burst of research on this subject. Some of it is careful, but much of it is questionable. While most of the good studies converge at a rate of about 8 percent to 10 percent for false rape charges, the literature isn’t quite definitive enough to stamp out the far higher estimates. And even if we go by the lower numbers, there’s the question of interpretation. If one in 10 charges of rape is made up, is that a dangerously high rate or an acceptably low one? To put this in perspective, if we use the Bureau of Justice Statistics that show about 200,000 (when I saw that, I knew that was some “SVU” propaganda) rapes in 2008, we could be looking at as many as 20,000 false accusations.

When I was younger the police used to be routinely suspicious of rape victims. “Surely the simplest, and perhaps the most important, reason not to permit conviction for rape on the uncorroborated word of the prosecutrix is that the word is very often false,” a Yale Law Journal article opined in 1952, echoing a view voiced since at least the 17th century. These views remained mainstream into the 1970s, if not later. As Marcia Clark said yesterday recalling the 1977 rape charges against Roman Polanski, “Those were the days when folks still believed rape was ‘easy to charge and hard to disprove.’ ” And that old adage couldn’t have been further from the truth. Prosecutors well knew that unless the victim was Snow White, the case was toast.”

I remember when fem bot Susan Brownmiller Wrote her hypocrisy of a book : Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape,

In her book, Brownmiller said that only 2 percent of rape allegations are false, citing findings by the female police in a New York City rape squad. The problem is that while this statistic has been widely repeated, with dutiful mentions of New York-based “research,” no one has ever tracked down its source. This we learned from a comprehensive review of the literature on false rape charges published in the Cambridge Law Journal in 2006. The author, Philip Rumney, finds a couple of small studies that back up the 2 percent claim but isn’t confident of their methodology.

Rumney’s survey of the terrain is the best we found. He also takes aim at the findings on the other end of the spectrum—the research that purports to show that the rate of false allegations of rape is in the range of 40 percent, as well as the flawed (but often cited) work that makes a crazy high jump to as high as 90 percent. The 40 percent figure is usually attributed to a 1994 article by E.J. Kanin in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Kanin looked at 109 reports of rape to police in one small Midwestern metropolitan area over nine years. His pool was small. The police he studied always offered the victim a polygraph—perhaps signaling they doubted her veracity. And Kanin himself “warns against generalising from his findings” and points to reasons for questioning them, as Rumney explains.

The hugely high 90 percent false rate is several degrees more suspect. The citation for it is usually a study in Scotland by police surgeon N.M. MacLean of only 34 rape complaints made from 1969-74. Complaints were labeled false if they were made after a delay. Or if the victim didn’t look “disheveled” or upset or seriously injured. But those factors don’t necessarily indicate that a rape charge is trumped up. When police use stereotypes about rape to sort real allegations from false ones, they can do victims a real disservice, as this model paper from the Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force explains. In a 1981 study of 16 reports that claimed the victim admitted to making it up in 14 of them, one case was disproved because the police decided the woman was too large for the alleged rapist to have taken off her “extremely tight undergarments” against her will. Need we say that this not the critical eye we want from the cops?

Rumney’s smart debunkings leave us with a group of American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand studies that converge around a rate of 8 percent to 10 percent for false reports of rape. Not all of these studies are flawless, but together they’re better than the rest of the lot. They include a massive 1997 report on sexual assault by the U.S. Department of Justice, which includes data from 16,000 local, county, and state law enforcement agencies. The DoJ found that “in 1995, 87% of recorded forcible rapes were completed crimes and the remainder were classified as attempts. Law enforcement agencies indicated that about 8% of forcible rapes reported to them were determined to be unfounded and were excluded from the count of crimes.”

If 8 percent to 10 percent is about right for false reporting of rape, based on what we know so far, how should we think about that number? Rumney says he’s not sure whether crying wolf is more or less likely over rape than over other crimes, because the comparative research is even less conclusive. So that’s a question that appears to have no answer at the moment. (A 2001 Department of Justice report says that the rate of false reports is similar for other crimes, but it also gives the 2 percent figure without a source, so we’re skeptical.)

What is clear, however, are two problems that are the flip side of the same coin. False charges of rape are an absolute nightmare for the men caught in their net. And the specter of made-up allegations is a real problem for law enforcement—which means they are also a problem for women who are telling the truth. Let’s take the men first. Ive heard from many of my own men tell me there own stories. The first one that comes to my mind is one a navy seal told me in Iraq, equal parts heartbreaking and thoughtful:

My girlfriend was raped several years ago. I had been falsely accused of rape less than a year ago. I called her (I had known her before her incident) because I was desperate for someone to talk to who would understand what I was going through. To my great relief, it turned out that we understood each other very well. From the initial stages of suicidal thoughts and not being able to function to the long-term fear, mistrust, and guilt that are facts of our lives, it turns out that her experience of being raped and mine of being falsely accused of rape were very similar. … One important difference, though, is that when she was violated, she received a great deal of help (medical, legal, psychological). Apart from family and friends, I was on my own. My legal and psychological problems had to be dealt with by me at a time when I couldn’t eat, sleep, or think (except, of course, about killing myself).

On the law enforcement end, we heard from Steve Cullen, an Army attorney who’s worked extensively as a prosecutor. He offered this cogent—and dire—explanation of the reverberations when women cry wolf about rape:

False reports have an incredibly corrosive impact on how sexual assault accusations are policed. Police treat sexual assault accusers badly—much worse than the lawyers do—much worse than the courtroom does. Forget what you see on “SVU,” the police end absolutely discourages victims from reporting. Why is this so? Because cops suspect just about every victim is another false accuser, because either he/she has personally dealt with such a problem, or has heard stories from his or her cop buddies to this effect (and yes, in my experience female cops can be even worse offenders). This police behavior is bad, and counterproductive—but it’s real. Putting a real stigma on false reports might combat this a bit—and make it a little easier for actual victims at the police station.
False reports also have a disproportionate impact on juries. How I’d hate to be prosecuting a sexual assault right now. Often in sexual assault prosecutions there’s no debate as to the sex, but everything falls on proving lack of consent—and can only be proven through a convincing and persuasive victim’s testimony. Often, that victim’s testimony has to overcome some less than ideal circumstances—she was drinking, people observed her flirting with the perpetrator etc. That’s something she can own up to, and overcome on her own. What she can’t do on her own is extinguish jury members’ memory of reading of some spectacular false accusation case in the newspaper last month. Every false accusation that makes it into the news makes it that much harder for the real victims to receive justice.

If police and juries are influenced by false reports, especially high-profile instances of false charges, like the Duke lacrosse case or the Hofstra case, why wouldn’t those reports influence victims, too? Up to 60 percent of rapes go unreported. The Hofstra story will only make more women wonder if the police will believe them.
This is sobering. As, of course, is the whole topic. We’re left to draw the following conclusion: False allegations of rape aren’t rampant. But they don’t have to be to cause terrible trouble. This is a problem that a men’s rights movement shouldn’t trump up. And also one that feminists can’t dismiss.

Read Full Post »

I recently read an article at The Auburn Plainsman by Helen Northcutt ( Fascinating name ) about how Feminism has interfered with classical southern chivalry. Personally, I think today chivalry is both expected but also frowned upon. excerpt:

Chivalry, a long time Southern tradition, has been defined as qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor and gallantry toward women.

For as long as I can remember, it has always been correct for men to open the door, pick up the tab and mow the lawn.

Even though the feminist movement brought the right to vote and the beginning of equal pay for women, our demands for independence have been shadowed by the fact that we still expect special treatment.

The interpretation of women’s rights has been skewed.

Should we consider our rights and the way we clarify them to be all or nothing? Can we have our cake and it eat, too?

No, Mrs. Northcutter, you may not have your cake and eat it too. For those of you who can’t read in-between the lines she is saying that she wants to act like a butch woman marine and still be treated like a lady. I think not. As I wrote I nodded twice, to reaffirm myself that I am thinking from both sides of my brain.

Yet the misandry continues:

It seems like we are reaping all the benefits, without acknowledging the ideals that significant women of the past like Abigail Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Kate Chopin and many others have labored for.

Not only do we seem confused about how to incorporate these ideals into our lifestyle, but we are confusing the men as well.

They don’t seem to know whether to offer to pay for our dinner or risk insulting us because we think we are independent enough to pay our own way. Don’t get me wrong, having meals paid for and my groceries carried will be sorely missed.

“but we are confusing the men as well.” Confusing the men is a great understatement.

There are very few gentlemen on this planet who can calmly exist while boasting not having gotten the memo on feminism.( Roissy and and General Petraeus are the only ones I know of currently. )

But the rest of the Alpha’s who do not posses super alpha characteristics and everyone lower on the food chain, received and fully understood the memo of feminism. The ‘memo’ can best be described by an argument one of my Lieutenant’s had with his WM girlfriend

Either you get your ass on the bottom or I wont do it anymore

It’s as simple as that. In the face of such debauchery ( that is what feminism is right ), why would men bother to immolate anything remotely like chivalry when a foot up the ass is the likely result.

Im not saying that men dont want to be ‘chivalrous’ to women, but its a question not only does your cunt WM of a girlfriend even what to pampered and protected but does she deserve it.

It’s not like old days in the 80s 50s when chivalry would make things like picking up the bill at dinner and especially standing up for a woman would be common place. If you are caught doing anything like nowadays its either a boot up the ass from her or somebody she knows.( I will touch on that more  in further posts )

An example of the latter would be the whole Kanye West/Taylor Swift thing. Had a person with male genitalia went on stage and stood up for her, they surely would have been scolded by cunt WM actress of hollywood. If not them than it would be the feminist organizations themselves.

So in a way, Ms. Northcutter is right, we will all miss those days in 80s 50s long before male/female relations became a subject of national debate.

And there you have it. The first real post, this blog wont really focus on things like feminism but like the name says “brain food”.

Read Full Post »