A new milestone in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) has been reached, the launch of a new magazine entitled MRm!
This edition was produced by Factory (Editor and Creative Director), with contributing writers Amfortas, Fidelbogen, Paul Elam, and Angry Harry. Great job, guys! Give it a look-over, and feel free to send them your feedback.
Sometimes life gets in the way of things. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!
Anyhow, it has been brought to my attention recently that a few good men have taken on the arduous task of producing podcasts and videos from the male prospective... if you will.
Sure, one could say that the ever-growing amount of MRA/FRA information on the web claiming the male prospective is bordering saturation, but you would be wrong. With the lame-stream-medias inability to speak candidly (as in tell the truth – and tell all of it) about the gender wars, feminism, and men in general, the internet has become a sort of men’s’ media of choice.
What one should say though is that within that ever-growing amount of information, quality as well as sound information is difficult to find, THAT! Would be a correct statement.
So when I do in fact find a quality site, blog, Vlog, or anything else offered from the litany of offerings, I take note. In some cases, I broadcast it to inform others of its sheer quality and sound offerings.
This is one such case.
Of course I speak, admirably I might add, of Paul Elam, Amfortas, and Christian J.
These three gents have taken a significant amount of time to address some of the issues present day man (as in males) must endure… Not by choice I might add… but endure non-the-less.
From the disintegration of the family unit to the bastion of woman-feel-good-isms known as modern advertising… from feminism and its effects on women to the feminist golden earring, the nonexistent pay gap, these individuals take ‘em on. And do it quite well at that!
The following is a listing of their works thus far to date. Each podcast or video contains a small synopsis to inform the listener/viewer of the topic-de-jour. For the podcasts, just click on the name and listen away!
Listen, absorb, and learn my friends. For these are perfect examples as to what we as a group can do with a little ingenuity and allot of drive!
By the way, does anyone else thing Amfortas sounds a little like Sean Connery? Sure, I know Connery is Scottish and Amfortas is Australian… But they are both Knights, right?
…bad American.. Bad, bad American.
The first two-part podcast is called Stolen Generation.
Stolen Generation Pt.1. A professional analysis of the Family Court’s ‘Bible’ that justifies the ‘ least detrimental alternatives’ to the traditional family. “We have a generation of fathers who are shell-shocked, heartbroken”. It was Adolph Hitler who first said that people will take any reduction to their freedom if you tell them it is in the best interests of the children. Could we not have a non-detrimental alternative, Amfortas asks.
Stolen Generation Pt.2. The Family Court brings about the detrimental conditions that lead to a delinquent culture of fatherlessness in children. The ‘most deserving parent’ is chosen on genitalia. Professionals make judgments that cause parental alienation syndrome. A juggernaut is driven over Magna Carta. An equal society is replaced by a superior class of people.
Next we have a two-part series on the negative portrayal of men in media - television - and advertising, called Give a Dog a Bad Name.
Give a Dog a Bad Name. Pt.1. The mass media is anti-male by commercial design. Comprehensive study data shows the depth of disrespect for men. Even ‘Old-school’ feminists are appalled at the damage being done to men. The media is ‘Wrong, both factually and morally”, says MRA Amfortas. Government pays for an agitprop war on men’s reputation to frighten women. At what cost?
Give a dog a Bad Name. Pt.2. Women have unconsciously adopted a habit of disrespecting men. “Men are feeling profoundly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted” and are withdrawing their support and protection of women. Society and women in particular, are losing a valuable resource needed for its healthy continuance. The Love of men. Is this what women want?
In the next two-part podcast, named Sacred Cows in the China Shop, the topic of discussion is the legitimacy of Women’s Studies in academia.
Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.1. A female economist takes on a leading Feminist in a debate. Women’s Studies Depts’ have no legitimacy and should be closed. They are academically bogus and “Ideologically biased”. A men’s Studies Dept could be better trusted to seek truth and answers to urgent social questions. Women dominate Universities and are driven by bias.
Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.2. A ‘Life studies dept’ would serve society better than a ‘woman’s studies Dept. “50 million unborn babies have died for women’s rights”. Enough is enough. University cobbled Feminists ‘cherry pick’ studies and ignore contrary evidence to present false ideas to the public, corrupting their intellectual obligation and actively creating and manipulating a negative and destructive image about men.
The title says it all in this next two-part podcast, aptly named Feminism is NOT Good For women.
Feminism is NOT good for Women. Pt.1. Post WW2 Feminism adopted Marxist ‘conflict’ model, pitting a new ‘Class’ of oppressed women against an imaginary exploitative ‘patriarchy, according to Female Economist Jennifer Morse. Christian J narrates how women adopted it to assuage and project their guilt and resentment after so many male deaths in wars to defend them. Women were in work since WW1 and had parity in University education before WW2, long before the Feminist revolution of the 70s.
Feminism is NOT good for Women. Pt.2. Christian J continues to show how the destruction of marriage and Family is against women’s best interests and is leading to profound unhappiness. Women participate in the public sphere by chemically neutering themselves during the peak child-bearing years. “The infertile career woman - and her close cousin, the single mother -is not exactly by choice, but more by default. These women are extremely disappointed.”
Granted, this next three-part podcast is geared more towards our Australian brothers, I should point out that identifying the similarities with England and the United States is rather simple if not transparent.
Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.1. The ‘women’s Safety Survey’ was “uncorroborated, biased and manipulated” ‘Advocacy research’ orchestrated by the Office for the Status of Women and passed off as Bureau of Statistics report. It caused an enormous row, says MRA Amfortas. Manipulated definitions and hysterical claims copied from America made innocuous behavior criminal. DV sells commercial products to women and expropriates public funds for the fastest growing ‘Industry in Australia.
Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.2. Three other sources of ‘official’ data which are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analyzed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’.” It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.”
Deliberately Lying about DV in Australia. Pt.3. The Truth is out there – Somewhere. Christian J narrates how the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey completely contradicted the Government’s 1996 survey. He also points to the attempts by feminist bureaucrats to manipulate by having ONLY female interviewers to bias the results. Results show women twice as safe as men. The Government has thrown a blanket of silence over it. Feminists maintain an undemocratic stranglehold, expropriating public monies for their anti-male ‘Industry’.
The next podcast identifies, rightly I might add, the misandrist (read feminist) play, The Vagina Monologues. A play that injects man-hate, lesbianism, and “good rape” under the guise of empowering women and how such “empowerment” isn’t empowering for women at all.
The Degradation of Women – by feminism “In textbook leftist style, feminist supporters of the play ’Vagina Monologues’ cloak their attack on normal family values and morality under the guise of promoting awareness about violence against women. One does not have to be a prude to see a weak excuse for pornography and an anti-male agenda. But to disguise it as ‘awareness of abuse’ is an abuse of women’s minds and sensibilities.” Amfortas lauds Bridget Blanton for her stand and protests and against the glorification of lesbian rape of young girls.
Paul Elams' analysis of the so-called pay gap is narrated by Amfortas in this next piece named The Wage Spin.
The Wages of Spin Amfortas narrates the analysis of Paul Elam of the Pay Gap Myth, showing the mendacious and partial statistics promoted by politicians to anger women for political advantage. Women’s choices are intelligent and nurturing while men not only work longer hours but take the dangerous jobs that pays more. Dr Warren Farrell’s early rationales are sustained.
This next podcast is an analysis of feminism by yet another succinct and learned MRA/FRA, Fidelbogan. A must listen!
Is Feminism a Hate Movement? Amfortas narrates MRA Fidelbogan’s well established, clear and logical analysis of the links between the spectrum of disaffection feelings that women have for men and the rise and sustenance of Feminism. This spectrum is lead from the top by hateful, sociopathic women and supported by ‘rent-seeking scum’ women in growing bureaucracies, who take immoral advantage.
As the saying goes, all good things must come to an end. Well, I say "not without going out with a bang!”. The remaining two entries are what I like to call “The Next Logical Step” in the information process. Sure, podcasts are great, but once imagery is added, whoa! A whole new level! YouTube!
Everyday Family Terrorism Paul Elam, Amfortas and Christian J show and tell of the damage done within families and society by intransigent people, in this instance Women, who are prepared to destroy their own families to get their own way. Erin Pizzey documented the effects of showing the Truth about violent women, for which she received Feminist death threats. Dr Eric Berne shows several 'Games' used including the 'let’s you and him fight' game so common today where cops and courts do the dirty work that leaves children unprotected.
The Pay Gap - The Wage Of Spin Amfortas, Paul Elam and Christianj, examine the myth of the Pay Gap and show, name and shame the political women who lie to get the women's vote. Dr Warren Farrell demolished the mendacious claims but has been ignored by the media. Men do the dirty, dangerous work which pays well while women exercise choices that are more nurturing and 'safe'. The glass ceiling does not exist but the glass cellar does. Excellent video production by Paul Elam.
Until we meet again my brothers, keep on doing what you're doing!
Bare with me folks. This gets lengthy, but I will promise you, it is well worth the trip. Well, for some of you anyhow…
Well now, I am not one to point fingers at those that expect everyone else to follow a rigid set of rules, designed by them of course, but practice another…
Aww, who the hell am I kidding. I love pointing it out! Case in point. As the Gonzman would say, those hippy chicks at feministing… or in this case specifically, one Jessica Valenti, is at it again.
This time its sexist adverts depicting women in demeaning ways like…. Gawd! Doing… Laundry! Oh, did I mention that it was a retro-commercial? You know back in the day when a woman was in the home and a man was out in the fields/factory/office? Ah, no matter. Here is the ad first, then her comments:
Jessica states; "Clorox does end up unintentionally showing how women have been doing household grunt work for generations. The worst line in the commercial says that 'even a man or two' has done the laundry. As if all the women watching are supposed to have some little laugh to ourselves about the inequitable division of labor. 'I do shit work for free, tee hee!'"
“Unintentionally”? I think not. I am sure that the advertisers knew exactly what they were implying. The poor woman/evil lazy man theme is living strong and well in advertising and marketing la-la-land… trust me.
As a matter of fact, what’s this so called, “Shit work”? Seems to me that if clothes require washing someone needs to do them. Back when women ‘ran the house’ it was the woman’s job. Oh boo hoo. Furthermore just where in the hell does she get this “free” shit from? If she is “running the house” and he is FINANCING the household with his labor, then it is what we in the real world like to call, a partnership. His supporting of her, as in a roof over her head, food on the table, and the oh-so-wonderful MALE invention called a washing machine, are all considered as ‘payment’ for her SHARE of the workload.
Even by today’s standards, if he is working 60 hours and she is working 20 or even 40, just who has the time to be doing said washings? Certainly the person that has more time to burn. If that is the woman, which it is most of the time, Ooo-la-la! Logic!
Back when my children were young, their mother worked. I did also, but from the home. I have always had the comfort of working from the home. Now mind you, I worked just as many hours as she did, and sometimes even more. But you know what? I was here. It just made sense for ME to throw a load or two in during the day… to have dinner on the table, to take care of the soccer practices, recitals, and doctors’ appointments. I was the one that had the luxury of flexibility in my work. You know that thing that many employers afford to most women with children, but not to very many men? Yea, that flexibility. So I guess I am the “once in a while a man” they reference in the commercial eh Jessica?
Now lest I get on a tangent, not uncommon for me, this article is not about the commercials specifically. It is about the hypocrisy of a self proclaimed ‘predominant’ feminist blogger(s). But to do that I have to show where the hypocrisy begins; let’s continue shall we? In another similar entry (aren’t they all?), Jessica goes gaga over yet another advert. This time it is Tom Ford’s perfume for men ad. Here is the advertisement as well as her post on the advertisement:
Tom Ford wants everyone to know about his big, thick, hard...perfume bottle" (Jessica Valenti)
Jessica says, “Just in case you didn't get the oh-so-subtle hint the first time around, Tom Ford wants to make sure that you know he has the most cock-like cologne around.”
Admittedly, I kind of agree with ole Jessie as far as the “WTF” factor. I just don’t get the ad. Why is it necessary to put his bottle on the crotch of a woman’s obviously shaven beaver? I really don’t get it. BUT! ….. BUT! All things being equal, advertisers do things like this for shock value - amongst other things. The point is to get you to remember. And it does, does it not? Think of Tag spray for men for starters. Or better yet, have a gander at this!
FORD’S COMMENTS: "It was meant to be a play on the new [fragrance] campaign," Ford says—ads are running in magazines on newsstands now that show a bottle of his juice strategically placed in front of a woman's crotch, barely obscuring the holiest of holies. "But there's a double standard with featuring female nudity and featuring male nudity," Ford adds. "When people say to me, 'Well, you objectify women,' [I say] I'm an equal opportunity objectifier. We had a lot of magazines reject the female version [of the campaign], so the male version is going to get rejected even more."
Interesting how THAT little tidbit (pardon…) of information/imagery never entered her nice little buttoned-up ideology, eh?
As for her reference to an “oh-so-subtle hint the first time around”, she is referring to an initial post on her site pertaining to an advertisement similar in nature, below:
And if that isn’t enough to show her disdain for the evils that are male, have a look at this short post:
“Oh. My. God.”
“This may be one of the most heinous (and most ridiculous) displays of dismembered women's body parts I've ever seen. The question is, is it more disturbing to dismember with functionality like a sink, or just straight up for display?“
“The fact that this product in particular is being used as a substitute for a dead animal makes it a wee more heinous for me, but it's a toss-up."
Hmmmm… “Dismembered”? And what my dear would you call a ‘dildo’? You know, those “personal care items” you so pleasingly and enthusiastically promote?
To whit;
“In a campaign to expand the range of their products, Amazon.com has recently started selling sex toys. Awesome.
It’s actually a shitload (around 37,000) of sex products, ranging from condoms and lubricants to dildos and vibrators, located in the Health and Personal Care section. Condoms and lubes have been the top sellers of the products, reaching the top 100 best sellers on the site. So kudos to Amazon for expanding the personal care of their customers! Click hereto check out the products o’ pleasure. After all, who can resist when the vibrators are decorated with daisies.”
Oh, I forgot. That’s differennntttttttttttt……
Anyhow. Moving on…
Sexist? Sure…I guess you could say that. Poor taste? Most certainly. stupid? Indeed. I also find the singing fish of similar form to be stupid as well. “Heinous”? WOW! I donno. Maybe, but not without admitting that many, many advertisements use men in similar manor if not worse. For instance:
The All Men Are Bastards Knife Blocks
The advert (left) claims, “If you've got some aggression to get out and need a place to store your kitchen knives, this is the product for you. It comes with five stainless steel knives--a paring knife, bread knife, carving knife, and large and small chopping knives. The blades are protected in the rear by a clear plastic sleeve.”
Or how about this image of a TV advert:
Trojans ad tells men (and women) that you (men) are pigs unless you use their product…so to speak. Funny how a product that is *supposed* to be for men or at least instill ‘sexual responsibility’ in men demeans them by calling them pigs if they don’t. BUT HEYYYYYYYY! Suck it up! Take it like a man! You know the drill. Shrill and shame…. Shrill and shame.
And not to be outdone by one-offs (or even two-offs) here is yet another one….
Oh the hilarity! Isn’t that just a hoot? Of course ole Jessie and her cohorts have no issue with this bit of ‘humor’. Narre a peep. After all, “It’s just a joke!” Right?
Now, least I be accused of being one-sided…Here is the ‘female version’ of above said pen holder…
But that is where the similarities end…. Ole’ Jesse is upset about the FEMALE VERSION, but says nothing about the male version. Stating;
“Apparently there's more than one woman-hating pencil product out there. First there was the headless doggie-style sharpener, and now Shakes shows us this: Lusty Linda the pen holder.”
You'll note from the packaging that Lusty Linda can utter "8 lusty sayings," which fall into one of two categories”, "good mood" or "bad mood," controlled by the click of a switch. Says one site (screen cap) that sells Lusty Linda, "too bad all women did not have such a switch." Ho ho ho!
Her "bad mood" sayings include "Ow," "Help, Help!" and "Get out you, you dirty old man." You know, because rape is hilarious. “
Indeed Jesse. Rape is hilarious…But only when it’s a man that is… Or should it just be ignored, like you did/do?
Furthermore, one could say that the male version wasn’t present when she did her ‘article’ about the evil, vile, and misogynistic female version. One would be wrong. You see, they ARE BOTH on the same page of the seller that she got her information and image from! Not only that, the male version IS FIRST ON THE PAGE! So, we can surmise that she did indeed see the male version, but chose, in true feminist fashion, to ignore it. Also note that the URL is: http://www.prankplace.com/penman.htm, whereas the name of the page is…PENMAN…
ahem… But I digress... Yet again.
And to add more hypocrisy to her never-ending level of ridiculousness, she calls out Glenn Sacks on his article on such objects, stating;
“Recently "men's rights activists" scoffed at the idea that we were offended by the pencil sharpener, which blogger Glenn Sacks wrote "depicts a conventional, common sex act which women enjoy." (What woman enjoys fucking without her head, I don't know.) I wonder if they'll find more excuses as to how "Help!" and "Ow!" are actually cries of unabashed pleasure.”
Hmmm, how blind can she be? The male version ALSO says similar things when the pen is inserted into his ass. Well, almost. There are no ‘approving indicators’ or ‘good mood’ categories. Only cries of pain…humorous as they are! Of course, one of her cohorts just has to add her supporting diatribe. You know, to hit the point home;
“Cara puts it well: This promotes rape. If you buy one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you laugh at one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you don’t laugh but still think that it’s a harmless joke, you are promoting rape. If one of your friends has one, or thinks it’s funny, and you don’t say anything about it, you are promoting rape. (Note: Bold hers)
How many more times do we have to say it? Rape is not funny.”
How exactly did we get from a tasteless and admittedly stupid pen holder to promoting rape? Only in a feminist mind I guess. But wait! Isn’t the male version promoting rape as well?
Of course not! That’s different! It’s funny! Can’t you take a joke? Gesh TMOTS! Get with the program! When it is perceived as derogatory towards women, it is derogatory towards women, period. When it is perceived as derogatory towards men… we men need to get a sense of humor.
Uhuh, we have heard it all.
Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.
Frankly, using sex to sell is a tried (or is that tired?) and true method of advertisers. Using violence and insults is not…. Well, that is unless the recipient of the violence is male that is. America’s Funniest Home Videos anyone? You cannot watch that show without seeing no less than two males getting it in the nads. Funny effin shit eh?
Now, I have just spent a significant amount of your time showing how Jessica Valenti; the feminist, has a real issue with sexism. Logically, you would guess that the crux of the issue is actually the objectification of women as sex toys, sexual play things, Using their bodies to sell, degrading them, etc…etc… ad nausea.
Please allow me to submit Exhibit A. This is Jessica at a gathering with other ‘like-minded’ individuals. Or so……she would have you believe….
Notice anything interesting about the image? Here, let me help you less piggy type readers of mine, or the blatantly stupid folks; her gal-pal is grabbing her breast. Now, from her own admission, she is heterosexual. So, the begging question is, WTF?
This is what ‘respectable professional feminist type women’ acts like? Better yet, at a quasi-public gathering? Isn’t this ‘sexual harassment”? Isn’t this an example of disgusting sexual behavior? Sexual harassment?
Would she smile so matter-of-factly if it were a male doing the titillating (pardon…)? Is this just one of those ‘girl thangs’? If so, then how can you be against evil vile men using women as sexual toys, sexual harassment, and allow this to happen to yourself… let alone be photographed? Furthermore, allow it to be published publically on the internet?
Oh, I answered my own question… Silly me. It is only when MEN do it or even thinks about it… THEN! It’s actually bad….
Oh! Wait! I got it! Did she ply you with alcohol? That’s it isn’t it? RAPIST!
Oh wait, silly me, yet again. If that is rape, then it must be a ‘good rape’.
Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.
And before any of you claim that I am just a MANster of photo-chopping. This is a real photo. Furthermore, don’t even go to the “well she was drunk and it was this one time….at band camp” crap.
For if it were, just once…at band camp, Exhibit B would not exist right? To whit:
Well, well well… Another titty grab! At a wedding yet! Not sure if it is the bride doing the grabbing, but WTF? Sure looks like it eh? Oh.. And by the way, should she be wearing white? I doubt it. Now that I think of it, where is the man-boy? How does he feel about his future wife acting like this at their wedding? Oh, I forgot (yet again). The wedding is HER day…Only about HER… Only her dreams, desires, and wants… not him. What he thinks or looks like with this sort of sexist activity is of no consequence… She is empowered! She is “OK with her sexuality!” And he damn well better be too! Or else!
SHIT! Wait a minute! A feminist? At a wedding? The imperial venue of the Patriarchy? The patriarchy’s tool of female oppression!? NO! It cannot be! Something is amiss!
In the ever popular style of Rod Serling; “Imagine if you will.. A man, about to be wed, grabs one of his patron pals in the jewels for a photo-op. The Wife to be…. Happy as a lark, giggling like a child with these interesting and empowering images burned into her and her parents’ heads…”
Yea… rightttttttttttt!
Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.
But wait! There’s more! Have a gander at this next action-packed image!
Huh!? Isn’t that …uhm….shit! That’s her sister, Vanessa! WOW! Mom and Dad must be oh-so-proud! So not only does ole Jessie have different male/female standards for public displays of ‘affection’, she also apparently thinks that lesbian incest is fine too! As does Vanessa as well I guess.
Every once in a while, I come across a ‘site’ that just screams “ARE YOU EFFING SERIOUS?”
Below is a perfect example of what a 'modern' and 'independant' woman sees her husband as.... a mule. And what's her job? Guess...
It's a good thing she has time to follow her 'new passion' as well, feminism...
Oh, and I refuse to give a link to this pathetic site. Suffice it to say that it is a site dedicated to, now get this.... mommies! And this was listed under the heading of “The Equality Challenge”. Yea, okayyyyy…
Her post is in italics, and my responses are not... ___________________________________________________________ On November 18th, 2007 Barbara (not verified) said:
“Hi everyone! I just have to make mention a couple of things. First is the fact that I am in my mid thirties and have found a new passion (other than my wonderful husband and just as wonderful four children). My new passion is the subject of feminism. From it's very beginning to the current issues has held my fascination for the last few months or so. This is the reason I have come across this wonderful forum.”
Mid thirties, four children….. wow! Must be chaos in your house! Especially when you add feminism to the mix.
“Second, I too have a fantastic 'partnership' for a marriage. My husband works fulltime in an extremely emotionally, physically, and psychologically difficult job, goes to school to complete his second degree, and is also "on call" 24-7.”
Well, at least she can admit that it isn’t really a partnership, albeit subconciously. Note the use of the ticks around the word ‘partnership’.
So he works his ass off, goes to school, and is on call 24/7, and is supportive of you. And what exactly do you do to support him?
“With all this being said, he is the most supportive man I have ever been lucky enough to have met. He went from a single man to marrying me- a single mom of two with an abusive ex-husband. (whom is still extremely mentally and psychologically abusive) Duane (my wonderful husband) has taken the challenge of parenthood to the absolute extreme.”
Oh, that’s right, you gave him a ready made family and just for good measure, you added a couple more. What a woman.
And of course, just to add a little icing to the top of the cake, the tried and true “I have an abusive ex….blah blah”…. Got it. Thanks. And what exactly does that have to do with the price of freaking tea in China?
“Not only is he an active parent of my first two children, but in 2004, we were blessed with a set of girl/boy twins. My wonderful husband was never asked to change diapers because he was always headed that way before I got a chance to. He changed diapers, did dishes, had "binky patrol", got up almost every single night each and every time it was feeding time, etc., etc., etc. He did this even when he went back to work after taking a six-week FMLA.”
Well, isn’t that special. He got to take ‘family leave’ (without pay I am sure) so that you could… uhm… what….. sit on your fat ass and watch him do everything? How very…. Uhm… 21st century woman and supportive of you. Were you sick? Is there a reason for you not to do anything and he does everything (by her own admission)?
So he is an “active parent”. Gesh, then what does that make you? I would really hate to see what an “inactive parent” looks like. Oh wait….
“Now fast forward three + years and he continues to take on any chore that is necessary to maintain our household. This includes, but is not lmited to, dishes, cleaning bathrooms, planning AND cooking meals, vacuuming, windows, grocery shopping, potty-training assistance, laundry, etc. The list goes on. The really neat thing about this - I have never had to ask him to do these things. He does these things on his own!!! How cool is that? Oh, I must also mention that I am a stay-at-home-mom.”
Hmmm… The kids appear to be of school age now… At least two are and the other two are most likely in kindergarden. What is it exactly do you do all day again? Oh that’s right, you’re a stay-at-home-mom! That’s what! Oh wait! “potty Training assistance” so that must mean you at least do part of that…..
WHEW! Take a break! Must be very tiring! Would you like some bonbons with your oprah Madam? I am sure if you call your man-slave at work, he can stop by the store and get you another box!
Curious though, does he ever ask you to do anything? Do you ever ‘just do it’ because it needs to be done so that after a nice easy day at work he doesn’t have to come home and do it? Nawwww that would never enter into your selfish little mind now would it. Why would you? You can just sit around feeling lucky and ‘allow’ him to do it all and you so that you can follow your new passion, feminism! You go Grrrlll!
“So for all those who have lost hope as I had once done, every now and again there is a man (many more perhaps) that actually know how difficult running a household fulltime is. He walks in the door, takes off his uniform, rolls up his sleeves, and gets busy. This absolutely includes the fun "hi-yaaa!!!" (say it like you are doing a karate-chop). There is even bathtimes, story-times, and snuggles to be had!”
Lost hope in what? Having a personal slave that not only does everything traditionally his, but all of your traditional stuff as well? WHOOT! Man! What a lucky son-of-a-bitch he is! Or should I say husband-of-a-bitch….Seems more apropoe. All is well though. You found your gold ring! You can have time for your new passion and just wait a few years for him to croak! Then, it’ll all be yours!!!!!!!
“Knows how difficult running a household fulltime is”.
Really? How the hell would you know? You, by your own admission, haven’t a clue as to what it takes. Oh, wait, I take that back. You do know what needs to be done, you just don’t do any of it. You just gloat on a femikook site about ‘how lucky you are’.
Oh, you are lucky all right. No man in his right fucking mind would put up with this shit. You are a stay-at-home-mom but you don’t do any 'mom' stuff! Well, except the stay at home part that is. Personally, the word leach comes to mind.
“I still am very interested in becoming active in the feminism works of current events. Please give me some ideas that I can do to begin this challenge.”
Well for starters, how about getting your ass out of the house and work, you lazy bitch. Secondly, according to feminism, equality and sharing the workload is the order of the day. So you best be getting your ass off the couch and start doing some chores around the house. Maybe a nice dinner from the microwave once a month for starters. Wouldn’t want you to get overwhelmed now would we… Maybe you should go on holiday or something… you know, some ‘me time’. You sure could use it.
“I thank you all for your time.”
No problem. Not like you have any time to spare, so what else is a slav….err man who has plenty to spare to do?
“Sincerely, Barbara”
Oh, I don’t doubt that you have some redeaming qualities, I am just not sure what they are. I am sure though, that sincerity isn’t one of them you pathetic meatbag!
SOOOOOoooooo… Let's recap, shall we?
He works 6 days a week in a physically, emotionally, and psychologically challenging job.
He is ALSO attending college to get his SECOND degree.
He comes home and immediately "rolls up his sleeves and gets to work" by cooking dinner, doing baths, cleaning, laundry, etc etc.... all the while continuing to do traditional male things like house/yard/car maintenance stuff.
And what does she do? Well, she is a 'stay-at-home-mom'. Uhuh. Good to see that she understands what a stay-at-home-PARENT really does…
In closing, I am not condemning all stay-at-home-moms. It’s just that this woman is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that they (some) are so full of shit. In her warped little mind, this is what a husband ‘helping out’ is all about. Well, I don’t consider this a partnership at all. This man is on a one way trip to his grave.
If a woman wants the traditional role (staying at home mommy) then she should be doing the traditional STAY AT HOME stuff! Pretty simple actually. When I was a WORK-at-home-dad, I did most of the traditional mom stuff as well as my own dad stuff. Why? It made sense, I was home! She was out working her ass off, keeping us covered medically! It was the right thing to do! I had the flexability, and the time, I used it wisely. Something that the modern day stay-at-home-moms seem to have conveniently forgotten about.
You know, every time I see a pink ribbon campaign I get pissed off. Oh sure, some would say; “if you knew someone that survived or even died from breast cancer, you’d think differently.” Well, I have, I do, and I still feel the same thank you very much.
Recently, I was ‘discussing’ yet again, the disparity in research, care, and funding for men’s health issues. And of course, the subject of breast cancer being the #2 killer of all female creatures on the planet, whereas #1 being the patriarchy itself…
Tired of the bullshit ‘facts’ thrown around, I decided to waste some of my time researching the actual FACTS from two major sources, that of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the NCI (National Cancer Institute).
Oh sure, I already knew that there was a significant disparity, but I wanted ALL THE FACTS. The how many’s and how muches, so to speak.
As with any “official statistical gathering”, there is always missing years. Why? I haven’t a clue. We are in 2008, yet there is very little concrete numbers more current than 2006/07.
Anyhow, without further ado, here is what I have found. By the way, I took the time to find this information, if you want to argue it, feel free, but look it up yourself. I aint your research bitch.
ACTUAL AND REAL NUMBERS on the disparity in research, education and treatment of two prevalent gender specific cancers; Prostate Cancer and (Female) Breast Cancer specifically.
Information from the 2006 NCI (National Cancer Institute) Fact Book:
Total budgeted dollars spent from 2002 - 2006 overall:
Male – 1.4 Billion Female – 2.78 Billion - Almost twice the amount.
**Research dollars spent in 2006 alone on two gender specific cancers:
Male Prostate Cancer – 293.2 Million Female (only) Breast Cancer – 584.7 Million - Again, almost twice the amount.
Estimated Incident rates of cancers for all races for 2007:
Male – 766,860 Female – 678,060 - Over 100,000 more cases in males versus females estimated
FYI: that from 2000 to 2004: Incident rate was 2.3M/1.7M Male/female – a difference of 600K more men.
Estimated Mortality Rate for all races 2007:
Male – 289,550 Female – 270,100 - Over 10,000 more male deaths estimated
FYI: that from 2000 to 2004: Mortality rate was 1.2M/807K Male/ female – a difference of about 400K more men.
** In most of their data sheets, 2006 was the latest numbers.
And for those that do not like to read, here is a cute little graph from the CDC showing the top 10 cancers - incident rate in 2004 for male/female (all races):
And here is the top 10 cancer mortality rate in 2004 for male/female (all races):
Please note the CDC’s reason for 2004 being the latest information:
“Previous versions of United States Cancer Statistics have been updated with 1999–2004 cancer cases as reported to CDC as of January 2007, and as reported to NCI as of November 2006, and made available through the SEER Program public use file.”
Notice that although not the #1 killer, prostate still KILLS MORE MEN OVER ALL RACES than breast cancer kills women... yet where is the research? Where is the $$? Where are the walkathons, the cans in the 7-11, the ribbons, and the stamps?! Where? Shit, even testicular cancer gets more media attention... and that is only because recently, a few public figures (Lance Armstrong for example) have MADE IT A MEDIA ISSUE. And that isn’t even in the top 10 cancers with just over 7 thousand new cases and 380 deaths in 2007.
Cute little tid-bits of info:
In 2006 alone, our government “granted” (gave) foreign countries: 28.16 Million dollars for cancer research. No stipulations or explanations as to where it actually went. Nice to know we have that sort of cash to just give away for…well… who knows?
In 2005, an additional $2.9 million was received by the NCI from the US Postal Service’s sale of the Breast Cancer Stamp. This is not calculated in the total dollar amount of breast cancer monies above.
In 2006, an additional $6.9 million was received by the NCI from the US Postal Service’s sale of the Breast Cancer Stamp. This is not calculated in the total dollar amount of breast cancer monies above.
So let us summarize:
Although the prostate is the #1 cancer site, we as a country spend almost double the amount of money on research, care, education and program moneys (USPS Stamps) on breast cancer (specifically women’s breast cancer – yes girls and boys, men can and do get it too).
Although prostate cancer is the #2 overall cancer killer of humans (sorry girls you are not the primary victims this time), breast cancer gets more media attention, funding, donations, educational programs, and of course donations.
Although prostate cancer doesn't differentiate between common men and political leaders, there have been recent politicians that have had a battle with prostate cancer... Yet, they continue to perpetuate this financial discrimination, I call it 'gray discrimination', upon all men. why?
Tell me again why we need a Federally Funded Women’s Health Commission as well as an International Women’s Health Commission (read – our tax dollars) whereas none exists for men?
FOR the people, OF the people, and BY the people.. eh?
I am writing to you in the hopes that you will revisit your recent decision to deny parole for William J. Hetherington. Also, I apologize if I may in advance for my rather lengthy letter.
William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for over 20 years for the alleged crime of ‘spousal rape’. Coincidently, in 1986, he became the first man “convicted” under this new law. A law that was created, in my opinion, for no other reason than to vilify men in a court of law with no hope of fair and equal treatment under said laws. But that is not really at issue here. And even now, 20 years later, he is still incarcerated well beyond that of a ‘normal’ rapist all based upon the “he said – she said” model that has been proven time and time again to be the case when a divorce is in process.
In reviewing the parole hearing notes, your notes, it is clearly evident that William does not accept guilt for a crime that he believes he did not commit. Furthermore, it is quite clear that based upon your own notations, he does not propose a threat upon society, has bettered himself in many ways, has medical issues that require a specialty physician, and has been virtually a model prisoner. Under normal circumstances, these points alone would garner a pedophile or dare I say murderer, a chance to continue on with his life outside of a cell…
Yet you continue to deny this man parole. The question remains, why? For what reason are you denying this man his right to reasonable due process? Incarceration is supposedly used for two reasons, punishment and rehabilitation. Reverting back to your notations once again, it is apparent that the sole reason is that the "prisoner denies the offense".
Rehabilitation can only beget in the event of acceptance of guilt, for which William categorically denies to this day, over 20 years later. Since when is release from incarceration upon completing the ‘required’ amount of time dependent upon ones admission of guilt?
Punishment on the other hand should fit the crime should it not? If not, it should at least fit the guidelines set forth by the law in and of itself, should it not? The state of Michigan stipulates that the sentence for ‘spousal rape” is to be set at 1 to 10 years incarceration. Yet, without showing just cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years which is more than twice that of the average convicted rapist in Michigan.
As for the case itself, there are so many discrepancies; it boggles the mind when attempting to understand how this man was found guilty. I would dare to imply that it is that of made-for-TV movie on Lifetime. I would like to highlight a few indicators that I believe had merit alone to question the validity of this case and apparent gross miscarriage of justice. To whit;
Hetherington, a Vietnam Veteran, was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.
Linda Hetherington is not and has never been a battered wife. She herself, under oath, testified that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage.
Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. As previously stated, this case was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he claims that they had consensual sex, she claims it was rape. The presiding judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
For which if cross examination had been allowed, the fact that Linda had on two other separate occasions, made claims of rape against William only to rescind these claims later. Under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “a person has a right to face their accuser”. If one cannot question the validity and/or the possibility of serial false accusations, how is one to get a just and fair trial? Rhetorical, of course.
No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Only her words were enough for this man to be found guilty of the heinous crime of rape.
The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... His histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
Evidential photographs of the alleged victim were never disclosed to the defense and were incorrectly handled. Specifically, ten years after conviction, Jeff Feldman, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of the five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage.
The rape case was coincidentally prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case. This action alone put William in the middle of a ‘rock and a hard place’. Since the divorce court had frozen all his (their) assets, he had no money to hire a lawyer or to even make bond. Yet, because of his listed assets, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent (or poor enough) and refused to provide him with a court appointed lawyer.
A four page report submitted with a sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 by an acclaimed forensics photographer. John Valor, utilizing new and modern techniques, stated that the pictures of Linda showed no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, absolute. Furthermore, he states that marks would have been identifiable and clearly visible if there had been any at all.
This brings to the forefront an additional discrepancy that, under the law, if a witness (in this case a government witness) gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but William Hetherington has yet to receive one. In the least, the witness should be charged with perjury.
The State of Michigan’s sentencing guideline for this new offense at the time was 1 to 10 years yet, without cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years.
At sentencing, the prosecutor, one Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and maliciously accused William of beating Linda with no evidence to support his wildly false accusation. Coincidently yet again, Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists and gender-baiters.
Additionally, this particular point has all the components and indicators of William being ‘Nifonged’. A reference to the railroading of three innocent boys at Duke University by a rogue DA and a stripper and drug addict; Ms. Chrystal Gail Mangum.
For more than 12 years, the court has refused to provide William with court transcripts. Of course, without funds, he was unable to purchase one. Thus, he was effectively denied his right of appeal, an inalienable right supposedly granted to all accused. And to this day, no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.
No physical evidence, a Judges gross misconduct and political motivations, no legal representation, denied due process, denial of appeal, false testimonies, and blatant lies have kept this man in prison for over 20 years. All the while his estranged wife Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets. This achingly rings true to many men that find themselves in a bitter divorce and custody battle today.
For example, a few years later, a letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had babysitter for Linda. Suchy stated that Linda told her she made up the whole story about rape because she was pregnant from her boyfriend. And of course in true ‘victim speak’, she claimed that her boyfriend had pushed her to press rape charges, saying that “he wouldn't take care of the baby” if she didn’t "get rid of Hetherington."
Or course, Suchy's letter is justifiably considered hearsay, but it has the ring of truth considering the atmosphere created by the Domestic Violence and Divorce Industries. Yes, they are indeed part of an industry… A billion dollar industry.
It is my opinion that a good man's life has been sacrificed for no other reason but to show the women of Michigan that the new law is “tough on rape and DV”, nothing more. It mattered not if he was innocent or guilty. It matters not that his punishment has already exceeded that of a ‘real rapist’, threefold. The system must protect its own. And most certainly it must never-ever-ever admit its errors, let alone correct them.
Three innocent children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists and their lackeys who have lobbied for such slight-of-hand laws that punish GOOD MEN for such ‘gray-area-rape’ similarly to that of a rape or murder committed by a stranger. In creating this law, GOOD MEN are denied the right to cross-examine his accuser and have solidified a system that states a woman never lies, must always be believed, contrary to evidence and similar serial accusations… And the man… well the man is always guilty, isn’t he.
Coming full circle, let me just state that regardless of his guilt or innocence, the constitutionality of his case is sorely lacking and errs on the side of false imprisonment without due process; a human rights issues if I ever saw one.
In closing, I urge you to take a serious look at William J. Hetherington’s case. More importantly, I urge you to re-evaluate your decision to deny bail yet again.
If you believe he is guilty, then he has completed his time. And if you believe that there are too many discrepancies to ignore this man’s plight, please do what is right and release him. Give him a chance to have a life; a chance to be a father, a chance for his children to know this man. At least as their father if not moreso, an innocent man.
Supplimental Information:
I again urge my readers to write to the Michigan Parole Board at the following address.
Michigan Parole Board C/o Executive Secretary PO Box 30003 Lansing, MI 48909
Letters should mention Mr. Hetherington's name and his inmate number of 186155.
Mr. Hetherington likes copies of letters sent to the parole board to be mailed to him as well. His address follows:
William J. Hetherington #186155 Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities PO Box 5000 Carson City, MI 48811-5000.
---Redefining and redirecting... A feminist Mantra
So, once again the femikooks are all in a tither over what is or is not rape. I submit to you, a new term - "gray rape". Funny how I, an MRA/FRA have never heard of this term until a feminist mentioned it....
Supposedly, "gray rape" is like not 'real' rape, but rape none-the-less. Like when a guy and a girl start going at it and then she all of a sudden decides, for whatever reason, to withdraw consent. To me, this IS a gray area. If two people are already in the throws of intercourse, as in he has penetrated her, or in the supposed case below, oral sex has begun, and she wants it to stop, and he doesn't well... by definition, it is rape. But is certainly is a little gray wouldn't you say?
Read the alleged "rape" story:
The young woman calls what happened to her something akin to “gray rape,” a term she learned from an article in Cosmopolitan written by Washington Post journalist Laura Sessions Stepp. Hunter admits she initiated the encounter. But she eventually withdrew her consent, she says. “The whole thing was very confusing to me, and I didn’t know what to do about it for such a long time,” she says.
His mattress was on the floor pushed up against a wall, she says. “I’m sitting up against the wall on his mattress, and he’s standing over me,” she continues.
“It started happening, and then he, like, twisted his fingers around my hair and started pulling it and being just kind of violent. I started choking because he was just, like, pushing my head.… I started gagging and choking, and I couldn’t really breathe.”...She says she started pushing on Shaw-Fox’s abdomen to tell him to stop. “And he was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, choke on it.’”
Now, I ain't no rocket scientist, but since when is giving a blow job called "it started to happen"? He is standing over her, she is performing oral sex on him. That much is very clear. So instead of stating that SHE was performing orally on him, the story teller (or the writer herself) chose to minimize her part in this "ordeal" by using cutsie worlds like "it started to happen"... Can't make "the victim" look like she was somehow responsible - at ANY level... right?
So if you femikooks have issues with terms like "gray rape", why is it that you have no issue with a woman sucking a cock and defining it as "it started happening"? What if HE used that term? "Your honor, I don't know what happened... I was standing over her with my cock out, and "it started happening". Uhuh... Thought so.
Getting back to the alleged "rape", he started acting like an ass by grabbing her hair & head (most women don't like that BTW pal) and shoving his penis deeper into her mouth. So far that she was having problems breathing. She got scared (understandably IMO) and tried to push him away...This is disgusting and pathetic, yes. But "rape"? Honestly, I am not sure.
Now, notice that the story doesn't go any further. Did "the deed" stop there? Did actual intercourse happen? Who knows. What we see is an example of an asshole, no doubt. But I would have a serious problem with trying this as a "rape" case. Especially if we find out that intercourse did actually happened AFTER the BJ. But I will err on the side of caution and assume that it went no further than this act.
So what do we have here then? We have an allegedly consenting adult woman blowing an allegedly adult male, he becomes crude and forceful and now he is a rapist? I think not. Again, an asshole? You betcha! But a rapist. No.
This IMO, IS an example of an asshole. And if there is such a thing as "gray rape" by definition, then this "COULD" be considered it; I am just not sure.
But let's go one step further just for the hell of it. Let's say that intercourse happened AFTER the blow job. Is this still rape? Is it a "gray rape"? Not at all in my opinion. Nothing more than a bad sexual experience... no more, no less.
Now let's look at a feminist's view on this:
"Rape can be confusing, it doesn't make it "gray." Feminists have long fought to dispel the myth that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you. In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."
Notice? Anyone? Can you see the ever so slight twists and turns? Here, let me help you...
First we have this nice little example of redirection....
"...that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you."
Notice the implication that he somehow did 'something else'. It's not just the BJ that happened according to this femikook. Or maybe it's that there IS IN FACT more to this story, but she chose to omit it... nawwwwwww... nice empowered, educated, and strong women don't do that sort of thing right?
Was she there? Does she know what this supposed "victim" consented to? I mean really! She is sucking his wee wee! Obviously she was at least consenting to that particular part of this so-called intimacy! DUH!
Follow me here....
The femi goes on to say;
"...In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker..."
First, we have the typical knee-jerk conviction. "Eventual-attacker"... WTF is that shit? It was inevitable that he was going to "rape" her? Is that what she is implying? I guess so, since he does in fact have the patriarchy patented tool that is called the penis!
Then she goes even further in her redefinition of the supposed event(s). To whit;
"...when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."
Uhm.... "He forced her"? Is she reading the same thing I am? According to the alleged victim, "it started happening". Remember? There appears to be no actual responsibility on either party according to her account...
"It started happening"... You know, like rain and snow. A force of nature 'en all.
Pathetic. Feminists always appear to be right on top of these sort of things (pardon the pun) but in reality they are only on top of it long enough to redefine and redirect responsibility.
I would gather that if women like this femikook had their way, any and all actual ejaculation would be considered rape. Pull out and spooge on her? RAPIST! Spooge into the condom when she "is not ready"? RAPIST! Oh! And if you dare to spooge IN HER MOUTH when she said that she didn't want you to... that is the new and improved UBER RAPIST!
Ever wonder why men are getting more and more tired of this sort of crap? Constantly redefining terms and words to fit their dementia...er I mean ideologies... Constantly redirecting responsibility so that it is ALWAYS the man's fault... Think about it ladies.. and I use that label lightly, one plus one actually does equal two. Not sometimes three, or in a leap year, five.....
This is a clear case (based on the small amount of information given - intentionally I am sure) of a sexual encounter with a creep. Yes, I said it. He was a creep. He was so into his own personal pleasure that for some ungodly reason, he 'forgot' that if you clog the throat of someone, they just might have a problem breathing. He was so into what he was doing that he made crude comments (at least to her) like "Yea, that's right, choke on it!". Asshole? You-betcha!
