“Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their back on womankind.” – Well I don’t see many of you picketing, protesting or speaking out against the various laws femefiends are enacting which allow for unjust persecution of men. You may not identify as feminists – but every time feminists rally it gathers huge numbers of supposedly non-feminist women all picketing and protesting.
Only 18% of the female population identifies as feminist but their actions are supported and only made possible by the overwhelming majority of women.
The Violence Against Women Act was created to deal with domestic violence against women…. in spite of the fact that men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. More over, under VAWA many states have put into place Mandatory Arrest Laws – which lead to an increase of female arrests. Feminists didn’t like that: so the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence was created. This “model” ignores all evidence of reality collected by the CDC, FBI, IPV surveys, etc. etc: Which all state unequivocally that women abuse men more often than men abuse women. Ignores all of that and proclaims domestic violence is a man beating a defenseless woman.
Now you may want to question me about that: however – lets get the answer directly from the horses mouth. The Duluth Model – Frequently Asked Questions. Scroll down to the second from the bottom “Is the Duluth Model evidence-based?”. Their answer….
“The Duluth Model approach for intervening with men who batter is the most widely-used approach in the world. It has influenced and shaped much of national and state-level policy around batterer intervention and domestic violence work. The effect of intervening with complex social problems is very difficult to evaluate. Click here to read some of the research supporting the Duluth Model.”
It is not evidence based: the research they present doesn’t even go into one critical study on gender of offenders. Their list of research articles doesn’t have a single example to show which suggests men commit domestic violence more often than women: yet the entire duluth model does absolutely nothing but pitch men as being abusers and women as being victims. It’s a piece of propaganda devoid of reality, and feminists used it to lobby for “Predominant Aggressor” policy. By using “Predominate Aggressor” policy, law enforcement could neglect to arrest women in dual arrests even if they were in fact the offender. If both parties are being violent, even if the woman is the abuser and the man the victim – Predominate Aggressor policy says (according to the Duluth model) that men are abusers and therefore the man should be the one who is arrested.
“In some cases, dual arrests may be the result of legislation, department policies, or both failing to require officers to identify the primary aggressor.In addition, when such provisions are present, police may lack the training or information needed to identify the primary aggressor when responding to a domestic violence assault. This situation may be compounded by batterers who have become increasingly adept at manipulating the criminal justice system, and may make efforts to “pre-empt” victims from notifying police in order to further control or retaliate against them.23
Current political and organizational pressure may discourage officers from arresting women as aggressors, and, unsure what to do, the officers may arrest both parties. This observation is supported by some of the existing research. A 1999 study conducted in Boulder found that male victims were three times more likely than female victims to be arrested along with the offender.24 Similarly, a study of three Massachusetts towns revealed that male victims were five times more likely than female victims to be the subjects of a dual arrest.”
VAWA in conjunction with the Duluth model are tools being used to put political pressure on police departments to arrest men for domestic violence: even when they’re the victims. Are 82% of women (all non-feminist) signing petitions to repeal The Violence Against Women Act? No. There are female men’s rights activists, and there are women in various groups which speak out against “VAWA Excesses”. I would never make the assertion that there are NOT women who fight against this kind of organized and intentional unjust persecution. They are however, the minority. Wonderful people that they are, compassionate humanitarians: they are still the minority, a very small minority. The vast overwhelming majority of women, support this kind of institutional abuse.
The National Organization for Women is the largest feminist organization in existence: they oppose shared parenting laws. Right now women get physical custody of the children over 80% of the time in divorce, as a result of “Tender Years Doctrine”, which was written by feminist Caroline Norton. Tender Years Doctrine was successfully pushed into law by suffragettes as the Custody of Infants Act 1839. which gave discretion to the judge in a child custody case and established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years. In 1873 the Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached sixteen years of age, the Custody of Infants Act 1873. When America was formed we used English common law as the basis for our legal system. Shared parenting would create legal equality in the area of child custody, removing the pro-woman-bias and splitting the ordeal 50/50. Are 82% of women (all non-feminist) trying to support Shared parenting in opposition of NOW? No.
“Yes means Yes” which began in California and has since spread to nearly every college in the country allows a woman the ability to get a man kicked out of school for rape – even if he has never SEEN her in person.
“(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.”
“A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.”
The claim itself is taken as being true: and burden of proof is then placed on -you- the defendant, to prove the claim is false.
Every college campus which has a “Yes means Yes” policy, or Affirmative consent” -always- has in it’s structure a preponderance of evidence built in. Meaning if you’re accused of rape or sexual violence or sexual assault: you are guilty until proven innocent. You may not directly confront your accuser. You have no right to legal council.
Meaning, if you so much as make a girl angry – and she gets a friend to lie for her: you could be accused of being at a party you didn’t attend, someone else saw you there, she can claim you raped her – despite never having touched her – and unless you can literally PROVE you were somewhere else doing something else – you’re still guilty: because you were assumed to be guilty. That’s preponderance of evidence: your guilt is assumed.
It’s the exact opposite of the legal system which respects civil liberties: the legal system functions off of “Presumption of Innocence”, meaning innocent until proven guilty. Preponderance of evidence: assumes guilt until proven innocent.
“Judith Grossman: A Mother, a Feminist, Aghast” wrote about the ordeal her own son went through when his ex-girlfriend decided to make unjust claims against him.
“I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.”
She describes how her son was denied every possible civil liberty that is supposed to be guaranteed to him by law, and that had she – an attorney – not been his mother: he would have been cast out of school in spite of what a flagrant abuse of institutional power the event was.
“That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.”
She ends her article with the following:
“I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.”
After all that: did she once, in her entire article state that “Yes Means Yes”, a tool being used to unjustly persecute men and deny them their rights: should be done away with? Even AFTER seeing it in action with her own eyes? No. Are 82% of women (all non-feminist) signing petitions, doing demonstrations or writing to elected officials requesting “Yes means Yes/ Affirmative consent” be amended or removed? No.
The Rolling Stones UVA Rape Story, all tolled, ended up not only NOT happening, it involved a person who not only did not go to that fraternity, did not go to that college, did not live in Virginia and in fact: did not exist at all. The woman who told the story, Jackie, made up a person who didn’t exist and used the picture of one of her class mates from grade school. In spite of this: the school inflicted punishments and harsh restrictions on ALL fraternities on campus, for a non-real-event which supposedly took place at only one frat house. Then, after it was well and truly outed that the UVA Rape story was patently false from start to finish AND ADMITTED SO: The University President refused to lift the restrictions on frat houses which were created as a result of the non-real-event.
Are 82% of women (all non-feminist) signing petitions and doing demonstrations in front of the administrations office to lift the restrictions on Frats because they’re being unjustly persecuted? No. You know what they ARE in fact signing a petition about? They’re angry they can’t go to the biggest parties…. Yep, after all the protests in front of University of Virginia frat houses and the vandalism the houses were subjected to, the attempts to get them banned, the public persecution, the unconstitutional restrictions placed on them….. Were there any women counter protesting that these innocent men were being punished without proof (before the full details of the deception were known)? No. Were any of these women signing petitions to lift the restrictions placed on the fraternities after it was known that the story was a complete farce? No.
What were they signing petitions for? To not be barred from attending the UVA fraternity parties…. It’s a guarantee some of these women – were in fact the EXACT same women, who just a few short weeks earlier were holding signs, protesting and screaming “RAPIST!!” at each and every man who walked in or out of the fraternity house doors…. Now they’re signing petitions to be permitted to attend parties there….
If I were a frat president at the University of Virginia I wouldn’t let a single solitary Female University of Virginia Classmate inside: the only women permitted in the door would be from off campus who don’t attend the school. None of those women who tried to sign the petition against the UVA Administrative decision to bar women from the party: did absolutely ANYTHING to aid the members of the fraternities on campus – who’s parties they wish to attend.
Women receive 4 times as much government funds for their health issues than men: even though men die an average of 4.5 years sooner than women.
“A SPECTACULAR gender gap has resulted in men’s health problems being allocated a quarter of the funding women’s health research gets, ranked just ahead of parasitic infections.
This is even though men die four and a half years earlier than women, and are 60 per cent more likely to die from cancer.
It is one reason there is still no reliable test to detect aggressive forms of prostate cancer, a bigger killer than breast cancer.
Men’s health ranked 36th for federal government health research funding in 2012, behind sexually transmitted infections and just ahead of parasitic infections, an exclusive analysis by News Corp Australia shows.
Since 2003 women’s health research received more than $833 million from the National Health and Medical Research Council compared to less than $200 million for men.”
And we see nearly identical Man < Woman spending on health for women’s issues in America. Are 82% of women (all non-feminist) signing petitions, doing demonstrations or writing to elected officials requesting that men be given equal health research funding – because they die on average 5 years earlier than women? No.
Are you seeing a trend? I keep asking the question, “Are 82% of women (all non-feminist)” acting in support of men against things that are unjust – and the answer is absolutely always no. The quantitative number of Women who actually DO stick up for men against the aforementioned issues, is smaller than the number of women who identify as feminist. The entirety of the rest of “womankind” – either support feminist lead actions, or are completely indifferent to men being unjustly persecuted.
18% of women self identify as feminists: LESS than 18% of women do or even publicly SAY anything against the other 18% Feminist minority, which leaves the 64% non-feminist/non-men’s rights activist majority either supporting every unjust persecution or completely indifferent to it.
“Womankind” isn’t doing anything for “mankind”, so why exactly SHOULDN’T Men turn their backs on womankind? 82% of you don’t fuckin care what happens to us, you’re not helping us, you’re not looking out for our well being, you’re not even looking out for the well being of your own male children by speaking against the sexist laws feminists are constantly trying to have passed or have already passed.
Most of you have already turned your backs on us: now that 70% of Millennial men are unmarried with no intention to get married. College men, fearful of false allegations are shying away from women entirely. We’re not (sexodus part 1) putting on your shackle, we’re not (sexodus part 2) playing in your fun house kangaroo divorce courts and we’re not giving the time of day to people who wrote us off as disposable.
Men aren’t so easily replaced when there’s fewer of them lined up huh? So now you’re trying to say “wait, no, don’t go, don’t abandon us – we’re not like the others.” Well, 82% of you have stood by, remained quiet, did nothing and said nothing while the Feminists were busy instituting gendered laws which allow any scandalous woman to ruin a man’s life at will based upon nothing but her whimsy.
If the vast over-whelming majority of YOU are going to stand by and do nothing while we’re being slandered, demonized, dehumanized, discriminated against and denied civil liberties: than the vast overwhelming majority of you deserve us to turn our backs on you. So remind me…. who’s abandoned whom in this ordeal?
One of my cohorts from the Honey Badger Brigade, a female Men’s Rights Activist – one of the 18% of women who *actually* cares about men: and one of the founding members of the Honey Badger Radio Show, Hannah Wallen, said it with incredible clarity in her article “You asked for it, ladies.”
“No, this isn’t a post about rape. In fact, it’s about the opposite. It’s about walking away, maybe running away. Specifically, it’s about the right to run–specifically, men‘s right to decline to trust, to eschew focus on relationships, and to refuse to open themselves to women beyond anything but the most superficial levels of interaction.
Because the same folks who dismiss, or outright advocate for false accusers, the same folks who rail against due process for men in criminal and family court, who claim both moral superiority and their own right to turpitude with impunity, who push men around, knock them to the ground, step on them, and kick them when they’re down – those same folks have the screaming audacity to act shocked and appalled when men feel maligned, get fed up, pick themselves up, turn their backs, and walk away.
My opinion of your sniffing response at men who don’t want any part of you anymore is simple: Kwitcherbitchen, ladies. It’s your own damned fault. You have no business complaining.”
Hannah Wallen…. again and I quote she says “Kwitcherbitchen, ladies. It’s your own damned fault. You have no business complaining.” Fuckin-A-Right, Thank you, Hannah. Do please feel free to read her entire article, it gets even more entertaining from those beginning paragraphs. I read it on occasionally just to brighten my day.