Governments all over the world are having to cope with the economic downturn but in the UK the Government have an extra problem to deal with: corruption amongst its members of Parliament; over the last few weeks many of them have been caught with their fingers in the till and are now having to pay back thousands of pounds to the exchequer. Some have already resigned, some have been told they cannot stand as MPs at the next election and many know that, even if they do stand they most certainly will not win their seats again.

The Labour Government’s reputation was at a very low ebb before all this was revealed but now it’s hit the cellar floor. The recent local council elections for Labour was a disaster of huge proportions as were the results of the MEP voting; it was a wipe-out and they now don’t control a single council in England. It is patently obvious that at the next general election they will be thrown out.

Consequently a lot of Labour MPs are rebelling and blaming it all on their leader, Gordon Brown. Because of resignations from his cabinet he has had to do a quick reshuffle and now the knives are out and, as one newspaper put it, so are the sharpened stilettos! (The women’s footwear sort frequently wielded by feminists.)

Caroline Flint, Europe Minister, having declared her support for the Prime Minister on Thursday, stabbed him in the back on Friday by resigning because she didn’t get the job she’d hoped for. Diddums den! She accused Gordon Brown of using women in the Cabinet as “window dressing”. Coming shortly after she posed for a glamour photo shoot, that is hypocrisy of a very high order.

The previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seeking female votes, was keen on getting more women into Parliament, even using methods declared illegal by the British High Court. At a subsequent general election he declared, hoping for the female vote again, that, if he was re-elected he would put more women in his Cabinet. When he said that he didn’t know what ability those women might have but he was going to put them in the cabinet just because they were women. This is often termed “sexism”.

His underhand scheme worked and more women came into Parliament albeit by the back door. Blair promised that the “Blair Babes” would help to keep Parliament pure and honest and that the Labour Government would be whiter than white. Well, recent events have proved beyond doubt that female MPs can be just as dishonest as their male counterparts and, when it come to disloyalty they can easily beat their male counterparts. 20% of the UK’s MPs are women – a lot of them feminists – but, at the time of writing, 30% of resignations have been by women proving that they are much better than men at letting the side down.

I was recently sent an excellent article on this matter written by George Rolph. He has given me permission to reprint his article here:

 

“I popped over to the Reuters web site to have a look at the news as reported by them and I found a little gem of typical feminist duplicity and guilt tripping. It was hard to keep myself from laughing as I read about Caroline Flint’s less than gracious departure from her job. Caroline is a feminist and therefore, unlikely to have anything more than a tenuous grip on reality. They are programmed to be daft. It runs in the ideology. The best way I have found to picture them as a group, whether male or female, is like spoilt kids screaming for more and crying like babies if they don’t get it….NOW!!!!

 

Croline Flint quits with swipe at Brown/UK/Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE5545TU20090605)

 

What they want NOW!!!! is often so far fetched it is ludicrous. Don’t be fooled by their “equality” speeches either. They have no intention of seeking equality. What they want is total power over you and me. They are like be-knickered dictators (even the males among them) that live in a state of almost constant P.M.T. (even the males among them). When feminists have a period it can last twenty years or more and during that, er, period (of time, I mean) they are virtually unfit to be with the rest of us (Even the males among them). 

 

Feminists have a number of strengths. Chief among them is they know how to bully. They have the abusing of others down to a fine art and, even more skilfully, they can make their victims look like it is they who are in the wrong as they can switch from aggressive “assertiveness” to passive victim in the blink of an eye. 

 

 Another strength is the ability to lie  straight to your face, in a softly spoken “reasonable” tone of voice, as they pour out false domestic abuse statistics like those office coffee machines that pour out something that looks real but tastes fake. 

http://www.archive.org/details/FalseDomesticViolenceFiguresExposed

 

 

False accusations is another area where they excel. In court rooms, in Parliament and in the office these gals (and guys) can destroy an entire career with one carefully staged managed accusation. Then, when they have thus disposed of their rival, they can wield another guilt trip about the need for their boss to indulge in some “positive discrimination” to get their former work mate’s old job. 

 

I could go on listing these strengths all day but I will just add one more. Manipulation. Boy! They can certainly manipulate and the full gamut of their weapons are deployed when they do it. The lies, the bullying, the assertiveness, the victim-hood, the amateur dramatics, the false accusations, the poison-pen letter or email dropped in the right address. The whole arsenal can be unleashed in one manipulative encounter. The only way I have ever found to be effective in helping me withstand these attacks from feminists in full flow is to picture them naked, wearing only one grey sock, one orange Marigold rubber glove with a finger missing, a flower sticking out of their back orifice and a tattoo that says, “This is what a feminist looks like” emblazoned on their stomachs.

 

This is doubly effective when the feminist is male, by the way.

 

Their biggest weaknesses are their inability to stop boasting about how they are going to destroy men and always, with a gleeful look on their faces. (I know! But what can you do with the deluded except pat them on the head and say, “Yes dear”?) Another, is also one of their strengths. It is, of course, their lying. Feminists will lie through their back teeth and then express total bewilderment when you catch them out. This is because they have no idea what a lie is. They are self programmed to think everything they say is utter truth. In fact, the opposite is true, but their programming will not let them see it. Thus, if a feminist tells you it is a red hot day outside, order a snow plough from E-bay.

 

Another massive weakness of feminists is their disloyalty. Even towards each other. You probably think that feminists are all extremely loyal to each other because they seem to speak with one voice. Yes, but so do politicians. Even when they are busy stabbing each other in the back. Feminists are the same. In fact, since their morphing into their present radical form in the 1960s they have split into more factions than a British Army grenade at a live firing exercise.

 

Now we have had a tour of their attributes as human beings, let’s take a short look at this delicious story on the Reuters web site.

 

Time to rearrange some paragraphs in order to get maximum humour from this tale of high drama in low office.

 

LONDON (Reuters) – Europe Minister Caroline Flint accused Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, of using women as “female window-dressing” in his government when she quit her post Friday.

 

*[Only a complete fool would use a feminist as "window dressing" and Gordon Brown is.....Oh no. Forget it. ED]*

Her office released a copy of a strongly worded resignation letter to Brown in which she accused him of allowing few women colleagues into his inner circle.

“Several of the women attending Cabinet, myself included, have been treated by you as little more than female window-dressing,” she wrote. “I am not willing to attend Cabinet in a peripheral capacity any longer.”

*[Spotted the manipulative guilt trip yet? ED]*

“I am extremely disappointed at your failure to have an inclusive government. You have a two-tier government: your inner circle and then the remainder of Cabinet.”

*[If you find all this intimidating, remember the flower and the grey sock etc. ED]*

Flint first entered parliament in 1997 as one of the original “Blair Babes,” the nickname given to the 101 female Labour MPs elected when Tony Blair came to power.

 

*[Blair was not noted for his good judgement was he? Iraq war. Marrying Cherie. Being mates with the corrupt, thieving, liar, Harriet Harpic. Doing a deal with Gordon over the premiership. Defecting from the Tories, Oh no. Sorry. He didn't do that one. Being born and so on. ED]*

Three other women ministers have resigned this week — home secretary Jacqui Smith, communities secretary Hazel Blears and children’s secretary Beverley Hughes.

*[Yay!!!! All feminists.ED]*

Newspapers have billed their resignations as the “Revenge of the Sisterhood.” Some commentators say the Mother of Parliaments is still a male-dominated environment where a macho culture flourishes, despite government attempts to make politics more family-friendly.

*[For "Some commentators" read other feminists and Fleet Street and TV land girly boys. For "girly boys" read ex males who are now feminists. Also known as "grils" which means, confused girls. ED]*

So there we have it. The attributes of a feminist pouring out of a story like effluent on a holiday makers beach. Here though is the missing paragraph. This is the best laugh of all.

Her departure came less than a day after she declared her loyalty to Brown following speculation that she would resign.

He He. See what I mean?”

The Suffragents website is the place to visit if you like to read the unvarnished truth about women and feminism. The subjects are dealt with frankly and with considerable humour.

Athos, one of the three musketeers who write on the site, in his article on “Women in High office” has this to say: 

“A short while ago I came across a website of quotations. It was, quite obviously, run by some man-hating feminist as I realised when I read the section on men and the section on women. The latter contained the following quote:

‘I will feel equality has arrived when we can elect to office women who are as incompetent as some of the men who are already there.’

 

This must be out of date as almost every woman elected so far has proved more incompetent than any man.

The main reasons women don’t get elected are :

Men are more competent, more business-minded, and have a stronger work ethic than women, whereas women want all the benefits enjoyed by males, without having to work as hard as their male counterparts.  In short, they want ‘equality’ just for being women, regardless of the fact that most people don’t want women chefs, women clergy, women councillors, AMs or MPs, women pilots, women soldiers, women policepersons, women busdrivers, women builders or heavy plant operators, women engineers (their brains can’t absorb anything more technical than how to turn a tap on), women managers (a contradiction in terms, of course) or women in any responsible position where other people have to be dependent on them.”

 

(To read the complete article go to:  http://suffragents.freehostia.com/politicalmatters.html)

Almost everyone in the UK will recall the great victory of 12 years ago when Tony Blair was swept to power promising “change” for the better with none of the “sleaze” we saw in the Conservative party which preceded him. We all remember the “Blair Babes” which for some (unexplained)  reason was supposed to “improve” the business of the House of Commons.

But what a total let-down it’s been! Blair left the sinking Labour ship just before it hit the rocks and many of his supporters are looking to jump ship before it goes down at the next election and hundreds of Labour MPs lose their jobs.

And the Babes? Even as I write, two of them in the Cabinet are busy stabbing Gordon Brown in the back and the female Home Secretary is under investigation for corruption. Yes, Athos is correct: almost every female MP so far elected has proved to be more incompetent (not to mention corrupt and over-ambitious) than any man.

As most people know, the “thinking” of politicians is about ten years behind that of most of the public, so that, despite the absolute failure of the Blair Babes, the leaders of all the major parties are planning some “women-only” candidates’ lists in the hope of getting that non-existant “female vote”. With the demise of feminism as we entered this new century, the majority of women will now freely assert that they no longer vote for a politician “because she’s a woman”; they’ve been let down too many times. 

As I’ve said elsewhere in this blog, women who manage to become MPs, (albeit not on merit by by the “backdoor” of the “women-only” lists,) assume, and act, as though they are there “to represent women”. Harriet Harman, the current Deputy Prime Minister is a case in point; she moves from one disaster area to another with her underhand schemes to advance “the cause of women” whatever that might be.

Fortunately the UK will have another general election next year and two things are quite certain to happen. The first is that the Labour government will be thrown out of office possibly even coming in third after the Liberal Democrats. This means that any “Brown Babes” will be thin on the ground in the House of Commons, and if David Cameron, as Leader of the Conservative Party, is any sort of pragmatist, the number of “Cameron Chicks”  will be fairly nominal.

Why? Not only the UK but the whole world is in a gargantuan financial mess, and when things are in a mess, people look to MEN to sort things out. I forecast that the population of the UK will indicate this with their votes.

Some people say that women never invent anything. I disagree! Feminists and their supporters have invented some of the biggest hoaxes of the twentieth century. The “rule of thumb” hoax was one of the most well known and, despite the fact that it was exploded by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book “Who Stole Feminism?“, some untinking people, even today, still quote it as though it were a fact. Sadly some academics and publications like Time magazine, all of whom should know better, do the same.

Here is the truth of the matter as given by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book:

“…The ‘rule of thumb’ story is an example of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts to their angry creed…

The ‘rule of thumb’, however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. It is not to be found in William Blackstone’s treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.

That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.

According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, “The real explanation of ‘rule of thumb’ is that it derives from wood workers… who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs.” Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of ‘modern folklore’ and compares it to other ‘back-formed explanations.’ such as the claim asparagus comes from ’sparrow-grass’ or that ‘ring around the rosy’ is about the plague.

We shall see that Hiscock’s hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-1780), the Englishman who codified centuries of legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organized tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife-beating does not occur in Blackstone’s compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted “domestic chastisement”….

In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled “Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America“:

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal… Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: “No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine.”

[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to thievery or adultery. Religious groups – especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists – punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.

Just how did the false account originate, and how did it achieve authority and currency? As with many myths, there is a small core of fact surrounded by an accretion of error. In the course of rendering rulings on cases before them, two Southern judges had alluded to an ‘ancient law’ according to which a man could beat his wife as long as the implement was not wider than his thumb. The judges, one from North Carolina and one from Mississippi, did not accept the authority of the ‘ancient law.’ The North Carolina judge refered to it as ‘barbarism,’ and both judges found the husband in the case in question guilty of wife abuse. Nevertheless, their rulings seemed to tolerate the notion that men had a measure of latitude in physically chastising their wives. Fortunately, as Pleck takes pains to remind us, they were not representative of judicial opinion in the rest of the country.

In 1976, Del Martin, a coordinator of the N.O.W. Task Force on Battered Women, came across a reference to the two judges and their remarks. Neither judge had used the phrase “rule of thumb,” but a thumb had been mentioned, and Ms. Martin took note of it:

“Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, certain restrictions did exist… For instance, the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband ‘the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb’ – a rule of thumb, so to speak.”

Ms. Martin had not claimed that the term ‘rule of thumb’ originated from common law. Before long, however, the ‘ancient law’ alluded to by two obscure Southern judges was being treated as an unchallenged principle of both British and American law, and journalists and academics alike were bandying the notion about. Feminist Terry Davidson, in an article entitled ‘Wife Beating: A Recurring Phenomenon Throughout History,’ claims that “one of the reasons nineteenth century British wives were dealt with so harshly by their husbands and by their legal system was the ‘rule of thumb’ and castigates Blackstone himself. “Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wife-beating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate.”

These interpretive errors were given added authority by a group of scholars and lawyers who, in 1982, prepared a report on wife abuse for the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice – A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. On the second page, they note: ‘American law is built upon the British common law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used. This ‘rule of thumb’ stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a ‘rod not thicker than his thumb.’” It went on to speak of Blackstone as the jurist who “greatly influenced the making of the law in the American colonies [and who] commented on the ‘rule of thumb,’” justifying the rule by noting that “the law thought it reasonable to intrust [the husband] with this power of… chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children.”

The publication of the report established the feminist fable about the origins of the term in popular lore, and the misogyny of Blackstone and ‘our law’ as ‘fact.’ Misstatements about the ‘rule of thumb’ still appear in the popular press.

That same 1993 Time magazine article that popularized the nonexistent March of Dimes study on domestic violence and birth defects and reported that “between 22% and 35% of all visits by females to emergency rooms are for injuries from domestic assaults” also cited new York University law professor Holly Maguigan: “We talk about the notion of the rule of thumb, forgetting that it had to do with the restriction on a man’s right to use a weapon against his wife: he couldn’t use a rod that was larger than his thumb.” Professor Maguigan’s law students would do well to check their Blackstone.

Imagine you are sitting in a Dallas Area Rapid Transport bus one day and you happen to notice the two posters shown above. One shows the fresh face of a young boy with the caption “One day my mother will kill me”; the other shows the innocent face of a young girl with the words “When I grow up I will abuse my children”. I expect you’d be rather shocked, and if you asked the driver of the bus why his company was spreading such misinformation about domestic violence, and he answered “Well, most child abuse is by Moms and most of their victims are boys”, you’d be staggered by this truth; but you’d still not think it was depicting the actions of most women.

I expect this was the reaction of the majority of people travelling on DART transport when they saw the actual posters which the buses carried, shown below.

Husbands do occasionally kill their wives, just as wives also kill their husbands, but young girls who see these posters should not expect to be killed by their husbands as the posters suggest, and young boys should not think that they will be expected to kill their wives.

This whole idea is a travesty of the true situation and all concerned with this campaign have good reason to bow their heads in shame at such misuse of these photographs and the promulgation of such obviously misleading ideas about domestic violence.

Fortunately the situation was brought to the attention of Glenn Sacks who, through his large and popular website, and by other means, informed the world about this child-hating campaign by “The Family Place”. Paige Flink is the Executive Director of this organization and she was happy to pay $25,000 for what turned out in the end to be a massive international backlash against her organization and DART who allowed her to engage in this tacky campaign. Thousands of protests poured in from all over the world; DART didn’t have the staff to deal with them.

The biased Miss Flink said that “Ninety percent of the victims of the reported cases of domestic violence in Dallas are females”. I think the important word here is “reported“. Men who are victims of female domestic violence rarely report the matter either because they are ashamed to admit it or for some other reason. In the UK, even the misandric BBC admit that men are six times less likely to report DV against them as women are.

Glenn Sacks truthfully pointed out that up-to-date research clearly shows that men account for half of all domestic violence victims and about one third of all domestic violence injuries. In the UK the ManKind website, which specialises in accurate and up-to-date information on domestic abuse, publishes very similar figures.

Glenn Sacks also provided the world with the statistics published by the US Department of Health and Human Services in their Child Maltreatment report  from 2001 to 2006 which show that:

70.8% of children who are killed by one parent are killed by their mothers and

70.6% of children abused by one parent are abused by their mothers.

60% of the victims are boys.

This clearly proves that the information contained in the top two posters on this post are much more accurate than the second two. But, even so, I think most fair thinking and responsible adults would consider that, to use any of the above posters, is putting children at risk and is thoroughly reprehensible. I do hope that Miss Flink has learned a lesson from her expensive $25,000 headache!

Laurence Edgar lives in Sunderland, UK. I print in full below the letter he sent to his local council, which is self-explanatory:

“While visiting your beautiful Roker Park I referred to the smart black and gold finger post direction signs in the centre of the park, and was shocked to see that when directing people to toilets the two genders were given a grossly different status. Women are venerated with the title “Ladies” while Men are debased to the status of an animal sexual function and degraded with the adjective “Male”.

Kindly discipline whoever is responsible for this immature provocation, and correct this public disclosure of institutionalised sexual discrimination by replacing the signs with equal ranking titles, such as:

Gentlemen’s and Ladies’ Toilets

Men’s and Women’s Toilets  or

Female and Male Toilets

I am sure you will be eager to remove this offence against good men. I therefore need not remind you of public sector’s duty to promote gender equality and social inclusion together with the offences being committed, not to mention the Sunderland Echo’s hunger for articles.

Yours Faithfully

Laurence Edgar

PS. There is enough trouble in the world without Local Government gratuitously creating new problems.”

A letter after my own heart – brief and very much to the point. I am happy to report that the council admitted their error and wrote to Laurence Edgar saying that the signs had been changed. Even one protester is able to achieve a victory for men. 

Instances such as this show careless and shallow thought and a total disregard of the feelings of men. There are other issues connected with it also. I don’t know whether the person responsible realizes it but there would be nothing stopping a visitor to the park, walking his dog, to allow his dog to use the “male” toilets as there is no indication that they are to be used by humans only.

On the other hand, women who are not wives of a peer of the land, or a lady in her own right, should use the toilets, in which case they would get very little use. Even if we allow the use of the term “lady” to mean a refined and well-behaved woman, there are a lot of women in the UK who would not qualify to use the toilets, such as prostitutes, women who are binge-drinkers and can be found lying in the streets drunk in the evening, those sleeping rough in the towns and a host of others. These considerations do not seem to have occurred to the vague mind who gave the order for the offensive signs to be put up. Obviously they are not up to the job and are using council taxes needlessly in order to rectify a situation they have caused.

Let’s all keep an eye open for such misandric treatment and do something about it.

A thought: I wonder how “gentlemen” and “female” signs would have been received in Roker Park?

If, by any chance, you are still in twentieth century thinking mode regarding domestic violence, you might like to read the following quotes from experts on the subject which will quickly bring you into the twenty-first century. Please feel free to copy these and send them to anyone you know who needs to be brought up to date.

Domestic Violence Experts:
Research Has Discredited the Woman-as-Victim/Man-as-Perpetrator DV Model

“Men account for half of all DV victims and incur a third of DV-related injuries. Ignoring female-on-male violence inhibits our efforts to combat domestic violence.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

“Half of violent relationships were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”

Dr. Daniel J. Whitaker of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, describing a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Public Health

“Every time we tried to say that women’s intimate partner abuse is different than men’s, the evidence did not support it.”

Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling of the University of South Alabama

“My independent research as to gender and domestic violence reveals that women use all forms of domestic violence at least as frequently as do men and with very similar effects on male victims.” 

“A meta-analytic review of 552 domestic violence studies published in the Psychological Bulletin found that 38% of the physical injuries in heterosexual domestic assaults are suffered by men.”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

“Both boys and girls who observe their mothers engaging in violence toward her partners tend to use more violence in their romantic relationships. Moreover, such girls are more likely to be aggressive with their peers.”

Psychology Professor Marlene Moretti of Simon Fraser University BC

“I have conducted surveys of nationally representative samples of American families funded by the National Institutes of Health in 1975, 1985, and 1992. 

“In 2006 I conducted a study of partner violence in 32 nations. In all of these studies, the rate of men victimized by physical and psychological attacks by their partners is about the same as the rate of women victimized by male partners…”Physical attacks by women account for about a third of the injuries.”

Murray A. Straus, Professor of Sociology and Co-Director Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire:

“When men with children try to access domestic violence services and are turned away, we deny their children services and put them in danger. There is an unknown quantity of children…who cannot find the services they need to escape their violent mothers, and therefore, they must remain in their homes. Thus, by discriminating against male victims of domestic violence, we are also discriminating against their children and putting both the father and his children at risk. It is imperative, then, to assure that male victims and their children can get access to domestic violence services.”

Denise A. Hines, Ph.D. of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire

“It’s mandated that I have the Duluth Domestic Violence Power & Control Wheel prominently displayed in the office where I provide batterers’ treatment classes. I do, but with one minor modification — I drew a circle around it and a line going through it.”

[In the Duluth theoretical framework, domestic violence is caused by a patriarchal society that sanctions violence by men against their female partners. Women are assumed to be either victims or, when they are found to aggress against their male partners, to be doing so in self-defense.]

Claudia Ann Dias, MSC, JD Batterers’ Treatment Provider

“A recent study [published in the journal Violence and Victims] analyzed data originally obtained through the National Violence Against Women Survey in the mid-90s…[which was] a study which was designed, conducted and analyzed by feminist researchers.

“Researchers looked at 10,000 respondents who were currently married, and found that adult women are just as controlling and jealous towards their male partners as the other way around. 

“They also found that the relationship between use of control and jealousy and physical violence existed equally for both male and female respondents, and that ‘intimate terrorists’ can be either male or female.” 

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

“The domestic violence establishment–of which I was once very much a part–has distorted the research to minimize and ignore female and mutual domestic violence.”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC Author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

California State Long Beach University professor Martin Fiebert maintains an online bibliography summarizing 219 scholarly investigations, with an aggregate sample size exceeding 220,000, which concludes “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”

“Research shows that domestic violence is actually more common in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships.”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC Author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

“According to the [female] victims themselves, the majority of these cases did indeed involve mutual abuse and, and some featured a dominant female perpetrator whose [male] partner was arrested after fighting back. This clinical data contradicted much of what I had been taught, and led me to conduct an extensive review of the research literature. What I found more than corroborated my clinical findings.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

‘Domestic Violence Is a Serious Problem for both Women and Men’

“California domestic violence laws violate men’s rights because they provide state funding only for women and their children who use shelters and other programs, a state appeals court has ruled. 

“The decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento requires the programs to be available to male as well as female victims of domestic violence…

New California Appeal Court Ruling

“Domestic violence ‘research’ has been misleading, in that data has been extracted from crime reports and/or ‘crime victim surveys – in which men underreport more than women – and have been publicized as indicating domestic violence is a gender issue (male-perpetrator/female-victims). In fact, when larger surveys with representative samples are examined, perpetration of domestic violence perpetration is slightly more common for females…”

Dr. Donald Dutton, UBC Author of Rethinking Domestic Violence

“The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the ‘missing persons’ of the problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted…

“Federal funds typically pass to a state coalition against or to a branch of a state agency designated to deal with violence against women. 

“Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go—more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is no place to go and no one to whom to turn.”

Richard James Gelles, PhD, Director for the Center for Research on Youth & Social Policy

“Under current policy, abused men are both denied services and told, essentially, that they don’t even exist. Ignoring male victims is not only a human rights issue, but also a public health issue. Until all perpetrators of family violence are held accountable for their actions, regardless of gender, our efforts will be limited, with serious implications for future generations.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

“I interviewed women in battered women’s shelters and wondered why some were leaving in less than a week. The answer, it turned out, is that they too were engaging in violence against their partners, and in some cases had left to pick up the battle again. We weren’t helping these women because [by ignoring their role in DV] we were ignoring their paradigm

Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling of the University of South Alabama 

“The majority of mainstream researchers are now acknowledging the gender-inclusive nature of intimate partner abuse.”

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse

Erin Pizzey who opened the first women’s refuge in London in the 1970s, states in her book “Prone to Violence” that, of the first 100 women who entered the refuge, 62 were as violent or more violent than the men they were allegedly running away from.

For many years her book had been successfully censored in all UK libraries and bookshops but now it is available to download free. You can do so by visiting:  http://www.mankindwales.org.uk  and going to the literature section. Erin Pizzey is a patron of the UK ManKind charity.

The girl who accused Mike Tyson of rape received a telephone call from him at two o’ clock in the morning, got out of bed and went to his bedroom where she took off her clothes and got into bed with him. Did she think he wanted to play tiddlywinks? Of course Tyson was a rough character and also the “wrong” colour, so he was found guilty. It was one of the many outrageous miscarriages of justice in the American system.

America is designed around women and run by feminists of both sexes so that Tyson never stood a chance once the cry of “rape” went up. Given that feminists scorn all men, even those who have given their lives to preserve free speech but for “feminists only”.

Over the last forty years the people of America have had political “correctness” blasted at them from TV presenters anxious to keep their jobs, politicians trying to gain votes and advertisers trying to sell to women with the result that it is now the “received wisdom” in society in general and in the police force in particular, that “a woman would never lie about something like rape”. The truth is that women do – frequently.

Surveys have proved beyond doubt what the reasons are for false allegations of rape. These are the most common ones given by women who have made false rape allegations:

1.They agreed to have sex but thought they might be pregnant

2.They didn’t want their husband or boyfriend to know they had been unfaithful

3.They had second thoughts afterwards and wanted to blame the man

4.They wanted to get revenge on a man

5.They felt ashamed and didn’t want the blame

6.To test a partner’s love.

 The Times in the UK reported the case of Julie Renouf who wasted 2,000 hours of police time and was responsible for a man being unjustly questioned for 15 hours by police. Her lame excuse was that she didn’t want her husband to know that she had betrayed him. She was jailed for a mere six months! 

In the USA a former stripper made a false accusation against some Dallas cowboys and was charged by police with filing a false report. She received a derisory 90 days in jail and was fined $1500.

There are many other reasons why women cry rape falsely. All women like to be thought of as “desirable to men” and “lusted after” etc. even though many don’t qualify in any way in this direction, so if she can tell her friends that “he took me against my will” she can imply that she’s hot property.

Even the late Andrea Dworkin tried doing this. She claimed that a young waiter working in a hotel had tried to rape her. Can you imagine that? Andrea Dworkin being raped! I recently read a hilarious article on this on the Suffragents website. If you want to read it put this URL in your address bar – but hold your sides! – http://suffragents.freehostia.com/articles%20file/feminism.html#dworkin

Then there is the messy divorce where the wife wants the children but the husband also wants to see them. A rape charge will influence the judge to hand over the children to the wife, despite the husband being totally innocent. Wil Hetherington was caught by his wife in this way which resulted in his being incarcerated for 30 years. His wife visited him voluntarily, agreed to having sex and then cried rape.

The answer to this social evil of lying women is to punish them – really punish them – by giving them the same jail sentence the man would have received if he had been found guilty. We are talking 10 to 20 years!  In the case of Mrs Hetherington, 30 years.

The tragic aspect of this problem from the point of view of normal women is that it detracts from the case of a woman who has been genuinely raped; but one thing’s for sure, any woman who goes to a man’s bedroom, takes off her clothes and engages in sexual activity, only to cry “No!” at the last moment, cannot expect to be treated seriously by the police, and it is certainly not a matter for the courts.

Feminists on both sides of the Atlantic – the few who remain – now have a new hate figure in the shape of the authoress Kathleen Parker. Her book “Save the Males” tells the truth about the massive damage feminism has wrought throughout the Western World. In particular she deals in truthful detail with the way in which feminists, aided and abetted by governments, the media and the law courts, have downgraded fathers thus perpetrating child abuse of the worst kind on so many children.

Its witty style makes the book easy to read but it doesn’t deal lightly with the important issues. The writer is one of an increasing number of perceptive women who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of both men and children who are now suffering from the effects of the feminization of society. She cuts through the cant promulgated by so much of the media for decades past as she deals with marriage, sex, education, pornography etc. in a responsible way seldom seen in today’s media. The book is by no means politically correct; it’s not that shallow, but time and again, I gave a mental “Hear! Hear!” as nail after nail was hit right on the head.

Men, and women with a sense of humour, will love reading chapter five of this book. Kathleen Parker’s style really comes into its own here where she deals with the diatribe of the “Vagina Monologues”. Be sure to hold on to your sides if you are a man. This chapter is a real hoot. The mental health of Eve Ensler and the women who attend performances of these monologues which encourage the female rape of a young girl, must be in considerable doubt.

Here are just a few quotes from the book, to whet your appetite:

“The same feminist movement that encouraged women to use their critical faculties also gave them the green light to be hostile and demeaning towards men.”

“We’ve had a few decades of this shtick and have produced a new generation of children tattooed, pierced, angry, depressed, obese, anorexic, drugged, self-mutilating, whoring, pimping, failing.”

“Boys had absorbed the message that life isn’t fair and that girls are to blame . . . Nobody likes a teacher’s pet, and girls were the culture’s pets.”

“Twenty-five million American children are more likely to see a father on television than in the home.”

“A 2007 University of Washington study . . . revealed that women reported instigating domestic violence twice as often as men in the previous year.”

“Women can kill their husbands with relative impunity as long as they can convince a jury that they were in an abusive marriage.”

“The state’s power in criminalizing fathers and alienating their children is an astounding development in a free democratic society.”

“For the past thirty years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all life’s ills.”

This cartoon is mine. It’s not in the book, but the sentiment is.

This is, without question, one of the most important books to be published this century and points the way to saving our society. Writers like Kathleen Parker deserve our support. The hardback book can be obtained from Amazon at about £10 including postage.

I must ask viewers to bear with me while I post below a magazine article I wrote almost a decade ago. I’ll also post a quote from a Press Association news item of just a few weeks ago. You can then judge whether the title of my article was correct.

                                                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE FUTURE OF VIOLENCE IS FEMALE

The fact that women are equally as violent as men has been stated in so many magazines, scholarly documents, surveys and government figures that most thinking people now take it as a fact. The truth of this has been known to many men from bitter experience, but has also been suspected by many women who realise that there is a dark side to their personality. It has only been the constant preaching of feminists about men’s violence, and the constant harping of organizations such as Women’s Aid and Justice for Women, which have conned society into believing that all violence was perpetrated by men.

Now that people are waking up to the fact that  feminism  had a double agenda, the truth is, at last, beginning to emerge. Some years ago I saw the Panorama programme “Violent Women.” It was more of the Femorama programme we have come to expect from this particular stable, complete with suspect research and falsified figures, but the fact that even Panorama had  to admit that 20% of violent crimes were committed by women was indeed a step forward and a nod in the direction of truth, albeit a slight one. Not that the whole truth emerged. Far from it! We were informed twice (presumably just in case we missed it first time around) that 80% of violent crimes were committed by men.

Now, no reader of this blog needs me to point out that this cannot possibly be an accurate figure since we now know beyond doubt that at least 50% of all domestic violence is perpetrated by women. It was no surprise that domestic violence was mentioned only briefly and illustrated with just a few predictable  anecdotes.

The fact that Panorama is totally unfeeling about the way men are treated by women was blatantly exposed in one section of the programme where a husband revealed that, following a short affair he’d had with a woman referred to as ‘a tramp’, his wife boiled six wax candles in a saucepan and, when he had fallen asleep, poured it over him. As a result he was rushed into hospital and had to have several operations and skin grafts. For an interesting article on such treatment of men, (on the Manorama site) click here:  Domestic Violence Against Men

The flat-voiced interviewer (female, of course!) asked ‘Don’t you think you deserved it?’ I could hardly believe I heard it! The interviewee, quite naturally, told her that he did not think he deserved it. But imagine  a wife who had been given say, just a black eye by her husband for being unfaithful, being asked by a male interviewer ‘Don’t you think you deserved it?’ Can you see the headlines in the press the following day? 

If you cast your mind back to the days when even some men watched soaps on TV, you might remember the outburst in some of the tabloids about ‘evil’ Jim of Coronation Street hitting his wife and giving her a couple of shiners because she had been unfaithful to him. Now, by any fair comparison with the Panorama programme, surely she deserved that.

Feminist ostriches

Now you would think that even the man-hating feminists, who for many years past have vilified men on every possible occasion by talking only of female victims of domestic violence and implying that almost all crime is committed by men, would have the good grace to admit that on this occasion Panorama, although grudgingly, has at last revealed the truth about women in a small way. But not a bit of it! The feminazi were up in arms. Though no viewer wrote to Panorama to complain, apparently some did complain to Points of View, and this programme took up the cudgels on behalf of the feminist camp in no uncertain way, and rather unfairly, merely referred to the feminist ‘Women in Prison’ protesters as ‘viewers’.

Chris Tchaikovsky who was quite incorrectly labelled by the programme as ‘Director’ (instead of Directress) of ‘Women in Prison’ was given considerable film footage to try to bluff her way out of the unpleasant truth as revealed by Panorama. She ended by saying that all the evidence presented ‘didn’t mean a thing’.

Isn’t it strange that when a panel of women are seen on TV discussing a subject like domestic violence and one of the ‘experts’ throws in the mythical figure of ‘one woman in four suffers from domestic violence’ the figure is never challenged, and yet there is no shred of evidence to prove it.

Another woman who was allowed to add an opinion was the killer Jackie Childs of Kingston-on-Thames. She merely said that ‘none of these examples support a new strain of violence in women.’ No proof was offered, of course. But then, with feminists, who needs proof? Perhaps being that closely involved in brutal violence herself, she is unable to detect it in others. I was truly amazed at how Points of View took great delight in pointing out that Panorama had got it wrong when they said that Jackie Childs had been found guilty of the manslaughter of her husband. Actually it was her friend’s husband she had killed. Are we to presume from this that it’s OK as long as you only kill a friend’s husband?

 The partisan spokesman implied by his tone that a lot of viewers had complained to Points of View but as he did not quantify it, I imagine the number was pretty insignificant.

Panorama, as a result put out the following statement:

‘Your audience should be aware that the three “viewers” are all connected with the pressure group “Women in Prison” which does not hide its radical feminist agenda, and that Jackie Childs herself was convicted of the manslaughter of her husband.

Panorama would also like to make it clear that they have received no complaints either from viewers or contributors to the programme which attracted an audience of around six million.

On the specific points raised, Panorama would like to offer the following response:

The use of statistics was not misleading. The figures and expert testimony clearly indicate an increasing trend in female violent crime.

In the case of Helen Danso, we do not accept that important information was missing from the programme. We are confident that Helen and all other contributors to the film were treated fairly and not misled. There is no doubt from the interview with the Curtis sisters that some women do get a thrill from committing acts of violence.

If ‘Women in Prison’ no longer wish to refer women to the media, that is entirely a matter for them.’

One thing is for certain, over the coming years ‘Women in Prison’ are going to get a vast increase in their customers, and trying to brush the issue under the carpet by not allowing prisoners to be interviewed by the media is not going to fool anybody.”

Now let’s see the quote from the Press Association:

                                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Violent women are stretching police resources, with increasing numbers arrested for such crime, police have warned.

The chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, Paul McKeever, told BBC TV there was a “new phenomenon” of violent women. Mr McKeever said: ‘Clearly there is an increase in the number of women who use violence in their everyday lives and when they are out drinking on the streets around the country.’

An average of 240 women a day are arrested for violent offences in England and Wales, according to recent figures from the Ministry of Justice.

Mr McKeever said young women were also joining violent gangs.

‘It’s a new phenomenon and it does stretch the resources of the police service,’ he said.”

                                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Crime by women and girls in the UK has doubled over the past five years; that is a much faster rate than crime amongst men and boys.  Naturally this has caused a high degree of panic within the sisterhood who are wildly looking around to find excuses for this huge increase in female killers. As I reported in a previous blog post, Harriet Harman wants to arrange the law so that women who kill their husbands are let off with a mere manslaughter charge. They are also pressing for women to be let off prison altogether and merely to serve “community service”. Other ploys of this nature have also been suggested.

What these unthinking feminists fail to realise is that, if they are successful in their sexist plans, it will encourage yet more women to engage in criminal activity.

In the UK, Harriet Harman has never tried to hide her hatred of men and her favourable treatment of women. Whether any men actually voted for her to become Gordon Brown’s deputy is open to doubt, though a few crackpots might have done so thinking they were “being fair”. Well, I expect by now they’ve seen the foolishness of their ways.

Feminism was never anything to do with equality for women. The aim was to provide a favoured status for all women within society. If anyone has ever doubted that in the past, their doubts will certainly have been removed at the news of her latest attempt to provide women in the UK with a licence to kill their husbands, partners and boyfriends.

Of course, supporters of this illegal and sexist measure will say that it will only be in the most extreme circumstances that women will be let off after murdering their man. You will probably recall that when the bill to allow abortion was introduced we had similar assurances. It would only be allowed if the life of the mother was at stake or something equally as serious. It was all hogwash of course. A woman was given the magic password: “Doctor I’m so upset at the thought of having my baby that I feel like committing suicide.” The doctor instantly signed on the dotted line and another baby was murdered.

Harman wants to give women another password this time: “Your honour, I was so terrified at the things he said to me that I thought he might kill me”, and the murder charge will be instantly reduced to manslaughter. Of course this will not apply in the case of a man who kills a woman. If he says that she threatened to kill him, the judge will deal with the assertion in the same way the police deal with a man who complains to the police that his wife or girlfriend is regularly attacking him at home: it will be ignored.

This is not the first time that women have used the “abused woman” technique to get away with murder. Sara Thornton used it some years ago after stabbing to death her sleeping husband. She claimed that he had come home drunk and was violent. The court believed her version despite the fact that even Mr Thornton’s ex-wife said that, although he had an alcohol problem, he was never violent. Sara Thornton couldn’t claim self defence because her husband was asleep when she killed him. If Parliament is stupid enough to allow Harriet Harman to get away with her feminist ploy in this proposed legislation then the Thornton scenario will be repeated again and again. The victim will be blamed.

Doubtless a number of gold-diggers in the UK who usually are allowed by a judge to take her husband to the cleaners  with a divorce settlement, will be encouraged to make an even bigger “clean-up” with a murder charge she knows will be reduced to manslaughter.

The amount of misandric legislation produced by the Labour government during their term in office has been massive; men in the UK are more disadvantaged now than at any time in history and any man contemplating voting Labour in the next election must be a head-case. Recent bye-elections and local elections have shown that, at the next general election, Labour are going to get a well-deserved thrashing; nothing is more certain. If Harriet Harman manages to retain her seat at that election she will be very fortunate indeed; if she doesn’t then the men of the UK will be fortunate.