V is for Vampires

Just a quick post to point you to Christina Hoff Sommers' article: Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship, in which she compares the undead, unkillable, untrue feminist statistics that keep coming back to vampires - as in being 'harder to kill than'.

She writes Berkeley law professor Nancy K.D. Lemon about the acclaimed 'Domestic Violence Law' book she edited, pointing out outright falsehoods that appeared in her book as fact, including the following (excerpted from her article):

"The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. ... The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."

Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology — the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors.

Other falsehoods Sommers challenged with significant evidence:

• "women battered during pregnancy have more than twice the rate of miscarriages and give birth to more babies with more defects than women who may suffer from any immunizable illness or disease"
• "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence."

What do you think? Did Lemon immediately acknowledge the correction and issue an 'errata' like most any scholar would?

Not.

Read the article.

-M

E is for Eyecandy

Chosen by "The Other McCain" as "Most Likely to Offend Feminists," this video submitted by No Sheeples Here might be just the thing to put a small smile on your face, no matter how tough things are.

Russian Girls from AmxPictures on Vimeo.

Ahhh. Well, with that done, Gee, I wonder what the outrage would be like if a bunch of gyrating half nude soapy men were to beat and knock about a bound woman, and she were to appear to enjoy the treatment. Hmmm

W is for “Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe”

Ok, it is old news, but news that has been bothering me. Here we have lovely 28-year-old Victoria Floethe (Pic here) flirting and quite openly sleeping her way up the social/work ladder, most remarkably with Michael Wolff (55 years old).

The loss and destruction Victoria has left in her wake is impressive, but all she did was have affairs with married men rather openly. Imagine if she had been intent on using her wiles to obtain a permanent position as the ‘un-fireable’ female employee, or in becoming the recipient of the payout in a significant sexual harassment lawsuit? Millions of dollars in marital assets are already being sliced and diced as a result of this young sexual butterfly, but think of what she could have cost the firms that they worked for and their investors. And the thing is, this has been and continues to be a route to promotion for young women, not so much available to their male counterparts.

Many men admit to being sexually harassed in the workplace. I have encountered a good number of agressive women in the workplace, some of whom went so far as to expose their more attractive private bits to me (and, I later found out, also to my co-workers). Imagine if I were to do such a thing to a woman. I would, regardless of my age or intent, be creating an uncomfortable sexual atmosphere, and most likely, if the feelings were not mutual, would find myself charged as a sex offender, and certainly would lose my job.

For men, the office is a very dangerous place to find liaisons. For women, not so much. They are free to be as sexual as they want, and leverage it to whatever degree they can, with the assistance of lawyers if the benefits of the liason do not turn out to be lucrative enough. Meanwhile, most men are very shy about ever being alone with a woman at work, and are even careful to avoid women at work for fear of the many penalties they may pay.

I will not judge Victoria, although I do not think that her behavior was the best. What I do judge is the culture that makes male sexuality something to be supressed at all costs – making the office another place where men must live in fear at all times, while women reign supreme.

-M

E is for Exposure, and Explicit

It seems like every day, cases come up in the news that highlight the insanity of our legal system when it comes to the sexes. Today we hear about a teen who posted explicit pictures of herself on MySpace, charged with ‘possession and distribution of child pornography.’ She could face 17 years in jail, and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life, but we are assured that these stiff sentences are unlikely.

So insane: Let’s count the ways:

1. So, posting photos is a crime that can get you put away for almost two decades? And you have to be marked as some kind of sex predator for life? Isn’t this a bit extreme?
2. What she did is a crime, but they will be lenient because she is a woman/girl. A man/boy would probably be also charged with indecent exposure, or the equivalent, no? Sexual Bias, right there.
3. These are pictures of herself – one might assume that one could do almost whatever one wanted with pictures of themselves, no?
4. If a girl is mature enough to want to post her nude body on the web for her boyfriend and other friends to see, isn’t she a bit beyond ‘child’? Teenage women can be extremely precocious, and the law needs to lighten up. These girls will engage in various kinds of sexual behavior, and making them and their partners into felons is both ridiculous and criminal.
5. If you were to look at her MySpace page, those pictures would likely end up in your temporary files area. By looking at them, and by storing them, you are guilty of child pornography. Enjoy your sex-offender status!

How nice it is for the government to jump in and put this girl and her family through a huge sex-offender lawsuit, for a stupid teenage stunt that harmed no one but herself. On the other hand, we should be grateful to the Trenton prosecutor who went ahead with this case, because it shows how scary-crazy these people are and how nuts the law is.


I think most prosecutors would have let this go,


- unless, of course, the perpetrator was male.


My best to you in your struggles…

M

E is for Early Learning

It is good to learn, and probably best to learn early… but whose heart can’t help to go out to a very young man, who finds himself learning life’s harsh lessons about the nature of the relationship between men and women at the vunerable age of 13?

If you haven’t heard, this is the story of Alfie Patten of England. Seduced by 15 year old Chantelle Steadman, Alfie was identified by her as the father of her child, and he stuck by her, even as teen after teen came forward, and admitted also sleeping with his beau in the appropriate timeframe. (Chantelle apparently is just a bit sexually active.) Chantelle, on the other hand, insisted that she was in love with Alfie and that he had taken her virginity.

The Telegraph tells us that Alfie was ‘distraught’ at claims that the little bastard (sorry, that *is* the technical term) that Chantelle eventually popped out was not his.

But DNA will tell all, and sure enough, Alfie ain’t the dad. He should be glad, but as he is programmed to a life of slavery to the master-sex and their spawn/vagina droppings (ok, that one was harsh), I am afraid he isn’t.

Still, this particular package of life lessons will hopefully not be lost on the precocious boy, or on any male who reads this story. I suggest the following lessons:

1) Women are much freer with sex than they like you to know. (Bonobos, anyone?)
2) Women lie about their sex lives. (OK, implied by #1, but hey needs to be said.)
3) Women lie about paternity. A Lot. (Also probably implied by #1, but also needs to be said.)
4) A major motivating factor behind all this lying is money.
5) Use a condom! (You probably aren't the first, and as far as you can know, your predecessor may have been a bonobo.)

I think we’ve about covered this one.

-M

Oh, and p.s. where's the 'rape' charge against Chantelle? Don't you think there would have been one if a 15-year-old man impregnated a 13-year old girl?

F is for Food Stamps

So, like perhaps many, I am reduced to below the poverty level by my ex’s expectations of being able to live in the manner to which I would like to become accustomed.
But someone said to me; “Hey! You have your kids a whole lot of the time, and you are below the federal poverty threshold! You should apply for Food Stamps!”

In a different year, a different month, I might not have gone.

But this year, with no interviews, no prospects, no one answering my calls or requests for part-time work, or any kind of work… …with everything up in the air, and out of my hands, - I went.

I mean, I have $2.00 in my bank account, and that doesn’t buy food, and although I have a few extra pounds here and there, the kids need to eat.

So I do some online forms, get an invite to the local SocialServiciesAtorium, (which is almost impossible to find) and arrive in time for my ‘appointment’. Three hours later, they call my name, and I go in.

And what do I find out? I find out that the needs basis for food-stamps is GROSS income. The fact that the courts take all that money away (alimony and support) - 65% of my unemployment income, is immaterial.

Divorced men, it seems, are supposed to shrivel up and die; at which point the insurance that the court requires us to take out against our lives will ensure that even our deaths do not inconvenience our heartless ex-spouses.

The agent who helped me suggested that I go back to court. I told her I had been there, and that they had increased the amount, and the term, and charged me my ex's legal fees, because she was unable to live in the manner which she had expected, or hoped to.

I'd like to expect to eat. She's worried about her ski trips. Inequity? Not in New Jersey, in New Jersey, its...

Just another day in the Gynocracy.

-M

Additional comments:

If you are looking to try and get food stamps anyway, don't bother with the online form, that information is autmatically lost, and will just end up kicking out a 'you must come in for an interview' letter. Call your local contacts for social services, and outline the basic numbers of your case. They can probably tell you if it is worth your time to do anything more.

I also recently passed one year out of work. Unemployment needs to be recertified at that point, and that takes a phone call. No one will tell you this, though. Instead you are told you will recieve a credit for your filing, but that it is not payable. You talk to a human to get the payments flowing again, assuming that you fall within the extended unemployment benefits guidelines.

If you have a LITTLE money, try WWW.Angelfoodministries.com for assistance with your eating needs. Also call your towns and churches for information about food pantries.

Best of luck!

H is for Humanity

We are proud of our culture.
We are proud of our Humanity.
We are proud of the way we care for others,
We are proud of our legal system,
And its protection for all.

But where’s the humanity –
In a culture that awards 'support' to eighty percent of its custodial mothers –
- but only thirty percent of its custodial fathers?
In a culture that denies almost forty percent of its fathers any access to their children?
In a culture where almost eighty percent of non-custodial fathers are denied any visitation?
In a culture where two thirds of dads who don’t pay support are unable to –
- but are labeled deadbeats?
- are denied adjustments?
- have their possessions seized?
- have their licenses and passports taken?
- have their unemployment, if they are lucky enough to get it, garnished to 65%?
- are thrown in jail?

Where’s the humanity in a system that claims that
‘unemployment and underemployment are no grounds for a modification in support’?

While The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin’s 1993 study found 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.

Less than six thousand dollars a year.

While our 'humane government' pursues them.
Blackmails their families, and incarcerates them.

Where’s the humanity?

I’m sorry to say it isn’t in the system.
It isn’t in the government,
And it isn’t with the women.

This isn’t humanity. This is slavery.

And it stinks.

-M