I've found these advertisers on Robin's blog page:
Meet women online
Contact info
Stunning foreign brides
Contact info
Lava live
Contact info
Astrocenter psychics
Contact info
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
More about IMBRA
IMBRA: Anatomy of a feminist hoax
Carey Roberts Carey Roberts
September 26, 2007
Want a textbook example how the Left manufactures a crisis, passes a law that rolls back Constitutional protections, snookers card-carrying conservatives, and bilks American taxpayers? Look no farther than IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.
A little background: It's no secret that conditions in post-socialist Russia are grim. Author Sonya Luehrmann recounts how women desperately search to find a husband "to put one's personal life in order, to settle down with a stable family."
And here in the United States, some men find American ladies to be a little too, shall we say, high-maintenance for their tastes.
Before long over 200 match-making services around the world had sprouted up like a clutch of springtime tulips.
A few years ago University of Pittsburgh professor Nicole Constable set out to probe the inner workings of these dating agencies. In her book Romance on a Global Stage, Constable revealed the international match-makers were simply responding to a human need for companionship and love. Many men who marry foreign brides "went to great lengths to ensure their partner's comfort and happiness in the United States," she noted.
But feminists are rankled by any hint that their nostrum for female liberation may be curtailing American women's marriage prospects. Worse, some of these foreign women actually aspire to be mothers and homemakers. Imagine that!
So the Sourpuss Sisters conspired to put the kibosh on the operation. They knew convincing Congress to regulate romance would be a hard sell. So they resorted to their tried and true formula of hackneyed stereotypes, outright demagoguery, and appeals to male chivalry.
It was Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington who quarterbacked the legislative strategy. First she brandished the notion of "mail-order brides," casting foreign women as victims of predatory males. Then she dubbed international dating services as "marriage brokers," conjuring up the image of a rogue operation trading lives for dollars.
On July 13, 2004 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled a hearing to air the issue. No dating services or happily-betrothed foreign women were invited to testify — their comments would not likely fit the script.
During her testimony, Cantwell made the startling claim that match-making services serve as a nefarious front for international human trafficking. She concluded, "there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers." As proof of that "epidemic," she highlighted the cases of three abused women.
Cantwell's depiction of comely maidens being seduced into prostitution rings was more than Sen. Sam Brownback could resist, and before long he signed on as a leading co-sponsor of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. With liberals and conservatives now on board, IMBRA's political star was rising.
But it turns out that Senator Cantwell's supposition that dating services drag women into a life of sex slavery and indentured servitude was nothing more than a feminist tall-tale.
There was the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service report that revealed, "less than 1 percent of the abuse cases now being brought to the attention of the INS can be attributed to the mail-order bride industry." [http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ba5d0676988d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD]
A second analysis soberly concluded that foreign brides are "dramatically less likely to be involved in domestic violence as calculated by the Intimate Partner Murder Rate." [www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=544.0]
And earlier this week the Washington Post reported that early estimates of up to 100,000 human trafficking victims being secreted into the United States each year were grossly exaggerated. Despite more than $150 million of taxpayer dollars diverted to a massive search and rescue effort, it turns out the actual number of trafficking victims is closer to 200 annually. [www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20929223]
But in the politically-correct atmosphere that envelopes Washington these days, agendas count for more than the truth.
So after the gavel fell on the Senate hearing, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act was bundled into the Violence Against Women Act. That law was signed into law on January 5, 2006. A few days later, Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy castigated the act as branding all American men as "abusers." [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html]
Now, any man who wishes to go through an international dating company must submit to an extensive background check. That's right, guys, get ready to tell them about your arrests, criminal history, restraining orders, how many times you've been married, and even how many children you have. For good measure, don't forget the sex offender registry check.
So thanks to Senator Cantwell's artful dissembling and Senator Brownback's white-horse chivalry, men are presumed to be a threat to foreign women. And Cupid's arrow now falls under the watchful eyes of green-visored bureaucrats.
Source:here
Carey Roberts Carey Roberts
September 26, 2007
Want a textbook example how the Left manufactures a crisis, passes a law that rolls back Constitutional protections, snookers card-carrying conservatives, and bilks American taxpayers? Look no farther than IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.
A little background: It's no secret that conditions in post-socialist Russia are grim. Author Sonya Luehrmann recounts how women desperately search to find a husband "to put one's personal life in order, to settle down with a stable family."
And here in the United States, some men find American ladies to be a little too, shall we say, high-maintenance for their tastes.
Before long over 200 match-making services around the world had sprouted up like a clutch of springtime tulips.
A few years ago University of Pittsburgh professor Nicole Constable set out to probe the inner workings of these dating agencies. In her book Romance on a Global Stage, Constable revealed the international match-makers were simply responding to a human need for companionship and love. Many men who marry foreign brides "went to great lengths to ensure their partner's comfort and happiness in the United States," she noted.
But feminists are rankled by any hint that their nostrum for female liberation may be curtailing American women's marriage prospects. Worse, some of these foreign women actually aspire to be mothers and homemakers. Imagine that!
So the Sourpuss Sisters conspired to put the kibosh on the operation. They knew convincing Congress to regulate romance would be a hard sell. So they resorted to their tried and true formula of hackneyed stereotypes, outright demagoguery, and appeals to male chivalry.
It was Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington who quarterbacked the legislative strategy. First she brandished the notion of "mail-order brides," casting foreign women as victims of predatory males. Then she dubbed international dating services as "marriage brokers," conjuring up the image of a rogue operation trading lives for dollars.
On July 13, 2004 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled a hearing to air the issue. No dating services or happily-betrothed foreign women were invited to testify — their comments would not likely fit the script.
During her testimony, Cantwell made the startling claim that match-making services serve as a nefarious front for international human trafficking. She concluded, "there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers." As proof of that "epidemic," she highlighted the cases of three abused women.
Cantwell's depiction of comely maidens being seduced into prostitution rings was more than Sen. Sam Brownback could resist, and before long he signed on as a leading co-sponsor of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. With liberals and conservatives now on board, IMBRA's political star was rising.
But it turns out that Senator Cantwell's supposition that dating services drag women into a life of sex slavery and indentured servitude was nothing more than a feminist tall-tale.
There was the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service report that revealed, "less than 1 percent of the abuse cases now being brought to the attention of the INS can be attributed to the mail-order bride industry." [http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ba5d0676988d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD]
A second analysis soberly concluded that foreign brides are "dramatically less likely to be involved in domestic violence as calculated by the Intimate Partner Murder Rate." [www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=544.0]
And earlier this week the Washington Post reported that early estimates of up to 100,000 human trafficking victims being secreted into the United States each year were grossly exaggerated. Despite more than $150 million of taxpayer dollars diverted to a massive search and rescue effort, it turns out the actual number of trafficking victims is closer to 200 annually. [www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20929223]
But in the politically-correct atmosphere that envelopes Washington these days, agendas count for more than the truth.
So after the gavel fell on the Senate hearing, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act was bundled into the Violence Against Women Act. That law was signed into law on January 5, 2006. A few days later, Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy castigated the act as branding all American men as "abusers." [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html]
Now, any man who wishes to go through an international dating company must submit to an extensive background check. That's right, guys, get ready to tell them about your arrests, criminal history, restraining orders, how many times you've been married, and even how many children you have. For good measure, don't forget the sex offender registry check.
So thanks to Senator Cantwell's artful dissembling and Senator Brownback's white-horse chivalry, men are presumed to be a threat to foreign women. And Cupid's arrow now falls under the watchful eyes of green-visored bureaucrats.
Source:here
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Your love burns
Woman Convicted in Husband's Acid Murder
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
LOS ANGELES - A biochemist who killed her husband by knocking him out and pouring hydrochloric acid on him was convicted Wednesday of first-degree murder.
A Superior Court jury found Larissa Schuster, 47, of Clovis, guilty of murdering Timothy Schuster with the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain. His half-dissolved body was found a few days after his 2003 death in a barrel that was inside a storage unit that his wife had rented.
Schuster faces a mandatory term of life in prison without parole at sentencing, set for Jan. 16.
Defense attorney Roger Nuttall declined to comment to The Fresno Bee after the hearing. A call to his office by The Associated Press seeking comment after the verdict was not immediately returned.
Jury selection began in October in Fresno. The trial was moved to Los Angeles after a judge ruled there was too much media attention in Fresno County to be able to find an impartial jury.
The Schusters co-owned a chemical lab and were in the midst of a bitter divorce.
Prosecutors said Larissa Schuster and her former lab assistant kidnapped her 45-year-old husband on July 10, 2003, knocked him out with a stun gun and chloroform-soaked rag, then dumped his bound body headfirst into a barrel while he was still breathing.
The assistant, James Fagone, told authorities that Larissa Schuster then poured hydrochloric acid into the 55-gallon container.
Fagone said Schuster paid him $2,000 to help rob and assault her husband but he didn't know murder was planned. Schuster testified that Fagone killed her husband by accident and that she only helped dispose of the body.
Fagone was convicted in December 2006 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
(Sorry,can't post the link because that would mean that my ISP be known and I won't do that. But is an AP story so google it.)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
LOS ANGELES - A biochemist who killed her husband by knocking him out and pouring hydrochloric acid on him was convicted Wednesday of first-degree murder.
A Superior Court jury found Larissa Schuster, 47, of Clovis, guilty of murdering Timothy Schuster with the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain. His half-dissolved body was found a few days after his 2003 death in a barrel that was inside a storage unit that his wife had rented.
Schuster faces a mandatory term of life in prison without parole at sentencing, set for Jan. 16.
Defense attorney Roger Nuttall declined to comment to The Fresno Bee after the hearing. A call to his office by The Associated Press seeking comment after the verdict was not immediately returned.
Jury selection began in October in Fresno. The trial was moved to Los Angeles after a judge ruled there was too much media attention in Fresno County to be able to find an impartial jury.
The Schusters co-owned a chemical lab and were in the midst of a bitter divorce.
Prosecutors said Larissa Schuster and her former lab assistant kidnapped her 45-year-old husband on July 10, 2003, knocked him out with a stun gun and chloroform-soaked rag, then dumped his bound body headfirst into a barrel while he was still breathing.
The assistant, James Fagone, told authorities that Larissa Schuster then poured hydrochloric acid into the 55-gallon container.
Fagone said Schuster paid him $2,000 to help rob and assault her husband but he didn't know murder was planned. Schuster testified that Fagone killed her husband by accident and that she only helped dispose of the body.
Fagone was convicted in December 2006 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
(Sorry,can't post the link because that would mean that my ISP be known and I won't do that. But is an AP story so google it.)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Feedback from To Catch A Predator
Out of morbid curiosity I decided to look at the To Catch A Predator (TCAP) on the MSNBC webpage and read the comments section,some were supportive of the misandry and others were just really hysterical in supporting it:
I think you should do this in every city....but you have to think about it, if these predators are smart enough to use the net, witch is so easy for them...what about the ones that don't have the internet...they are still out there looking for ways to get at our kids. Never stop doing this, you have already saved many kids. And the predators will never stop showing up. I fear my daughter may fall victim someday because they never give up.
And as far as intrapment goes thats a bunch of crap...I cannot even go in a chat room titled sewing and crafts, without pop up after pop up from some sickO trying to send pic and talk about sex, and my profile says I'm 44. No chatroom topic is what it says it is, all the chatrooms are full of sickOs. What your doing is great ...and now that you know whats going on out there in cyber space, now that you started you can never stop. Keep up the great work and expand your operation...Thanks to date line and Chris Hansen
Angela Madonado Southgate Mi (Sent Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:29 PM)
I see,so if a man hits on a 44 year old woman up for sex he is labelled a "sicko". If Angela is as fat and ugly as her acerbic personality leads us to believe she may have a point because no man in his right mind would hook up with such a beast.
Hey Chris if you're the one reading this I would like to know how or if I could become a member of your perverted decoy staff. I am 20 yrs old and look younger than my 13 yr old brother. I love your show and would really like being a member of it.
Amanda Rawson, Mesquite, Tx (Sent Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:21 PM)
Well,Amanda I would like to see you raped,killed and thrown in a revine somewhere for your misandry.
Hi I love the Show. I think It is time to really start getting these perverts off the streets and behine Bars. my Questions is, is there Ever a time where you felt like hitting any of the predators. Just wondering. Also when are we going to see a Women get caught.
Jon Petrosky, Manhiem PA. (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 3:42 PM)
The feminists would shit if Dateline went after women and Dateline knows if they go after women feminists will come after Dateline. Misandry and ratings is all that matters and the truth is the first casualty.
I love to watch dateline. Dateline has exposed many
sexual predators. Thanks Thanks.... Our country needs more people like Chris Hansen. Chris you do your job with such professional guidelines. Thanks for doing your job right and for catching these men. You have put men behind bars and also saved a childs life from being damaged forever.
Bonnie-----Vermilion Ohio (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:28 PM)
Yes,as long as it's men who are persecuted in this matter women like Bonnie have no problem with it but when it's women women like Bonnie are the first to excuse them.
Then there were the hysterical,such as these two:
I AM APPALLED AT SOME OF YOUR LETTERS!!! TO THINK DATELINE IS LURING THEM- PLEASE!!! DATELINE IS DOING YOUR CHILDREN A SERVICE. I COULD CARE LESS IF BEING EXPOSED RUINS THEIR LIVES, AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED, THEY NEED TO BE LOCKED UP FOREVER. YOU SICK PEOPLE NEED TO ASK YOURSELF HOW YOU WOULD FEEL IF SOMEONE MOLESTED YOUR DAUGHTER OR GRANDAUGHTER. I CANNOT COMPREHEND HOW YOU CAN FEEL FOR THESE SICK THINGS THAT ARE LESS THAN HUMAN.
AS FOR CHRIS HANSEN, I CAN'T THANK HIM ENOUGH. I ONLY WISH HE COULD DO THIS DAILY---CATCH THEM ALL,LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY. YOU PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THESE SICKOS CANNOT BE REHABILITATED. CHILDREN ARE THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. SO ALL YOU PEOPLE PUTTING DOWN THE SHOW, FEELING SORRY FOR THEM, SHAME ON YOU AND HOLD ON TO YOUR KIDS FOR DEAR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TARA WILSON, morongo valley, california (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:56 PM)
THIS IS THE BEST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ALL THE PERVERTS OUT THERE LOOKING FOR YOUNG GIRLS AND BOYS TO SATISFY THEIR SICK MINDS. I LOVE THE SHOW AND WOULD LOVE TO HELP OUT ON THE COMPUTER TO GET THESE PEOPLE LOCKED UP FOREVER. I LIVE IN IOWA AND IF EVER I COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR YOUR SHOW WOULD BE GLAD TO HELP U OUT ANY WAY I COULD.
CAROL HEABERLIN NEVADA IOWA 50201 (Sent Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:43 PM)
Ever notice that the guys in 1940's movies slap hysterical women and they calm down? Ever notice that the guys in 2000's movies don't and she goes on with her hysterics?
Maybe it's time to bring stuff back from the past.
WOW!!! so to all the people hating on this show from the comments below you guys cant be serious. there is a big purpose of this show and it does work. it intimidates people from going online and getting humiliated on tv and thats good enough for me rite there. this is a GREAT example about the police man with all those loaded weapons on him as he walked in and in his car what do you think could have happend there??? he had a m4 assualt rifle and a bunch of pistols all LOADED AND OFF SAFETY ready to fire he was not authorized to carry all those weapons. the purpose of this show is to show america how many of these sick people are out there. THESE GUYS WERE ABOUT TO HAVE SEX WITH A GIRL OR BOY THAT SAID THEY WERE 13! is that to much for you guys to comprehend??? if you guys dont have anything nice to say about this show then go comment on all the other 50 bad shows that are on american television they deserve it this is one show that doesnt deserve any of that negative stuff. keep up the great work you are making a difference
kyle, seattle, washington (Sent Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:11 PM)
Obviously Kyle from Seattle doesn't believe in free speech for anyone who isn't an asshat named Kyle from Seattle.
All you people who think this is entrapment need to get educated about the legal system before making such statements...nobody forced them to do what they did - these guys will go to jail. Also, those folks who said that these guys didn't break any laws don't know what their talking about also. Again, I say these guys will go to jail for their "attempt" and "intent." I have great concern for the folks on this blog who make these kind of statements and think you all need to see a mental health professional. If youre stupid enough to get "lured" out to meet a underage girl or boy for sex, your dumb ass needs to go to jail. I think Chris Hansen, his crew, and the DA office is doing a great job and should continue.
Heath Humble, Shreveport, LA (Sent Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:40 AM)
Most of the comments supporting Hansen and his show are pretty much women and manginas that would sue everybody involved if someone did this to them.
Source: here
A little too much... Yes they went with intent to have sex with a child, they are sick, literally mentally sick and their lives will be ruined until they die. But is it necessary to show their faces? How many children in real life go online and attempt to have a male adult come to meet them as the decoy does? I don't know that answer. why don't you research that. Howcome this only targeting men? Why aren't they targeting women with little boys?
w fehr (Sent Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:39 PM)
Well,W Fehr Hansen would be tortured on the the gonads by irate feminists if that happened.
IT TAKES 2 TO TANGO... These people are mentally sick but on the other side of this, If this is going on in the real world, why don't you reverse the sting and have the police decoys pretend to be the adult and expose the underage child which is online soliciting the sick adults? Certainly their parents should have some responsibility for what there children are doing on the internet...
j johnson, houston tx (Sent Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:28 PM)
That would entail holding women accoutable for their actions and this misandric society would have a shit fit if that happened. Besides that would mean holding the single mom parent accountable and keeping an eye on her child cuts into the boozing and doping time that she loves.
1st Do most of these men do time in jail or prison,because in a sence they are lured? I think these men definetly should half to register as a pederass, but in the long run they should be atacking this from all angles men,women and the 13,14 year old kids that are really doing this beacause its just as much there falt for talking to adults in sexual manor and apparently the adults cant make a right decsion and should be busted, but so should every one that engages in these enternet chats and not just target the men. I just think dateline could put a better stop to this if they exposed everyone from the teens to the adults.
Colorado (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 2:00 AM)
Where is the misandry in that? Feminists who have stranglehold the old media have a saying: no misandry,no airtime.
I can not believe people disagree with this show. If this was their child the blog would read differently. This is crime regardless if you touch the girl or not, the fact that these so called victims of set up even show up to the house means they intended to commit a crime. DUH!!! That's DUMB on their part. So if you show up you deserve EVERYTHING you get, that includes being shown on T.V. If they don't mind destroying these kids life than the same should be returned to them. I love the show and think all of them should get their man hood cut off. I bet they won't think twice, because they won't do it. Keep up the GREAT WORK!!!
Kim, Seattle, WA (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 1:02 PM)
If they were to do a special on female predators I'll bet Kim would be their first bust and since Kim is such a big believer in punishment she won't mind when I remove her clitoris.
I absolutely cannot believe you who believe that this show is a bunch of crap! How can you care about these twisted people?! Are you one of them? Chris Hansen and NBC are not out to ruin the lives of these perverts; the perverts do it to themselves! I don't care if men are always horny, they all need to learn self control. Chris Hansen specifically says that it was THEIR choice to start conversations with these "young kids." I hope these guys go to hell for their atrocities. Our world is so full of evil, in countless ways. You who think that this show is bad, do you also think prostitution is okay? Because THOUSANDS of women are being SOLD to pimps who often rape them, then sell them to numerous men EVERY day. They are rarely given any money, often locked up, and contract various STDs. AND it happens in the US! This is not removed from our "lovely little country." I hope you understand one day why it is so vital to "Catch a Predator" before our children are actually preyed upon. And I hope that instead of watching your lovely little sexually charged TV shows, such as "Dirty Sexy Money" or "Grey's Anatomy," you think twice about the values of our culture. Maybe if it became important to people like you, their wouldn't be so many predators. Thank you Chris Hansen and NBC for your show. I don't necessarily like the graphic chats, but I am glad that these people are caught.
Ashlee 911, USA (Sent Monday, September 03, 2007 4:10 AM)
When Ashlee is not chastising people she is assistant director for the Vagina Monolouges. Ashlee is a strong arguement not only for abortion but for forced sterilization as well. Ashlee's parents used to be pro-life but Ashlee's presence has changed their minds.
In 1981 we didn't have the laws or the technology to protect the youth of our country, as, we do, today. Many of you are too young to know about the Adam Walsh case, still unsolved, in Hollywood, Florida. A missing child was considered a local issue and not considered a priority.
Even, though, Dateline, best, illustrates the point, I, still, credit John Walsh for, all he has done, to make this country safer for our children. In his show, "America's Most Wanted", his, personal, anger, still shows, after all these years.
I would like to see Walsh and Hansen do a show, together. Not only would it strengthen the point, even further, but it may, even, increase the number of possible predators getting second thoughts before becoming criminally involved or getting help before appearing in a live sting, or worse, creating more victims.
It's not, just, the sex crimes we're trying to protect our kids from.
Dateline, AMW, Cops, all of you, keep up the good work.
Mark, FL (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:01 AM)
Jesus Fucking Christ I can't believe how stupid some people are. If Mark had a sliver of intelligence he would know that the guy who killed Adam Walsh DIED IN PRISON. He was in prison for another crime but he confessed to killing Adam and the reason the case is labelled "unsolved" is because the cops botched the case from the beginning. If you don't believe me ask John Walsh yourself.
Chris; i love ure show, how you stay so calm & professional is amazing. "blank in your blank" is my fav quote from ure show.. not that this is by any means a comical situation for anyone. I think its an awsome job that perverted justice and the law enforcment agencies that dateline is in correspondence with, perform. DATELINE should bring the operation down to Tucson and Sounthern AZ, i see young girls here "I MEAN YOUNG" acting like therye 21-22. so i imagine the number of predators your team could catch would be off the chart.....
Chris' #1 fan in AZ Myles
myles tucson az (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:42 PM)
So instead of telling these girls to dress more appropriately or tell their parents (read single moms) to make their daughters behave Myles the mangina would rather bust men for being attracted to these girls. I guess Myles is upset that men would rather be with women than some fag named "Myles".
I am horrified that DA Rouch thinks that it is ok to let these perverted predators loose! What is he thinking? If I was in his district and state I would be demanding his resignation! And my second thought on this if he is letting these predictors loose maybe he is excusing them because he belongs to that class of succumb!
I think that people in his district and state should Demand he resign now! Thank God someone is going to hold those men accountable!
Our children deserve vigilance and yes even idiots like this DA to get out of the way so someone will step up and protect our children!
Theresa Cape Cod, MA (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:07 PM)
Thank God,Mass. spoke up. I mean Mass. has no weirdos. No weirdos like Ted Kennedy or Gerry Studds. Hmmm,on second thought perhaps Mass. should just shut the fuck up. Maybe this D.A. knows bullshit entrapment when he sees it.
Okay,you guys, I just don't understand. All of these men have committed a crime. The crime is called cyber-stalking. Those of you who think that the real predators are only cruising schools and playgrounds are completely out of touch with reality. How many young girls run away every day to meet the 'love of their lives', men posing as boys to lure these innocent girls away from home? Cathy, who suggests that it is 'normal' for any hot-blooded adult male to be enticed by a 14 year old CHILD, is delusional and dangerous. Any adult man that is enticed by a child is a pedophile, don't doubt it for a moment and don't you dare minimize this sick and disturbing behavior. I hope that you never have any children, if this is truly what you believe. As for entrapment, so what? We live in a society that barely punishes this behavior, that screams about the criminal's rights and ignores the rights of these poor, innocent children who are violated by these predatory animals. If there are law enforcement agencies that are willing to skirt around some minor legalities to get these animals off of our streets, more power to them. As for the idiot prosecutor in Texas that had dropped all charges for those caught in his part of the state, I hope your decision doesn't come back to haunt you. Do you have a daughter, a granddaughter? Perhaps you should ask them how they feel about you releasing these predators back onto the streets where they will offend again. Thank God, perhaps they will all stay in Texas, since you'all obviously care more for the rights of the accused than the rights of innocent children. Finally, about the man who committed sucide. Innocent men do not kill themselves to avoid 'embarassment' or 'negative exposure'. He was corosponding with a minor online, having sexually charged conversations. To damn bad if he had second thoughts, the intent was there. If he hadn't reacted as he did, chances are extremely high that he would have found some innocent child to force his sick affections on. Chris, hang in there, rise above the silly and forgiving nature of some of the population and know, without a doubt, that what you are accomplishing with your show is good, and true and right. Keep getting these animals off of our streets and Blessed Be.
Janet Worden, Marcus, WA (Sent Friday, September 07, 2007 1:30 PM)
Perhaps we should curtail the rights of Janet Worden of Marcus,Washington. Clearly Janet is an irrational nutcase who should be involutarily hospitalized and subjected to sedatives so she is not a danger to herself and anyone else. Also she does not represent everyone in the wiccan community.
I would like to end this post on a postive note:
You know, Im certainly no supporter of pedophiles ect...but during the last show I really got a strong feeling that what you are doing is not right. Its hard to put a finger on exactly but I feel that you guys are going to far. Coaxing intially innocent people into crimes is entrapment and unfair, especially considering the consequences of the humiliation you put them through. Teasing men with the claims of being a promiscuous young female and luring them into a police trap is hardly something you guys should be proud of. Im hearing similar statements from other people. I think the credit card fraud thing is more respectable and something Ill continue to watch. Having a "girl" set guys up so you can ruin them in the name of ratings like you do is not. Walker Cronkite would certainly not approve for your "journalism".
Ed Walker, Holiday, Fl (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:31 PM)
Source:here
Thank you,Ed for being the voice of common sense.
I've touched on To Catch A Predator previouly.
I think you should do this in every city....but you have to think about it, if these predators are smart enough to use the net, witch is so easy for them...what about the ones that don't have the internet...they are still out there looking for ways to get at our kids. Never stop doing this, you have already saved many kids. And the predators will never stop showing up. I fear my daughter may fall victim someday because they never give up.
And as far as intrapment goes thats a bunch of crap...I cannot even go in a chat room titled sewing and crafts, without pop up after pop up from some sickO trying to send pic and talk about sex, and my profile says I'm 44. No chatroom topic is what it says it is, all the chatrooms are full of sickOs. What your doing is great ...and now that you know whats going on out there in cyber space, now that you started you can never stop. Keep up the great work and expand your operation...Thanks to date line and Chris Hansen
Angela Madonado Southgate Mi (Sent Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:29 PM)
I see,so if a man hits on a 44 year old woman up for sex he is labelled a "sicko". If Angela is as fat and ugly as her acerbic personality leads us to believe she may have a point because no man in his right mind would hook up with such a beast.
Hey Chris if you're the one reading this I would like to know how or if I could become a member of your perverted decoy staff. I am 20 yrs old and look younger than my 13 yr old brother. I love your show and would really like being a member of it.
Amanda Rawson, Mesquite, Tx (Sent Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:21 PM)
Well,Amanda I would like to see you raped,killed and thrown in a revine somewhere for your misandry.
Hi I love the Show. I think It is time to really start getting these perverts off the streets and behine Bars. my Questions is, is there Ever a time where you felt like hitting any of the predators. Just wondering. Also when are we going to see a Women get caught.
Jon Petrosky, Manhiem PA. (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 3:42 PM)
The feminists would shit if Dateline went after women and Dateline knows if they go after women feminists will come after Dateline. Misandry and ratings is all that matters and the truth is the first casualty.
I love to watch dateline. Dateline has exposed many
sexual predators. Thanks Thanks.... Our country needs more people like Chris Hansen. Chris you do your job with such professional guidelines. Thanks for doing your job right and for catching these men. You have put men behind bars and also saved a childs life from being damaged forever.
Bonnie-----Vermilion Ohio (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:28 PM)
Yes,as long as it's men who are persecuted in this matter women like Bonnie have no problem with it but when it's women women like Bonnie are the first to excuse them.
Then there were the hysterical,such as these two:
I AM APPALLED AT SOME OF YOUR LETTERS!!! TO THINK DATELINE IS LURING THEM- PLEASE!!! DATELINE IS DOING YOUR CHILDREN A SERVICE. I COULD CARE LESS IF BEING EXPOSED RUINS THEIR LIVES, AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED, THEY NEED TO BE LOCKED UP FOREVER. YOU SICK PEOPLE NEED TO ASK YOURSELF HOW YOU WOULD FEEL IF SOMEONE MOLESTED YOUR DAUGHTER OR GRANDAUGHTER. I CANNOT COMPREHEND HOW YOU CAN FEEL FOR THESE SICK THINGS THAT ARE LESS THAN HUMAN.
AS FOR CHRIS HANSEN, I CAN'T THANK HIM ENOUGH. I ONLY WISH HE COULD DO THIS DAILY---CATCH THEM ALL,LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY. YOU PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THESE SICKOS CANNOT BE REHABILITATED. CHILDREN ARE THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. SO ALL YOU PEOPLE PUTTING DOWN THE SHOW, FEELING SORRY FOR THEM, SHAME ON YOU AND HOLD ON TO YOUR KIDS FOR DEAR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TARA WILSON, morongo valley, california (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:56 PM)
THIS IS THE BEST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ALL THE PERVERTS OUT THERE LOOKING FOR YOUNG GIRLS AND BOYS TO SATISFY THEIR SICK MINDS. I LOVE THE SHOW AND WOULD LOVE TO HELP OUT ON THE COMPUTER TO GET THESE PEOPLE LOCKED UP FOREVER. I LIVE IN IOWA AND IF EVER I COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR YOUR SHOW WOULD BE GLAD TO HELP U OUT ANY WAY I COULD.
CAROL HEABERLIN NEVADA IOWA 50201 (Sent Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:43 PM)
Ever notice that the guys in 1940's movies slap hysterical women and they calm down? Ever notice that the guys in 2000's movies don't and she goes on with her hysterics?
Maybe it's time to bring stuff back from the past.
WOW!!! so to all the people hating on this show from the comments below you guys cant be serious. there is a big purpose of this show and it does work. it intimidates people from going online and getting humiliated on tv and thats good enough for me rite there. this is a GREAT example about the police man with all those loaded weapons on him as he walked in and in his car what do you think could have happend there??? he had a m4 assualt rifle and a bunch of pistols all LOADED AND OFF SAFETY ready to fire he was not authorized to carry all those weapons. the purpose of this show is to show america how many of these sick people are out there. THESE GUYS WERE ABOUT TO HAVE SEX WITH A GIRL OR BOY THAT SAID THEY WERE 13! is that to much for you guys to comprehend??? if you guys dont have anything nice to say about this show then go comment on all the other 50 bad shows that are on american television they deserve it this is one show that doesnt deserve any of that negative stuff. keep up the great work you are making a difference
kyle, seattle, washington (Sent Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:11 PM)
Obviously Kyle from Seattle doesn't believe in free speech for anyone who isn't an asshat named Kyle from Seattle.
All you people who think this is entrapment need to get educated about the legal system before making such statements...nobody forced them to do what they did - these guys will go to jail. Also, those folks who said that these guys didn't break any laws don't know what their talking about also. Again, I say these guys will go to jail for their "attempt" and "intent." I have great concern for the folks on this blog who make these kind of statements and think you all need to see a mental health professional. If youre stupid enough to get "lured" out to meet a underage girl or boy for sex, your dumb ass needs to go to jail. I think Chris Hansen, his crew, and the DA office is doing a great job and should continue.
Heath Humble, Shreveport, LA (Sent Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:40 AM)
Most of the comments supporting Hansen and his show are pretty much women and manginas that would sue everybody involved if someone did this to them.
Source: here
A little too much... Yes they went with intent to have sex with a child, they are sick, literally mentally sick and their lives will be ruined until they die. But is it necessary to show their faces? How many children in real life go online and attempt to have a male adult come to meet them as the decoy does? I don't know that answer. why don't you research that. Howcome this only targeting men? Why aren't they targeting women with little boys?
w fehr (Sent Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:39 PM)
Well,W Fehr Hansen would be tortured on the the gonads by irate feminists if that happened.
IT TAKES 2 TO TANGO... These people are mentally sick but on the other side of this, If this is going on in the real world, why don't you reverse the sting and have the police decoys pretend to be the adult and expose the underage child which is online soliciting the sick adults? Certainly their parents should have some responsibility for what there children are doing on the internet...
j johnson, houston tx (Sent Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:28 PM)
That would entail holding women accoutable for their actions and this misandric society would have a shit fit if that happened. Besides that would mean holding the single mom parent accountable and keeping an eye on her child cuts into the boozing and doping time that she loves.
1st Do most of these men do time in jail or prison,because in a sence they are lured? I think these men definetly should half to register as a pederass, but in the long run they should be atacking this from all angles men,women and the 13,14 year old kids that are really doing this beacause its just as much there falt for talking to adults in sexual manor and apparently the adults cant make a right decsion and should be busted, but so should every one that engages in these enternet chats and not just target the men. I just think dateline could put a better stop to this if they exposed everyone from the teens to the adults.
Colorado (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 2:00 AM)
Where is the misandry in that? Feminists who have stranglehold the old media have a saying: no misandry,no airtime.
I can not believe people disagree with this show. If this was their child the blog would read differently. This is crime regardless if you touch the girl or not, the fact that these so called victims of set up even show up to the house means they intended to commit a crime. DUH!!! That's DUMB on their part. So if you show up you deserve EVERYTHING you get, that includes being shown on T.V. If they don't mind destroying these kids life than the same should be returned to them. I love the show and think all of them should get their man hood cut off. I bet they won't think twice, because they won't do it. Keep up the GREAT WORK!!!
Kim, Seattle, WA (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 1:02 PM)
If they were to do a special on female predators I'll bet Kim would be their first bust and since Kim is such a big believer in punishment she won't mind when I remove her clitoris.
I absolutely cannot believe you who believe that this show is a bunch of crap! How can you care about these twisted people?! Are you one of them? Chris Hansen and NBC are not out to ruin the lives of these perverts; the perverts do it to themselves! I don't care if men are always horny, they all need to learn self control. Chris Hansen specifically says that it was THEIR choice to start conversations with these "young kids." I hope these guys go to hell for their atrocities. Our world is so full of evil, in countless ways. You who think that this show is bad, do you also think prostitution is okay? Because THOUSANDS of women are being SOLD to pimps who often rape them, then sell them to numerous men EVERY day. They are rarely given any money, often locked up, and contract various STDs. AND it happens in the US! This is not removed from our "lovely little country." I hope you understand one day why it is so vital to "Catch a Predator" before our children are actually preyed upon. And I hope that instead of watching your lovely little sexually charged TV shows, such as "Dirty Sexy Money" or "Grey's Anatomy," you think twice about the values of our culture. Maybe if it became important to people like you, their wouldn't be so many predators. Thank you Chris Hansen and NBC for your show. I don't necessarily like the graphic chats, but I am glad that these people are caught.
Ashlee 911, USA (Sent Monday, September 03, 2007 4:10 AM)
When Ashlee is not chastising people she is assistant director for the Vagina Monolouges. Ashlee is a strong arguement not only for abortion but for forced sterilization as well. Ashlee's parents used to be pro-life but Ashlee's presence has changed their minds.
In 1981 we didn't have the laws or the technology to protect the youth of our country, as, we do, today. Many of you are too young to know about the Adam Walsh case, still unsolved, in Hollywood, Florida. A missing child was considered a local issue and not considered a priority.
Even, though, Dateline, best, illustrates the point, I, still, credit John Walsh for, all he has done, to make this country safer for our children. In his show, "America's Most Wanted", his, personal, anger, still shows, after all these years.
I would like to see Walsh and Hansen do a show, together. Not only would it strengthen the point, even further, but it may, even, increase the number of possible predators getting second thoughts before becoming criminally involved or getting help before appearing in a live sting, or worse, creating more victims.
It's not, just, the sex crimes we're trying to protect our kids from.
Dateline, AMW, Cops, all of you, keep up the good work.
Mark, FL (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:01 AM)
Jesus Fucking Christ I can't believe how stupid some people are. If Mark had a sliver of intelligence he would know that the guy who killed Adam Walsh DIED IN PRISON. He was in prison for another crime but he confessed to killing Adam and the reason the case is labelled "unsolved" is because the cops botched the case from the beginning. If you don't believe me ask John Walsh yourself.
Chris; i love ure show, how you stay so calm & professional is amazing. "blank in your blank" is my fav quote from ure show.. not that this is by any means a comical situation for anyone. I think its an awsome job that perverted justice and the law enforcment agencies that dateline is in correspondence with, perform. DATELINE should bring the operation down to Tucson and Sounthern AZ, i see young girls here "I MEAN YOUNG" acting like therye 21-22. so i imagine the number of predators your team could catch would be off the chart.....
Chris' #1 fan in AZ Myles
myles tucson az (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:42 PM)
So instead of telling these girls to dress more appropriately or tell their parents (read single moms) to make their daughters behave Myles the mangina would rather bust men for being attracted to these girls. I guess Myles is upset that men would rather be with women than some fag named "Myles".
I am horrified that DA Rouch thinks that it is ok to let these perverted predators loose! What is he thinking? If I was in his district and state I would be demanding his resignation! And my second thought on this if he is letting these predictors loose maybe he is excusing them because he belongs to that class of succumb!
I think that people in his district and state should Demand he resign now! Thank God someone is going to hold those men accountable!
Our children deserve vigilance and yes even idiots like this DA to get out of the way so someone will step up and protect our children!
Theresa Cape Cod, MA (Sent Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:07 PM)
Thank God,Mass. spoke up. I mean Mass. has no weirdos. No weirdos like Ted Kennedy or Gerry Studds. Hmmm,on second thought perhaps Mass. should just shut the fuck up. Maybe this D.A. knows bullshit entrapment when he sees it.
Okay,you guys, I just don't understand. All of these men have committed a crime. The crime is called cyber-stalking. Those of you who think that the real predators are only cruising schools and playgrounds are completely out of touch with reality. How many young girls run away every day to meet the 'love of their lives', men posing as boys to lure these innocent girls away from home? Cathy, who suggests that it is 'normal' for any hot-blooded adult male to be enticed by a 14 year old CHILD, is delusional and dangerous. Any adult man that is enticed by a child is a pedophile, don't doubt it for a moment and don't you dare minimize this sick and disturbing behavior. I hope that you never have any children, if this is truly what you believe. As for entrapment, so what? We live in a society that barely punishes this behavior, that screams about the criminal's rights and ignores the rights of these poor, innocent children who are violated by these predatory animals. If there are law enforcement agencies that are willing to skirt around some minor legalities to get these animals off of our streets, more power to them. As for the idiot prosecutor in Texas that had dropped all charges for those caught in his part of the state, I hope your decision doesn't come back to haunt you. Do you have a daughter, a granddaughter? Perhaps you should ask them how they feel about you releasing these predators back onto the streets where they will offend again. Thank God, perhaps they will all stay in Texas, since you'all obviously care more for the rights of the accused than the rights of innocent children. Finally, about the man who committed sucide. Innocent men do not kill themselves to avoid 'embarassment' or 'negative exposure'. He was corosponding with a minor online, having sexually charged conversations. To damn bad if he had second thoughts, the intent was there. If he hadn't reacted as he did, chances are extremely high that he would have found some innocent child to force his sick affections on. Chris, hang in there, rise above the silly and forgiving nature of some of the population and know, without a doubt, that what you are accomplishing with your show is good, and true and right. Keep getting these animals off of our streets and Blessed Be.
Janet Worden, Marcus, WA (Sent Friday, September 07, 2007 1:30 PM)
Perhaps we should curtail the rights of Janet Worden of Marcus,Washington. Clearly Janet is an irrational nutcase who should be involutarily hospitalized and subjected to sedatives so she is not a danger to herself and anyone else. Also she does not represent everyone in the wiccan community.
I would like to end this post on a postive note:
You know, Im certainly no supporter of pedophiles ect...but during the last show I really got a strong feeling that what you are doing is not right. Its hard to put a finger on exactly but I feel that you guys are going to far. Coaxing intially innocent people into crimes is entrapment and unfair, especially considering the consequences of the humiliation you put them through. Teasing men with the claims of being a promiscuous young female and luring them into a police trap is hardly something you guys should be proud of. Im hearing similar statements from other people. I think the credit card fraud thing is more respectable and something Ill continue to watch. Having a "girl" set guys up so you can ruin them in the name of ratings like you do is not. Walker Cronkite would certainly not approve for your "journalism".
Ed Walker, Holiday, Fl (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:31 PM)
Source:here
Thank you,Ed for being the voice of common sense.
I've touched on To Catch A Predator previouly.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Why the militancy
That question has been asked by many MRA's and the answer should be obvious: what has moderation accomplished for us? What has "niceness" done for us? Besides getting us deeper into this mess. Why be nice to an enemy that not only wants to take everything from you but would like to see you DEAD on top of it. Not only that but if you are a father with sons the average feminist would like to see your young sons dead too,just because they are male. These Neville Chamberlains would have you believe they can accomplish peace in our time by making deals with these devils and just like any deal with the devil they get burned. Not only them but the rest of us as well. Then the moderates have the nerve to tell us to shut up or we'll play into the feminist hands. The one thing that I think of is that if we stay silent we definitely will play into the feminists hands,the same if we play "nice". If we play nice,just as we have for the last 160 years (if you include feminism as a whole) or for 40 years (if you are focusing on 2nd wave feminism) then we will continue to get fucked. Why the militancy? Because it is hard to be nice when you are getting assfucked in court (family to criminal to civil) and it's really hard to be nice when society blames YOU for what happens in a "he said/she said" situation even though SHE IS THE ONE AT FAULT and it's really hard to be nice and pleasant when you try to illustrate what is happening to you and/or other men in society when everybody wants to play the ostrich and would rather not know,that is until another "he said/she said" situation arises again and then it's boom,they back off to the races to repeat the same mistakes as last time and when they do they are applauded by the lemmings that make up society lest they are labelled "politically incorrect". It seems they would rather kill their own families to avoid being labelled "politically incorrect". A big problem with moderates is that they are usually staffed by older manginas or young men from single mother homes that don't want to upset women and that there defeats the purpose of being an MRA because if you don't upset women then you will stay silent concerning mens' issues and the women win by your silence. TO ERODE WOMEN'S POWER OVER MEN ONE MUST SPEAK UP AND DESTROY THE FEMINSIT MONSTER THAT WANTS TO DESTROY YOU AND YOUR BROTHERS.
Instead of asking why the militancy one should ask is the militancy legitimate? and the answer is "yes".
Follow-up:the militancy is working
Instead of asking why the militancy one should ask is the militancy legitimate? and the answer is "yes".
Follow-up:the militancy is working
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Today America,tomorrow the world
Washington, DC –Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr.(D-DE) and Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the International Violence Against Women Act, groundbreaking legislation which will, for the first time, integrate the United States’ efforts to end gender-based violence into U.S. foreign assistance programs.
“From the trafficking of women in Eastern Europe, to “honor” killings in Jordan, to rape as a brutal weapon of war in Darfur and the Congo, violence against women is everywhere. It’s a devastating and persistent truth in every country, in every community, and across every social demographic,” said Sen. Biden.
“It is essential for the United States to work with non-governmental organizations and like-minded countries to end domestic violence. No woman, regardless of her income or education level, should live in fear or be made to believe that physical or emotional abuse is acceptable,” said Sen. Lugar.
One in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime, and in some countries, that’s true for 70 percent of women. Every day around the globe, women and girls face domestic violence, rape, forced or child marriage, so-called “honor” killings,dowry-related murder, human trafficking, and female genital mutilation. The United Nations estimates that at least 5,000 “honor” killings take place each year around the world and more than 130,000,000 girls and young women worldwide have been subjected to genital mutilation. A 2006 United Nations Report found that at least 102 member states had no specific laws on domestic violence.
“The International Violence Against Women Act marshals together, for the first time,
coordinated American resources and leadership to address this global issue. I believe the time is now for the United States to get actively engaged in the fight for women’s lives and girls’ futures, and we must begin by preventing and responding to the violence they face,” added Sen. Biden.
“We cannot expect to reduce poverty and decrease the spread of diseases such as HIV/AIDS until we have more equitable treatment of women in developing countries. Empowered and educated women are the key to breaking these cycles,” said Sen. Lugar.
Not surprisingly, violence against women and girls has a significant impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Violence breeds poverty. It impedes economic development because it can prevent girls from going to school, or stop women from holding jobs or inheriting property, or shut down access to critical health care for themselves and their children. Efforts to wipe out AIDS and other diseases are compromised when women are beaten for telling their husbands they are infected. Girls are less likely to attend school when they fear being raped by their teachers.
“We’ve made tremendous progress in reducing violence against women here in the United States since we passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, but we cannot ignore women in other parts of the world – women whose lives are devastated by poverty, political and civic exclusion, disease, and violence. We cannot empower women to become active in civic life and promote peace, prosperity and democracy unless they personally are free from fear of violence. Taking an active stand against global violence against women isn’t just moral,it’s smart foreign policy,” added Sen. Biden.
The International Violence Against Women Act has three main components. Specifically, the legislation:
Creates one central Office for Women’s Global Initiatives to coordinate the United States’ policies, programs and resources that deal with women’s issues. Never before has there been one person who reports directly to the Secretary of State on issues related to gender-based violence. Mandates a 5-year comprehensive strategy to fight violence against women in 10 to 20 selected countries and provides a new, dedicated funding stream of $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system, healthcare, girls’ access to education and school safety, women’s economic empowerment, and public awareness campaigns.
Requires training, reporting mechanisms and a system for dealing with women and girls afflicted by violence during humanitarian, conflict and post-conflict operations. As the recent reports from the Congo make tragically clear, in situations of humanitarian crises,conflict and post-conflict operations, women and girls are particularly vulnerable to violence. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls in exchange for token food items, or women subjected to unimaginable brutality and torture as a tactic of war are shocking in number and inhumanity. There is a dire need for increased training and reporting requirements for refugee workers to help crack down on
these brutal acts of violence. In addition, the bill crafts a new designation of “critical outbreaks” and requires emergency measures when rape is used as a weapon of war or in conflicts where violence against women is sharply escalating with impunity. “This strategy will be our government’s blueprint on how to wisely tackle violence against women and girls,” said Sen. Biden. “There were more than 27,000 reported rapes in just one province in the Congo last year. This legislation will give the State Department more tools to protect and treat women brutally attacked in this conflict.”
The International Violence Against Women Act was crafted with the input and expertise of over 100 nongovernmental organizations here and abroad working on gender-based violence,human rights, health care, international development and aid. These groups include Amnesty International, CARE, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Human Rights Watch, Inter-Agency Gender Working Group (IGWG), International Rescue Committee Jewish Women International,Legal Momentum, Lutheran World Relief, Women’s Edge Coalition, and Vital Voices Global Partnership.
“Violence devastates the lives of millions of women and girls and their families worldwide,” said Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. “We have seen the terrible consequences of mass rapes in Bosnia, the Congo and elsewhere. We grieve with the mothers in Juárez whose daughters are victims of an ongoing femicide. Violence against women,whether in the home or in armed conflict, destabilizes communities, undermines economic development and breeds poverty and despair.”
“We express tremendous praise and gratitude to Senators Biden and Lugar for their
outstanding leadership to address violence against women internationally,” Mr. Cox
continued. “Until now we have seen only sporadic efforts to stop violence in one or more countries. The problem is too widespread and deeply rooted for a scattershot approach. We need a consistent vision to stop violence. This bill sends that message.”
“It’s time for our nation to do much more to protect women and children worldwide," said Esta Soler, President of the Family Violence Prevention Fund. We commend Senator Biden for his 15 years of leadership in ending violence against women and children in the U.S. and abroad. We intend to put the same energy and resources into enacting the I-VAWA that we put into the (domestic) Violence Against Women Act.”
“Working in conflict zones worldwide, we know firsthand that violence against women and girls devastates both the individual and her community,” said George Rupp, President of the International Rescue Committee. “We believe firmly that women and girls have the right to lives that are free of sexual and physical abuse, and this legislation can help make that a reality. The International Rescue Committee applauds Senators Biden and Lugar for introducing this important legislation.”
“Violence is one of the biggest barriers to women's economic participation. It's hard to work if you are fearing for your life," said Ritu Sharma Fox, Co-Founder and President of the Women's Edge Coalition. “The I-VAWA will ensure that our hard-earned tax dollars are supporting efforts to end this scourge, and that violence does not prevent women from going to work, getting an education and supporting their families.”
Source: here
Saturday, November 17, 2007
What's next,the electric chair?
Marc H. Rudov
Don't Tase Me, Babe!
November 13, 2007 at 1:00 pm · Filed under Vox Populi
Presumptive Predators
In case you didn't know, October was “Domestic Violence Awareness Month,” during which Americans were startled to learn that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. Mention this at a party, and you'll find yourself standing alone at the punchbowl for the rest of the night: people just don't want to hear it. Sugar and spice, remember?
Because of VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), American men are presumptively and, therefore, unconstitutionally tagged as predators. Men must face a feminist justice system of proving innocence, instead of being protected by the US Constitution, which requires prosecutors to prove guilt. They have Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) to thank for this -- just ask the three exonerated lacrosse players from Duke University. And, what happened to Crystal Gail Mangum, the woman who was protected by an unconstitutional rape-shield law after she falsely accused them of rape? The same thing that happens to all fraudulent rape accusers: nothing. What do the feminist presidential candidates (Hillary and the men) have to say about this: nothing. How many of you men in Delaware will reelect Joe Biden?
The misandrist climate doesn't end there. Because of IMBRA, the unconstitutional law that Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) sponsored, American men are considered dangerous to foreign women. That's right, foreign women in foreign countries now have more American rights than American men living in America. Because of IMBRA, foreign women now have the power to demand unilateral background checks on American men before dating them. Worse, they can do whatever they want with this confidential information. How many of you men in Kansas will reelect Sam Brownback?
The Shocking Truth
Enter the “Taser for ladies,” available in metallic pink for $350 from Taser International, Inc., in Scottsdale, AZ. A news item on Fox News described the latest fad: women having Taser parties, redolent of Tupperware parties, where they get each other to purchase these weapons. Do women sometimes find themselves in dangerous situations where they need protection? Absolutely.(Of course the term "dangerous" is left for the woman to exclusively define and act upon. I'm sure Mary Winkler thought it would be "dangerous" for her husband to find out she wrote bad checks so to "protect" herself she murdered him.) Because of VAWA, do women have the potential to fraudulently use Tasers, with impunity -- in arguments, in rages, out of jealousy, for spite, in revenge, etc. -- to commit legal assault and battery on innocent men? You bet they do!
A Taser purchaser must register with and get approval from the company. What about training, though? If she uses it, where on a man's body will she aim it? Is she liable for any harm to him? Is she obligated to get him medical attention? According to the company Website: TASER® energy weapons are not considered firearms — they're legal to carry in most states without permits (including California). They are restricted from citizen use in MA, RI, NY, NJ, WI, MI, HI, IL, and certain cities and counties. According to a German consultant to the company, Tasers, as consumer products, are currently illegal in Europe.
If Taser weapons are not considered firearms, what are they considered? This presents yet another challenge to our hypocritical, gynocratic “legal” system. I don't know what Tasers are considered, but I can guess: in the name of protecting women -- translation: getting the female vote -- our male legislators and judges will ignore the issue until men force them to deal with it. This is the shocking truth, folks.
Here's a scenario to ponder: If a maniacal wife attacks her husband, as so often happens, and he tases her, what do you suppose would happen to him? Ha! How many lawyers would it take to defend him, to “prove his innocence”? Not to mention being pilloried by the media as a wimp (when a woman attacks a man, it is just emotion; let it go).
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
I counsel every man to ask a new paramour, before becoming sexually involved with her, about: her use of birth control, her willingness to terminate an accidental pregnancy, and her carriage of STDs. Now, there is a new question to add: Do you own a Taser? If she does, and logic and perspective don't appear to be her strongsuits, stay far, far away from her.
Remember Biden & Brownback: they have convinced their Senate and House colleagues to give women the preponderance of civil and criminal rights. They are responsible for creating the Department of Justice's unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women. And, they will be responsible for women indiscriminately tasing men.
There are many things you might want to say during a romantic evening gone badly, but the last one is: “Don't tase me, babe!”
Source: here
Don't Tase Me, Babe!
November 13, 2007 at 1:00 pm · Filed under Vox Populi
Presumptive Predators
In case you didn't know, October was “Domestic Violence Awareness Month,” during which Americans were startled to learn that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. Mention this at a party, and you'll find yourself standing alone at the punchbowl for the rest of the night: people just don't want to hear it. Sugar and spice, remember?
Because of VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), American men are presumptively and, therefore, unconstitutionally tagged as predators. Men must face a feminist justice system of proving innocence, instead of being protected by the US Constitution, which requires prosecutors to prove guilt. They have Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) to thank for this -- just ask the three exonerated lacrosse players from Duke University. And, what happened to Crystal Gail Mangum, the woman who was protected by an unconstitutional rape-shield law after she falsely accused them of rape? The same thing that happens to all fraudulent rape accusers: nothing. What do the feminist presidential candidates (Hillary and the men) have to say about this: nothing. How many of you men in Delaware will reelect Joe Biden?
The misandrist climate doesn't end there. Because of IMBRA, the unconstitutional law that Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) sponsored, American men are considered dangerous to foreign women. That's right, foreign women in foreign countries now have more American rights than American men living in America. Because of IMBRA, foreign women now have the power to demand unilateral background checks on American men before dating them. Worse, they can do whatever they want with this confidential information. How many of you men in Kansas will reelect Sam Brownback?
The Shocking Truth
Enter the “Taser for ladies,” available in metallic pink for $350 from Taser International, Inc., in Scottsdale, AZ. A news item on Fox News described the latest fad: women having Taser parties, redolent of Tupperware parties, where they get each other to purchase these weapons. Do women sometimes find themselves in dangerous situations where they need protection? Absolutely.(Of course the term "dangerous" is left for the woman to exclusively define and act upon. I'm sure Mary Winkler thought it would be "dangerous" for her husband to find out she wrote bad checks so to "protect" herself she murdered him.) Because of VAWA, do women have the potential to fraudulently use Tasers, with impunity -- in arguments, in rages, out of jealousy, for spite, in revenge, etc. -- to commit legal assault and battery on innocent men? You bet they do!
A Taser purchaser must register with and get approval from the company. What about training, though? If she uses it, where on a man's body will she aim it? Is she liable for any harm to him? Is she obligated to get him medical attention? According to the company Website: TASER® energy weapons are not considered firearms — they're legal to carry in most states without permits (including California). They are restricted from citizen use in MA, RI, NY, NJ, WI, MI, HI, IL, and certain cities and counties. According to a German consultant to the company, Tasers, as consumer products, are currently illegal in Europe.
If Taser weapons are not considered firearms, what are they considered? This presents yet another challenge to our hypocritical, gynocratic “legal” system. I don't know what Tasers are considered, but I can guess: in the name of protecting women -- translation: getting the female vote -- our male legislators and judges will ignore the issue until men force them to deal with it. This is the shocking truth, folks.
Here's a scenario to ponder: If a maniacal wife attacks her husband, as so often happens, and he tases her, what do you suppose would happen to him? Ha! How many lawyers would it take to defend him, to “prove his innocence”? Not to mention being pilloried by the media as a wimp (when a woman attacks a man, it is just emotion; let it go).
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
I counsel every man to ask a new paramour, before becoming sexually involved with her, about: her use of birth control, her willingness to terminate an accidental pregnancy, and her carriage of STDs. Now, there is a new question to add: Do you own a Taser? If she does, and logic and perspective don't appear to be her strongsuits, stay far, far away from her.
Remember Biden & Brownback: they have convinced their Senate and House colleagues to give women the preponderance of civil and criminal rights. They are responsible for creating the Department of Justice's unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women. And, they will be responsible for women indiscriminately tasing men.
There are many things you might want to say during a romantic evening gone badly, but the last one is: “Don't tase me, babe!”
Source: here
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Another feminazi who hates MRA's
Here is another example of an anti-MRA feminazi,who basically discounts the plight of men by personally attacking the author and then people wonder why extremenists such as myself exist.
I also wanted to add this ginmar quote:
Men typically get light sentences for killing their wives. Women are not likewise judged leniently. Even so, for Sparky here, that's too much.
Cowshit,we all know that men fare worse then women when it comes to being accused of a crime and get stiffer punishments so I have no idea where ginmar gets her information from other than it is suspect and like most feminists she will have fried her reputation by posting it.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Robin Steele's heavy handedness
The following is a threat from Robin Steele:
Your thougths?
quote:
Q
U
O
T
E
From: Robin
Date: Nov 13, 2007 2:19 PM
MikeeUSA:
Your last email implied that you are just playing
around with a created persona... Using the hate, etc.
just to get a rise out of people... or at least
exaggerating your views. In case that's true, Let's
take a timeout from the game. I'm going to give you
some very important advice and I hope you'll take it
seriously. If you choose instead to disregard it or
share it with the brain dead Bob, MM and other dregs,
I at least warned you and my conscience is clear.
There is no anonymity on the Internet. I am only a
moderately powerful attorney with moderately powerful
connections, and I could have you located, arrested
and charged with making terroristic threats with a
single phone call. I'm not saying this as a threat and
have no intention of doing so. My point is that there
are many more who could - and would - do much worse if
it benefitted them.
I've seen people sent to prison because politicians
want to look like they're responding to threats. Look
at the HS kid from PA who was emailing the shooter in
Finland. That kid faces a possible 6 years in prison.
The headlines read that law enforcement foiled the
next Columbine. This was a week before voters decided
whether the district attorney should be a judge. Do
you think they give a rat's ass if fat boy has to go
to prison instead of college so they can get their
judgeship? Fat boy made himself an easy target.
The real world has real consequences.
MikeeUSA, I know you think you're smart, but I want
you to think about this. You've made yourself the
easiest target possible for anyone who needs some
tough-on-crime PR. All anyone needs to do is seize
your computer and lead you away in handcuffs to get
themselves on the front page as the one who prevented
the next Columbine.
If you think the truth matters more than appearance,
you could be in for a serious education. Do you think
the FBI screws around if they perceive even the
possibility of a threat? They might. But they won't if
they perceive that they could get blamed for NOT
responding if and when something happened. CYA is Rule
#1.
If you're getting scared, good. That means you have a
clue. I don't give a shit what you do. I just blew
$450 in billable time writing this warning to you. But
if I were you, I would not only tame or kill the
psycho-hater persona, but I would have him neutralize
the threat asap. Have MikeeUSA see the light. Say it
was a joke. Find religion. Write an apology to the
prosecutor you threatened (your most idiotic move).
Whatever. But as long as your well-crafted "persona"
is out there spreading hate and advocating violence,
are a sacrificial lamb serving yourself and your
future up on a silver platter.
If you are a psycho or just plain stupid, you'll
disregard and carry on. That's better for me, as I
won't have to find a new psycho. But I share this with
you for your own good. Good luck no matter what.
Now back to our regularly scheduled conflict.
Robin Steele, Esq.
Since Robin claims to be an attorney then she must know what "racketeering" is and that she has just committed it. Perhaps some attorneys that are pro-MRA can advise us on what action we can take against Steele.
Matriarchy: not male friendly
The lies:
Ms. Steele is a rising star and headed for prominence in the new era. Despite her occasionally combative demeanor, she truly wants what's best for you. A little respect now could pay large dividends to you later.
We all want what's best for you, but Robin is one of the strongest advocates of tolerance and balanced rights for men, even with the personal attacks you've made on her.
_________________________________
Think back to elementary school for a moment.
Who were the best pupils?
The smartest students?
The most responsible?
Who sat in the front of the class and paid attention?
Which students did the neatest homework, completed assignments on time and were busy learning while you were rolling around in the dirt on the playground or shooting spitballs?
Are the students you're thinking of girls, by any chance? Of course they are.
Did you ever wonder why the best and brightest of your generation weren't the ones, then, to hold the top positions in government & business? To make the important decisions? To direct the less capable instead of the other way around?
Is it any wonder the country is in such disarray?
Well, relax. Don't fret. That will be corrected shortly. We'll soon be fulfilling our potential - as a nation and as a people.
We are entering, together, a Golden Age, the new Femocracy, in which a woman president and women executives will assume the leadership roles in government and business. There is no rational reason for men to feel threatened, as we are one people. Both men and women are biologically necessary for survival as a species. What is best for our species, and our nation, is best for men as well.
It is not a matter of fault but we are an ecosystem that has been out of balance. While we are in a precarious and urgent situation, is not to late for our new regime to mitigate the damage that has been done through war, greed, hate and stupidity... the natural result of having the playground bullies in charge rather than the A students.
The Femocracy will bring on a golden age of justice, tolerance and logic for ALL citizens, both the leaders in power and their subjects alike. That being said, a little respect at this point could be a wise investment in your future.
Strength & Unity Forever,
Athena Y
November 14, 2007 4:37 AM
The truth:
The head organizer of the New Zealand MRA bothering campaign has been giving notice at his apartment/flat in New Zealand. The reasons for this seems to be non-financial for he has not miss a payment for years (barring a bank mistake in the distant past).
He says he was given a notice that laid blame for this eviction for his work at Hands on Equal Parenting and it bothering campaign against the worst judges in New Zealand for separating fathers and kids at the behest of those in power. Is this Prime Minster Helen Clark's string pulling at work, or the work of one of her emotional socialist followers actions in support of her government?
It seems the trust or co-op that runs the complex is aggressively applying is powers for political purposes. It seems that acting in political discord is now a home removing offence in the feminist run government of Helen Clark. This is the same government that has shut down several blogs trying to report on New Zealand Child Services abuses.
Honourable people working at the CYFS department who feel they have no other recourse in dealing with abuse beginning dished out by the department, for management is not interested in stopping it, have been reporting their inside stories to the public. The agenda of the feminist government in arbitrarily removing children from happy homes on the whim of politically correct interventionists, who do not like to be confronted on their practices by the families involved, the public, and even from quarters within their own department is very telling.
The question we must face is this our future? Feminism it could be argued arrived first in New Zealand and is now leading the way again with limits on men leaving the country and the taking of passports and much more. With this eviction notice and the odd parking tickets directed at one of the heads of MRAs in NZ the temperature for men in New Zealand and else where may mean a begrudging acceptance that our radicals were right in arguing that Western States refusal to reform themselves without more extreme measures is a given.
This must be very worrying to the Helengrad government, as the women to men ratio gets widens as men get out before its not allowed (usually to Australia).
It is time to keep a close eye on the next step of the Helengrad Clark government and make sure internationally we know about her government practices for they may be used by others.
Source: here
Friday, November 9, 2007
Cuntlips,I would like an answer
I posted this in the comments section of Robin's blog and it seems to be ignored. Since Robin likes to stick up for the police and feminism I asked her a simple question:
What is your position on male police officers who are accused by female suspects of acting inappropriate toward them?
Whom would you believe?
November 7, 2007 10:38 PM
Source:her blog
Well,Robin,I along with others are awaiting an answer.
What is your position on male police officers who are accused by female suspects of acting inappropriate toward them?
Whom would you believe?
November 7, 2007 10:38 PM
Source:her blog
Well,Robin,I along with others are awaiting an answer.
Why we fight-part 2 (a drill)
The following dramatization gives a look at the mentality of feminists and we wanted to show that we do understand their mentality as well:
Longlive the cencorship of MRAs!
-anonymous November 8, 2007 6:19 PM
Source: here
anonymous said:
Bob's getting all the airtime again? Mikeusa advocates rape too. Scroll down the post Rape how it should be handled. Also underaged marraige of girls just because they can have children is advocated by the satanic bible thumper. You should do more research of these blogs: you would find more things that you hate, more men supporting old bible verses that give them a monopoly on power against women and girls. It's like the men don't care to have women in power and just want their own lives to be good and won't sacrifice for women.
EXPOSE THESE BIBLE THUMPING MYSOGINISTS. SHOW EVERYONE THAT THEY TRUELY BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE AND ARE SATANS.
I see the phrase "Death To women's Rights" on that blog in many places.
What do you think should happen to Bob, Masculinist Man, Mikeusa, KellyMac, and ChrisKey?
If you were personally the president what would you do to these traitors and enemies of women?
November 7, 2007 10:01 AM
anonymous said:
So if it cannot be tolerated in a free society then what punishment should they get if they continue to disrespect women even with help?
I'm with you on this one. I don't believe that men should have the absolute freedom to say or write whatever they want. We have schools to wring this mysoginistic thought proccess out of boys and to help girls learn to be strong but if it doesn't work shouldn't something happen to the men?
November 7, 2007 11:47 AM
anonymous said:
Yes, I agree. The first thing we should do is ammend the first ammendment so it applies only to women. Men have proven throughout history that they cannot responsibly handle even the slightest hint of power without opressing women and girls with it. They even opress other men who are minorities. This country has got to change. I think we have enough power as sixty percent of the voters to remove speech rights from men.
November 7, 2007 1:48 PM
anonymous said:
Yes man are evil oppressors! and that's why we have to oppress them!!!
Pot meet kettle
LOL!
November 7, 2007 5:46 PM
Source: here
Longlive the cencorship of MRAs!
-anonymous November 8, 2007 6:19 PM
Source: here
anonymous said:
Bob's getting all the airtime again? Mikeusa advocates rape too. Scroll down the post Rape how it should be handled. Also underaged marraige of girls just because they can have children is advocated by the satanic bible thumper. You should do more research of these blogs: you would find more things that you hate, more men supporting old bible verses that give them a monopoly on power against women and girls. It's like the men don't care to have women in power and just want their own lives to be good and won't sacrifice for women.
EXPOSE THESE BIBLE THUMPING MYSOGINISTS. SHOW EVERYONE THAT THEY TRUELY BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE AND ARE SATANS.
I see the phrase "Death To women's Rights" on that blog in many places.
What do you think should happen to Bob, Masculinist Man, Mikeusa, KellyMac, and ChrisKey?
If you were personally the president what would you do to these traitors and enemies of women?
November 7, 2007 10:01 AM
anonymous said:
So if it cannot be tolerated in a free society then what punishment should they get if they continue to disrespect women even with help?
I'm with you on this one. I don't believe that men should have the absolute freedom to say or write whatever they want. We have schools to wring this mysoginistic thought proccess out of boys and to help girls learn to be strong but if it doesn't work shouldn't something happen to the men?
November 7, 2007 11:47 AM
anonymous said:
Yes, I agree. The first thing we should do is ammend the first ammendment so it applies only to women. Men have proven throughout history that they cannot responsibly handle even the slightest hint of power without opressing women and girls with it. They even opress other men who are minorities. This country has got to change. I think we have enough power as sixty percent of the voters to remove speech rights from men.
November 7, 2007 1:48 PM
anonymous said:
Yes man are evil oppressors! and that's why we have to oppress them!!!
Pot meet kettle
LOL!
November 7, 2007 5:46 PM
Source: here
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Why we fight
SCUM Manifesto
REDSTOCKINGS MANIFESTO (1969)
I. After centuries of individual and preliminary political struggle, women are united to achieve their final liberation from male supremacy. Redstockings is dedicated to building this unity and winning our freedom.
II. Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men's lives. Our humanity is denied. Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence.
Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition. This creates the illusion that a woman's relationship with her man is a matter interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually. In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.
III. We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy: men dominate women, a few men dominate the rest. All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.
IV. Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from men to institutions or to women themselves. We condemn these arguments as evasions. Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor. To blame institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized, obscures the fact that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives men the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors. On the contrary, any man is free to renounce his superior position provided that he is willing to be treated like a woman by other men.
We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women's submission is not the result of brainwashing, stupidity, or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change our-selves, but to change men.
The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men. The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of men to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution.
V. We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.
Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions. Consciousness-raising is not "therapy", which implies the existence of individual solutions and falsely assumes that the male-female relationship is purely personal, but the only method by which we can ensure that our program for liberation is based on the concrete realities of our lives.
The first requirement for raising class consciousness is honesty, in private and in public, with ourselves and other women.
VI. We identify with all women. We define our best interest as that of the poorest, most brutally exploited woman.
We repudiate all economic, racial, educational or status privileges that divide us from other women. We are determined to recognize and eliminate any prejudices we may hold against other women.
We are committed to achieving internal democracy. We will do whatever is necessary to ensue that every woman in our movement has an equal chance to participate, assume responsibility, and develop her political potential.
VII. We call on all our sisters to unite with us in struggle.
We call on all men to give up their male privileges and support women's liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own.
In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of women against their oppressors. We will not ask what is "revolutionary" or "reformist", only what is good for women.
The time for individual skirmishes has passed. This time we are going all the way.
Redstockings manifesto
Friday, November 2, 2007
She Heil
Something else from from Cuntlips:
IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!
The time has come to end the predatory use of the Internet to perpetuate violence against women!
The time has come for women of all races, faiths and nationalities to join together as one!
We are smarter.
We are focused.
We have the power.
And we are seizing control.
IMBRA was just the beginning.
The time has come.
The future is ours.
Support your sisters!
Defeat the Cretins!
[Tags: female domination, feminism, feminist, imbra, internet predators, male subservience, online dating rights, women rule, women's rights]
This is from a feminist site and they are not shy about what their goals are and how they're going to accomplish those goals as the word "seized" was used. These are their words for what they have in mind for men and that is feminist slavery of men and she doesn't hide it either. I've had detractors in the past deride me what do they say now AT THIS TIME. She said it herself,THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING and she and her sisters are not going to play nice. If you're not scared as hell you should be and if you're not mad as hell you should be but you should be if you're an American man because your rights are being infringed upon by lesbians and other manhaters who want to curtail you of your rights. I've said it before and it bears repeating as cuntlips post proves and that is:
MASCULIST REVOLUTION OR FEMINIST CASTRATION/DEATH CAMPS:YOUR CHOICE.
IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!
The time has come to end the predatory use of the Internet to perpetuate violence against women!
The time has come for women of all races, faiths and nationalities to join together as one!
We are smarter.
We are focused.
We have the power.
And we are seizing control.
IMBRA was just the beginning.
The time has come.
The future is ours.
Support your sisters!
Defeat the Cretins!
[Tags: female domination, feminism, feminist, imbra, internet predators, male subservience, online dating rights, women rule, women's rights]
This is from a feminist site and they are not shy about what their goals are and how they're going to accomplish those goals as the word "seized" was used. These are their words for what they have in mind for men and that is feminist slavery of men and she doesn't hide it either. I've had detractors in the past deride me what do they say now AT THIS TIME. She said it herself,THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING and she and her sisters are not going to play nice. If you're not scared as hell you should be and if you're not mad as hell you should be but you should be if you're an American man because your rights are being infringed upon by lesbians and other manhaters who want to curtail you of your rights. I've said it before and it bears repeating as cuntlips post proves and that is:
MASCULIST REVOLUTION OR FEMINIST CASTRATION/DEATH CAMPS:YOUR CHOICE.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
New adversary
It seems as though I have a new adversary in Robin Steele. Let's see what she says about me:
The oh-so erudite and eloquent eMasculated Cretins over at Men's Rights Blog took exception to my "outing" their latent homosexuality (which was already "out" to anyone who had taken a college-level Intro to Psych course, which is why none of them realized it, I guess). One of the more advanced (i.e. with opposable thumbs & potty trained) of the eMasculists (boldly putting forth his views under the name "anonymous") posted this reaction (in the quaint vernacular of his people) to the Woman of Steele blog:
Anonymous said...
Robin, if FredX or Duncan were still around then they'd
have made examples of you and a ton of other mras would have (rightly) been on
your ass. Masculist Man is a newer, but by no means lesser, mra who Im sure will
tear you a new asshole when he reads the kind of nastiness you said about him,
plus that kid who only wanted some help. Shame on you, you fucking asshole.
Deciphering this primitive language, I feel a bit like Margaret Meade. Here are my journal notes from my encounter with the savages:
...FredX or Duncan were still around...
Who are FredX and Duncan? The older men who taught eMasculated Man when he was just eFfeminate Boy? Where did they go? San Francisco? Bangcock? The aids clinic?
Masculist Man is a newer, but by no means lesser, mra who Im sure will tear you a new asshole...
Note to self: what's an mra? Men Reaming Assholes? Mostly Retarded Asshats? My Rectal Adventure? I'm sure Mr. eMas knows how to tear new assholes, having broken in lots of newbies like anonymous....
...that kid who only wanted some help...
I'm sure eMasculist was happy to give him a hand. Or both. I'm sure he doesn't just pay lip service to helping the nubile newbies.
...fucking asshole
That would be your area of expertise.
This has to be one stupid cunt because she wants to fuck with me. You were warned,Robin and you still want to come back. It's like Luke told you I've been an MRA (Men's Rights Activist) or masculist going on 15 years. So now you know what an MRA is just as we know what a femicunt is and if you want to find the nearest one look in the mirror unless you are looking at one of your sisters,either way it's not a pretty sight. I've noticed Robin's blog is new and that is either due to the fact she is on the rag or she lost her modelling job at Fat and Ugly magazine or both. Robin is very bitter toward men because her last boyfriend left her due to her incessant threats to have sex with him and one night he saw a chance to get his freedom and he took it and no one can really blame him and I trust he is living a nice life in the witness relocation program. Ever since then she has gone through a ton of vibrators and has vibrator repair on speed dial. A lot of vibrator and dildo manufactures will void their warrantees in Robin's case because she exceeds normal usage,unfortunately so does Robin's mouth and if the guy doesn't stick something in real quick he isn't going to like what comes out and that is why Robin is suffering stupidity and she is making sure the rest of us suffer too.
The oh-so erudite and eloquent eMasculated Cretins over at Men's Rights Blog took exception to my "outing" their latent homosexuality (which was already "out" to anyone who had taken a college-level Intro to Psych course, which is why none of them realized it, I guess). One of the more advanced (i.e. with opposable thumbs & potty trained) of the eMasculists (boldly putting forth his views under the name "anonymous") posted this reaction (in the quaint vernacular of his people) to the Woman of Steele blog:
Anonymous said...
Robin, if FredX or Duncan were still around then they'd
have made examples of you and a ton of other mras would have (rightly) been on
your ass. Masculist Man is a newer, but by no means lesser, mra who Im sure will
tear you a new asshole when he reads the kind of nastiness you said about him,
plus that kid who only wanted some help. Shame on you, you fucking asshole.
Deciphering this primitive language, I feel a bit like Margaret Meade. Here are my journal notes from my encounter with the savages:
...FredX or Duncan were still around...
Who are FredX and Duncan? The older men who taught eMasculated Man when he was just eFfeminate Boy? Where did they go? San Francisco? Bangcock? The aids clinic?
Masculist Man is a newer, but by no means lesser, mra who Im sure will tear you a new asshole...
Note to self: what's an mra? Men Reaming Assholes? Mostly Retarded Asshats? My Rectal Adventure? I'm sure Mr. eMas knows how to tear new assholes, having broken in lots of newbies like anonymous....
...that kid who only wanted some help...
I'm sure eMasculist was happy to give him a hand. Or both. I'm sure he doesn't just pay lip service to helping the nubile newbies.
...fucking asshole
That would be your area of expertise.
This has to be one stupid cunt because she wants to fuck with me. You were warned,Robin and you still want to come back. It's like Luke told you I've been an MRA (Men's Rights Activist) or masculist going on 15 years. So now you know what an MRA is just as we know what a femicunt is and if you want to find the nearest one look in the mirror unless you are looking at one of your sisters,either way it's not a pretty sight. I've noticed Robin's blog is new and that is either due to the fact she is on the rag or she lost her modelling job at Fat and Ugly magazine or both. Robin is very bitter toward men because her last boyfriend left her due to her incessant threats to have sex with him and one night he saw a chance to get his freedom and he took it and no one can really blame him and I trust he is living a nice life in the witness relocation program. Ever since then she has gone through a ton of vibrators and has vibrator repair on speed dial. A lot of vibrator and dildo manufactures will void their warrantees in Robin's case because she exceeds normal usage,unfortunately so does Robin's mouth and if the guy doesn't stick something in real quick he isn't going to like what comes out and that is why Robin is suffering stupidity and she is making sure the rest of us suffer too.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Texas needs to say "no" to prop. 13
From a Felony to a Phone Call: Texas Prop 13 Will Allow Innocent Men to Be Jailed Without Bail
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Texas voters will decide on November 6 whether to approve Proposition 13, a dangerous measure which will harm innocent men by greatly eroding the rights of those accused of domestic violence. The measure grants judges the ability to hold without bail those accused of nonviolent, trivial, or accidental violations of temporary restraining orders.
Under current Texas law, the only defendants ineligible for bail are those accused of capital crimes. In addition, judges are provided discretion to deny bail to those who have been both charged with a felony and convicted or indicted for a previous felony. To deny bail, there must be “evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused.”
Prop 13 obliterates this, and opens the road for many innocent men to be held without bail. Under Prop 13, a Texas father can be booted out of his house on an ex parte protective order and then be jailed without bail for violating the order by calling his own children or going to their Little League game.
It is true that protective orders can be a useful tool to help protect battered women. However, as the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, recently explained:
"Protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[the orders are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person.”
These orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them "part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
Restraining orders cut men off from their children and forbid them many routine behaviors. Men can and are arrested for violating their orders by such acts as: returning their children’s phone calls; going to their children’s school events; sending their kids birthday cards; or accidentally running into them at the park or the mall.
Under Prop 13, judges will have the power to incarcerate these men without bail. Moreover, the Proposition lowers the evidence standard from Substantial Showing to Preponderance of the Evidence, which can rapidly degenerate into a “he said/she said” contest that men usually lose.
Prop 13 doesn’t even make a distinction between long-term protection orders, where accused men have some (limited) ability to contest the charges, and ex parte temporary orders, which are often issued without even providing the man an opportunity to appear in court to defend himself.
According to the Texas House of Representatives’ House Research Organization, Prop 13’s proponents claim that accused men “would retain all their rights to due process and other protections. For example, the determination to deny bail would have to be made at a hearing in which the defendant could appeal the denial of bond or make a case for another bond.”
This ignores the fact that protective orders often seriously impair men’s ability to obtain legal representation and defend themselves. Protective orders make men homeless and can cut them off from their financial resources. In cases where they work with or near their wives, or operate businesses partly or wholly out of their homes, their incomes can disappear overnight. By contrast, women obtaining protective orders are afforded free legal services by victim advocates at local domestic violence shelters, and remain in the marital home.
The House Research Organization also states:
“The proposed amendment also could have unfair consequences relating to legislation enacted by the 80th Legislature – HB 1988 by Martinez – which allows some protective orders to be in effect for life. This could result in someone being denied bail for one mistake after years of following a protective order.”
Prop 13 is reflective of a dangerous legal trend. Laws and police policies for those accused of domestic violence have been made increasingly draconian, clogging court calendars with weak or evidence-free cases which, were it any other crime, wouldn’t even be acted upon. At the same time, the judicial system hasn’t devoted substantial additional time and resources to investigating and adjudicating domestic violence claims. The result is often assembly-line justice in Kangaroo Courts. Prop 13 will accentuate this trend, and victimize many innocent men and fathers.
This column first appeared in The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and the Austin-American Statesman (10/22/07).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. Their website is www.acfc.org
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at http://www.glennsacks.com/
Source: here
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Texas voters will decide on November 6 whether to approve Proposition 13, a dangerous measure which will harm innocent men by greatly eroding the rights of those accused of domestic violence. The measure grants judges the ability to hold without bail those accused of nonviolent, trivial, or accidental violations of temporary restraining orders.
Under current Texas law, the only defendants ineligible for bail are those accused of capital crimes. In addition, judges are provided discretion to deny bail to those who have been both charged with a felony and convicted or indicted for a previous felony. To deny bail, there must be “evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused.”
Prop 13 obliterates this, and opens the road for many innocent men to be held without bail. Under Prop 13, a Texas father can be booted out of his house on an ex parte protective order and then be jailed without bail for violating the order by calling his own children or going to their Little League game.
It is true that protective orders can be a useful tool to help protect battered women. However, as the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, recently explained:
"Protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[the orders are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person.”
These orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them "part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
Restraining orders cut men off from their children and forbid them many routine behaviors. Men can and are arrested for violating their orders by such acts as: returning their children’s phone calls; going to their children’s school events; sending their kids birthday cards; or accidentally running into them at the park or the mall.
Under Prop 13, judges will have the power to incarcerate these men without bail. Moreover, the Proposition lowers the evidence standard from Substantial Showing to Preponderance of the Evidence, which can rapidly degenerate into a “he said/she said” contest that men usually lose.
Prop 13 doesn’t even make a distinction between long-term protection orders, where accused men have some (limited) ability to contest the charges, and ex parte temporary orders, which are often issued without even providing the man an opportunity to appear in court to defend himself.
According to the Texas House of Representatives’ House Research Organization, Prop 13’s proponents claim that accused men “would retain all their rights to due process and other protections. For example, the determination to deny bail would have to be made at a hearing in which the defendant could appeal the denial of bond or make a case for another bond.”
This ignores the fact that protective orders often seriously impair men’s ability to obtain legal representation and defend themselves. Protective orders make men homeless and can cut them off from their financial resources. In cases where they work with or near their wives, or operate businesses partly or wholly out of their homes, their incomes can disappear overnight. By contrast, women obtaining protective orders are afforded free legal services by victim advocates at local domestic violence shelters, and remain in the marital home.
The House Research Organization also states:
“The proposed amendment also could have unfair consequences relating to legislation enacted by the 80th Legislature – HB 1988 by Martinez – which allows some protective orders to be in effect for life. This could result in someone being denied bail for one mistake after years of following a protective order.”
Prop 13 is reflective of a dangerous legal trend. Laws and police policies for those accused of domestic violence have been made increasingly draconian, clogging court calendars with weak or evidence-free cases which, were it any other crime, wouldn’t even be acted upon. At the same time, the judicial system hasn’t devoted substantial additional time and resources to investigating and adjudicating domestic violence claims. The result is often assembly-line justice in Kangaroo Courts. Prop 13 will accentuate this trend, and victimize many innocent men and fathers.
This column first appeared in The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and the Austin-American Statesman (10/22/07).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. Their website is www.acfc.org
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at http://www.glennsacks.com/
Source: here
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Anti-IMBRA article
by David R. Usher
IMBRA: End the Destruction Of Marriage
February 15, 2007 01:47 PM EST
Feminists’ success destroying marriage in America, and exporting it to many foreign nations via the United Nations under the guise of “Democracy” is now legendary. Feminist victim-politics – in which demands for “equal rights” mask powerful agenda mandating unequal wrongs – must be ended.
A substantial number of moderate and conservative women’s organizations now oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Not only did the outgoing Congress ignore the will of the people in reauthorizing VAWA last year, it added a dangerous anti-marriage known as IMBRA – the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act – a new and alarming legal construct to arbitrarily interfere with our constitutional right to free association.
IMBRA is a brute blockade making it impossible for foreign women to meet American men for marriage. American men must provide hardcopy about their criminal, family court orders, and arrest records to marriage introduction services, which must then show it to the woman and get her signature, before sharing contact information.
Since few foreign women are within visiting distance of the introduction service, and where less than half have access to the internet, they are effectively denied the possibility of marrying-up in the world. American men cannot freely meet or marry a nice woman who truly understands the value of marriage, and does not see men as just another sexual conquest leading to alimony and a huge child support order.
Feminists abhor American men having a way to find a marriage partner worth taking a risk on. Most American men who look overseas for marriage do so because in many foreign countries, women truly understand the purpose and value of marriage and having a husband. These women were not raised into a cult believing marriage is a war for domination and submission. They do not see marriage as being a trap hindering post-Kinsey sexual freedoms such as single-mother stripping and looting of Duke University students, or prostitution so staunchly defended by the National Organization for Women.
Having spent some time working in Korea, China, and Singapore I can testify to the vast attitudinal differences towards marriage between foreign women in these countries and their brainwashed American counterparts.
The first tip-off that IMBRA is a feminist social cartel: IMBRA does not provide information to American women because matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt.
IMBRA was invented by feminists on the fabrication that violent abusive American men like to wed foreign women because they are easier to abuse for lack of social protections and supports. Never mind that, as part of the immigration process, all potential foreign brides receive a nice pile of contact information for embassies, hotlines and women’s abuse centers which also contains embedded agitprop about how nasty American men are.
There is not one whit of scientific evidence suggesting that foreign brides are abused to any notable degree. Feminists have a very small number of cases cited as mass gospel, inflated by hubristic rumor-mill anecdote to paint an image tantamount to Edvard Munch’s “The Shriek”.
Here is the truth of the matter: the only scientific study done on marriages involving foreign brides was published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999, written by Dr. Robert Scholes. It found that between 4000 and 6000 international marriages occur as a result of international matchmaking agencies each year. Divorce rates are miniscule: 80% of these marriages “survive over the years”, compared to less than 50% of marriages with American women. Despite a lack of scientific evidence of abuse rates in these marriages, the report is laden with imaginary feminist pontifications.
Feminists also claim that international matchmaking somehow constitutes sex trafficking, despite the fact that there is no evidence that organized sex traffickers use these services. Feminists consider all marriages with foreign women to be “servile” sex trafficking and inherently abusive and provide no science to support the notion:
“Bringing a woman to the U.S. is not always considered to be sex trafficking. Some of the men treat their wives well and are looking for companionship, not just a housekeeper who provides sex”.
One major promoter of IMBRA is the Tahirih Justice Center. Tahirih receives federal VAWA grants, spending some of it on helping abused women, but apparently spending greatly on paid lobbyists and “Public Policy Advocacy” not itemized in its annual report. This is the traditional alarmist self-aggrandizing fundraising technique used by radical women’s advocates.
Where the Constitution guarantees the right of free association, and where Newt Gingrich and many others oppose speech censorship in the name of national security, I maintain that IMBRA is invalid. American men do have an unfettered right to “say hello” (which is exactly what International matchmaking services do).
The danger of IMBRA to free speech cannot be understated. If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever. Speak now, before the liberal elite holds your speech for you.
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network
drusher@swbell.net
Source: here
IMBRA: End the Destruction Of Marriage
February 15, 2007 01:47 PM EST
Feminists’ success destroying marriage in America, and exporting it to many foreign nations via the United Nations under the guise of “Democracy” is now legendary. Feminist victim-politics – in which demands for “equal rights” mask powerful agenda mandating unequal wrongs – must be ended.
A substantial number of moderate and conservative women’s organizations now oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Not only did the outgoing Congress ignore the will of the people in reauthorizing VAWA last year, it added a dangerous anti-marriage known as IMBRA – the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act – a new and alarming legal construct to arbitrarily interfere with our constitutional right to free association.
IMBRA is a brute blockade making it impossible for foreign women to meet American men for marriage. American men must provide hardcopy about their criminal, family court orders, and arrest records to marriage introduction services, which must then show it to the woman and get her signature, before sharing contact information.
Since few foreign women are within visiting distance of the introduction service, and where less than half have access to the internet, they are effectively denied the possibility of marrying-up in the world. American men cannot freely meet or marry a nice woman who truly understands the value of marriage, and does not see men as just another sexual conquest leading to alimony and a huge child support order.
Feminists abhor American men having a way to find a marriage partner worth taking a risk on. Most American men who look overseas for marriage do so because in many foreign countries, women truly understand the purpose and value of marriage and having a husband. These women were not raised into a cult believing marriage is a war for domination and submission. They do not see marriage as being a trap hindering post-Kinsey sexual freedoms such as single-mother stripping and looting of Duke University students, or prostitution so staunchly defended by the National Organization for Women.
Having spent some time working in Korea, China, and Singapore I can testify to the vast attitudinal differences towards marriage between foreign women in these countries and their brainwashed American counterparts.
The first tip-off that IMBRA is a feminist social cartel: IMBRA does not provide information to American women because matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt.
IMBRA was invented by feminists on the fabrication that violent abusive American men like to wed foreign women because they are easier to abuse for lack of social protections and supports. Never mind that, as part of the immigration process, all potential foreign brides receive a nice pile of contact information for embassies, hotlines and women’s abuse centers which also contains embedded agitprop about how nasty American men are.
There is not one whit of scientific evidence suggesting that foreign brides are abused to any notable degree. Feminists have a very small number of cases cited as mass gospel, inflated by hubristic rumor-mill anecdote to paint an image tantamount to Edvard Munch’s “The Shriek”.
Here is the truth of the matter: the only scientific study done on marriages involving foreign brides was published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999, written by Dr. Robert Scholes. It found that between 4000 and 6000 international marriages occur as a result of international matchmaking agencies each year. Divorce rates are miniscule: 80% of these marriages “survive over the years”, compared to less than 50% of marriages with American women. Despite a lack of scientific evidence of abuse rates in these marriages, the report is laden with imaginary feminist pontifications.
Feminists also claim that international matchmaking somehow constitutes sex trafficking, despite the fact that there is no evidence that organized sex traffickers use these services. Feminists consider all marriages with foreign women to be “servile” sex trafficking and inherently abusive and provide no science to support the notion:
“Bringing a woman to the U.S. is not always considered to be sex trafficking. Some of the men treat their wives well and are looking for companionship, not just a housekeeper who provides sex”.
One major promoter of IMBRA is the Tahirih Justice Center. Tahirih receives federal VAWA grants, spending some of it on helping abused women, but apparently spending greatly on paid lobbyists and “Public Policy Advocacy” not itemized in its annual report. This is the traditional alarmist self-aggrandizing fundraising technique used by radical women’s advocates.
Where the Constitution guarantees the right of free association, and where Newt Gingrich and many others oppose speech censorship in the name of national security, I maintain that IMBRA is invalid. American men do have an unfettered right to “say hello” (which is exactly what International matchmaking services do).
The danger of IMBRA to free speech cannot be understated. If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever. Speak now, before the liberal elite holds your speech for you.
Source: here
9/11 is a conspiracy against women or Faludi is still nuttier than a fruit cake
I've got two pictures of Susan Faludi and I didn't know which one to go with so I'm using both.
9/11 Is Seen as Leading to an Attack on Women
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: October 23, 2007
This, sadly, is the sort of tendentious, self-important, sloppily reasoned book that gives feminism a bad name.
With “The Terror Dream,” Susan Faludi has taken the momentous subject of 9/11 and come to the conclusion that it led to ... an assault on the freedom and independence of American women. In the wake of 9/11, she argues, the great American cultural machine churned out a myth meant to “restore the image of an America invulnerable to attack” — “the illusion of a mythic America where women needed men’s protection and men succeeded in providing it.”
She contends that there was a “peculiar urge to recast a martial attack as a domestic drama, attended by the disappearance and even demonization of independent female voices” and that there was a “beatification of the ideal post-9/11 American woman” as “undemanding, uncompetitive, and most of all dependent” — a woman who “didn’t just want a man in her life” but “needed one.”
These efforts on Ms. Faludi’s part to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as an occasion to recycle arguments similar to those she made a decade and a half ago in her best-selling book “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women” (1991) feel forced, unpersuasive and often utterly baffling.
To begin with, the reader wants to ask: What disappearance of female voices? What “bugle call” to “return to Betty Crocker domesticity?” Since 9/11, Hillary Rodham Clinton has become the leading Democratic contender in the race for the White House, with a good chance of becoming the first female president in history; Katie Couric was named anchor of the CBS Evening News; and women like Lara Logan of CBS and Martha Raddatz of ABC have been reporting from the frontlines of the war in Iraq.
Ms. Faludi asserts that the 9/11 widows “the media liked best” were the fragile, dependent ones, “who accepted that their ‘job’ now was to devote themselves to their families and the memory of their dead husbands.” But even she has to acknowledge that the so-called “Jersey Girls” (Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, and Lorie van Auken) played “an essential role in forcing the creation of the independent 9/11 Commission,” and helped strong-arm “top White House officials into testifying before the commission.”
Instead of simply celebrating their achievements, however, Ms. Faludi tries to argue that the Jersey Girls were the exceptions to the rule — that they departed from the official script, unlike those 9/11 widows who “projected a persona defined by unassailably demure and virtuous composure” to the world.
In fact, Ms. Faludi displays a disturbing tendency to write off or ignore evidence that might undermine her theories, while using highly selective anecdotal evidence (of which an endless supply exists in today’s blogosphere) to buttress her arguments.
She cites vicious e-mail messages received by the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund and the rantings of right-wing pundits as evidence of an antifeminist post-9/11 backlash. She writes that post-9/11 marketing efforts “had succeeded in darkening the image of the sexually liberated single woman,” even though “Sex and the City” remained a hit TV show in the years before and after the attacks.
And she writes that television and other pop culture manufacturers dispensed “the consolations of a domestic idyll where men wore all the badges, and women wielded all the roasting pans,” even though high-profile shows like “Scrubs,” “CSI: Miami” and “The Osbournes,” which had their debuts in the year or so after 9/11, hardly illustrate this theory, and television has more recently seen the emergence of shows (like “Damages,” “Saving Grace” and “The Closer”) featuring feisty middle-aged heroines as tough-talking lawyers and cops.
As for the much-covered, real-life story of Jessica Lynch (which was riddled with inaccuracies as initially reported), Ms. Faludi argues that it was promoted as “the story of a helpless white girl snatched from the jaws of evil by heroic soldiers,” “a tale of a maiden in need of rescue.” But while she says that rescue turned out to be a lot less daring than first portrayed, she dismisses much-talked-about depictions of Jessica Lynch as a “female Rambo” (which also turned out to be false) as a brief “counterversion” that “fell uncomfortably outside of the girl-in-need-of-rescue script.”
This girl-in-need-of-rescue paradigm, Ms. Faludi argues, dates back to frontier-days captivity narratives, which recounted the ordeals of settlers captured by Indians. She further contends that these narratives embodied the notion of shame (a “largely male burden, the result of recurring attacks in which the captivity of women and children served to spotlight male protective failures”), and that to counter this humiliation, there evolved redemption tales in which a maiden, taken against her will by “savages,” is rescued by a brawny white man.
This “mass dream,” Ms. Faludi goes on, “conceals the shaming memory, as it was meant to, but can’t expel it”: “The humiliating residue still circulates in our cultural bloodstream, awaiting provocation to bring it to the surface. And with each provocation, we salve our insecurities by invoking the same consoling formula of heroic men saving threatened women — even in provocations that have involved few women and no female captives, like the Revolutionary-era kidnapping of American sailors on the Barbary Coast. Or the terrorist attack on 9/11.”
Thus, she insists, “a feminist perspective on any topic was increasingly AWOL” after 9/11. Thus, she argues, various antifeminist impulses (“the cumulative elements of a national fantasy”) surfaced after 9/11, including “the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls.”
Not only are many of these assertions highly debatable in themselves, but Ms. Faludi’s overarching thesis in this book rings false too. In fact, her suggestion that the 9/11 attacks catalyzed the same fears and narrative impulses as those unleashed by our frontier ancestors’ “original war on terror,” leading to a muffling of feminist voices and a veneration of “the virtues of nesting,” runs smack up against her own “Backlash,” which suggested that similar assaults on women’s independence were being unleashed in the 1980s — a time not of war or threat but a decade that witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the coming end of the cold war.
Such errors of logic are typical of this ill-conceived and poorly executed book — a book that stands as one of the more nonsensical volumes yet published about the aftermath of 9/11.
Source: here
9/11 Is Seen as Leading to an Attack on Women
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: October 23, 2007
This, sadly, is the sort of tendentious, self-important, sloppily reasoned book that gives feminism a bad name.
With “The Terror Dream,” Susan Faludi has taken the momentous subject of 9/11 and come to the conclusion that it led to ... an assault on the freedom and independence of American women. In the wake of 9/11, she argues, the great American cultural machine churned out a myth meant to “restore the image of an America invulnerable to attack” — “the illusion of a mythic America where women needed men’s protection and men succeeded in providing it.”
She contends that there was a “peculiar urge to recast a martial attack as a domestic drama, attended by the disappearance and even demonization of independent female voices” and that there was a “beatification of the ideal post-9/11 American woman” as “undemanding, uncompetitive, and most of all dependent” — a woman who “didn’t just want a man in her life” but “needed one.”
These efforts on Ms. Faludi’s part to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as an occasion to recycle arguments similar to those she made a decade and a half ago in her best-selling book “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women” (1991) feel forced, unpersuasive and often utterly baffling.
To begin with, the reader wants to ask: What disappearance of female voices? What “bugle call” to “return to Betty Crocker domesticity?” Since 9/11, Hillary Rodham Clinton has become the leading Democratic contender in the race for the White House, with a good chance of becoming the first female president in history; Katie Couric was named anchor of the CBS Evening News; and women like Lara Logan of CBS and Martha Raddatz of ABC have been reporting from the frontlines of the war in Iraq.
Ms. Faludi asserts that the 9/11 widows “the media liked best” were the fragile, dependent ones, “who accepted that their ‘job’ now was to devote themselves to their families and the memory of their dead husbands.” But even she has to acknowledge that the so-called “Jersey Girls” (Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, and Lorie van Auken) played “an essential role in forcing the creation of the independent 9/11 Commission,” and helped strong-arm “top White House officials into testifying before the commission.”
Instead of simply celebrating their achievements, however, Ms. Faludi tries to argue that the Jersey Girls were the exceptions to the rule — that they departed from the official script, unlike those 9/11 widows who “projected a persona defined by unassailably demure and virtuous composure” to the world.
In fact, Ms. Faludi displays a disturbing tendency to write off or ignore evidence that might undermine her theories, while using highly selective anecdotal evidence (of which an endless supply exists in today’s blogosphere) to buttress her arguments.
She cites vicious e-mail messages received by the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund and the rantings of right-wing pundits as evidence of an antifeminist post-9/11 backlash. She writes that post-9/11 marketing efforts “had succeeded in darkening the image of the sexually liberated single woman,” even though “Sex and the City” remained a hit TV show in the years before and after the attacks.
And she writes that television and other pop culture manufacturers dispensed “the consolations of a domestic idyll where men wore all the badges, and women wielded all the roasting pans,” even though high-profile shows like “Scrubs,” “CSI: Miami” and “The Osbournes,” which had their debuts in the year or so after 9/11, hardly illustrate this theory, and television has more recently seen the emergence of shows (like “Damages,” “Saving Grace” and “The Closer”) featuring feisty middle-aged heroines as tough-talking lawyers and cops.
As for the much-covered, real-life story of Jessica Lynch (which was riddled with inaccuracies as initially reported), Ms. Faludi argues that it was promoted as “the story of a helpless white girl snatched from the jaws of evil by heroic soldiers,” “a tale of a maiden in need of rescue.” But while she says that rescue turned out to be a lot less daring than first portrayed, she dismisses much-talked-about depictions of Jessica Lynch as a “female Rambo” (which also turned out to be false) as a brief “counterversion” that “fell uncomfortably outside of the girl-in-need-of-rescue script.”
This girl-in-need-of-rescue paradigm, Ms. Faludi argues, dates back to frontier-days captivity narratives, which recounted the ordeals of settlers captured by Indians. She further contends that these narratives embodied the notion of shame (a “largely male burden, the result of recurring attacks in which the captivity of women and children served to spotlight male protective failures”), and that to counter this humiliation, there evolved redemption tales in which a maiden, taken against her will by “savages,” is rescued by a brawny white man.
This “mass dream,” Ms. Faludi goes on, “conceals the shaming memory, as it was meant to, but can’t expel it”: “The humiliating residue still circulates in our cultural bloodstream, awaiting provocation to bring it to the surface. And with each provocation, we salve our insecurities by invoking the same consoling formula of heroic men saving threatened women — even in provocations that have involved few women and no female captives, like the Revolutionary-era kidnapping of American sailors on the Barbary Coast. Or the terrorist attack on 9/11.”
Thus, she insists, “a feminist perspective on any topic was increasingly AWOL” after 9/11. Thus, she argues, various antifeminist impulses (“the cumulative elements of a national fantasy”) surfaced after 9/11, including “the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls.”
Not only are many of these assertions highly debatable in themselves, but Ms. Faludi’s overarching thesis in this book rings false too. In fact, her suggestion that the 9/11 attacks catalyzed the same fears and narrative impulses as those unleashed by our frontier ancestors’ “original war on terror,” leading to a muffling of feminist voices and a veneration of “the virtues of nesting,” runs smack up against her own “Backlash,” which suggested that similar assaults on women’s independence were being unleashed in the 1980s — a time not of war or threat but a decade that witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the coming end of the cold war.
Such errors of logic are typical of this ill-conceived and poorly executed book — a book that stands as one of the more nonsensical volumes yet published about the aftermath of 9/11.
Source: here
USA: prison for men
Feminist Group to get $1M Grant from Congress to Enforce IMBRA Internet Dating Law for "Mail Order Brides" - Online Dating Rights Contends that IMBRA Violates Freedom of Speech and Assembly
Congressmen Jim Moran and Alan Mollohan secured a $1M grant for a feminist group, Tahirih Justice Center, to enforce the IMBRA dating law. IMBRA is a new federal law that prohibits American citizens from communicating with foreign citizens if the foreigners have posted information about themselves on internet dating sites. Some Americans can, however, communicate with the foreigners if they first submit to criminal background checks and prepare detailed statements of their personal history. Online Dating Rights contends that IMBRA violates freedom of speech, assembly and is bad public policy.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) October 11, 2007 -- The House of Representatives has approved a funding bill that includes a $1M grant to a feminist organization called the Tahirih Justice Center in order to enforce a federal dating law. According to the website of Congressman Jim Moran, D-VA, the money will be given to this organization to "increase legal and social services to mail order brides and work with advocates and embassies in other countries to protect these women." http://moran.house.gov/apps/list/press/va08_moran/CJS08.shtml The Congressman secured $300,000 for this feminist group last year.
The funding relates to the International Marriage Broker Act (IMBRA), a law that makes it a crime for American citizens to communicate with foreigners if the Americans see the foreigners' profiles on dating sites. According to Tristan Laurent, a lawyer and administrator of an advocacy group Online Dating Rights, IMBRA is one of the most unconstitutional and poorly designed laws created in his lifetime. Mr. Laurent says that the law was based on misleading and erroneous evidence submitted to Congress by feminist groups intent on keeping foreign women out of the United States. Moreover, Mr. Laurent said that the law was not debated in committee or the floor of Congress.
IMBRA was supported with two claims, that American men who marry foreign women abuse them at greater rates than occur in domestic relationships and that American men marry foreign women and then sell them to local brothels, as implied in testimony by one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D, WA. The other Senate sponsor was Sen. Sam Brownback, R, KS. Yet the only government study shows that the abuse rate is 1/7th that of domestic marriages (http://www.online-dating-rights.com/index.php?ind=downloads&op=entry_view&iden=19) and the sex trafficking statistics were shown to be essentially fraudulent in a recent Washington Post expose http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401_pf.html
Although the politicians and female leaders of feminist groups involved in this law portray the foreign women as less intelligent, less educated and less resourceful than American women and although they call them "mail order brides", such characterizations of the women have been debunked by University of Pittsburgh Anthropology Professor Nicole Constable who performed an exhaustive two-year study of international relationships and who wrote a book about it entitled, "Romance on a Global Stage." According to Professor Constable, "Mail order brides are often depicted as buying into images of their own subservience and marrying out of economic depression. These views are seriously flawed for their orientalist, essentializing and universalizing tendencies, which reflect many now-outdated feminist views of the 1970s."
Tahirih Justice Center is a Bahai NGO that helped get the law passed and joined the US Attorneys in two states to defend the law when it was challenged by dating companies. According to Mr. Laurent, "Tahirih used millions of dollars of taxpayer money to get the law passed, to defend the law and now they will get millions more to enforce it. Just as certain military work has been outsourced to Blackwater, a paramilitary group, the regulation of men has been outsourced to this Tahirih." They were assisted by the National Organization for Women and other feminist groups. According to Mr. Laurent, the true purpose for the law was revealed in a press release which stated: "The American male population is now overly exposed to the message that it is acceptable to desire and actually marry women 'unspoiled' by American materialism and most troubling, 'uninfected' by American feminism. This message may impede the progress of feminism here at home and give American men the idea that it is acceptable to not respect feminist principles that took so long to instill upon them." http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw138739.htm
The primary sponsor of the bill is Congressmen Alan Mollohan, D-WV, who lost his position on the House ethics committee due to irregularities in financial disclosures, including issues regarding his actions in funneling federal funds to nonprofits.
Such as this loser feminazi group.
IMBRA was panned by a famous feminist, Wendy McElroy http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html, by a men's rights analyst http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=2444_0_1_0_M and by a popular web columnist http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey193.htm
Source: here
Muro claims to be of the Bahai faith (did congress just recognize a religion even though the U.S. Constitution forbids such a thing as a "state sponsered religion"). To top it off the Bahai faith is IRANIAN in origin so basically we have members of both houses of congress contributing to an Iranian religious group. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
I did some checking on the Bahai's and what they believe and the impression I get is it is an U.N. approved religion.
Bahai's believe in:
high moral principles, including trustworthiness, chastity and honesty
avoidance of excessive materialism, partisan politics, backbiting, alcohol, drugs and gambling
Source: here
The Baha'i Core Curriculum for Spiritual Education is intended to nurture spiritually vibrant and healthy young people who will grow up without prejudice and with a positive, powerful sense that they are important to God and have a role to play in serving humanity.
Source: here
Notice that Muro practices nothing of what her faith subscribes to yet advocates for it anyway. Like a typical feminazi she is a hyprocrite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)