Sunday, May 31, 2009

Why Isn't Child Support Based Upon A Flat Rate?

The reason that child support payments are not based on flat rate schedules which actually bear some resemblance to expenses that could reasonably be associated with the rearing of a child is because child support payments are not, in fact, intended to be used for the rearing of children. Rather, child support payments are intended to be used to transfer assets from a man to a woman.

This is also why courts have no interest in tracking the use of child support payments by a woman. The courts do not care what the money is used for, only that the assets are transferred from the man to the woman. We know that courts are capable of monitoring money - given the eagle eye that they demonstrate in tracking the income of a man who owes child support and given the scrupulous attention paid to men's incomes prior to the signing of an equitable distribution prior to divorce. Since courts are capable of closely supervising men's income they demonstrate that they are equally capable of supervising the outflow of cash from a woman's account. That courts show no interest in doing so indicates that they really do not care about children.

The truth is that child support payments are intended to keep the ex-wife or ex-lover in a comfortable lifestyle and function as a disincentive to marriage so that the swelling ranks of bitter, lonely feminists continues to grow. But as an excuse, "a man has a responsibility to support his children" sounds politically a lot more viable than does "a man has a responsibility to support the wife who committed adultery against him and then sued him for everything he had."

Child support is abusive and should be completely abolished. It encourages the violation of the marriage contract by women (which women demonstrate they are quite capable of violating, given that far more than two-thirds of all divorces and separations are initiated by women) and it ignores that men's commitment to rear children is based upon that contract of marriage. In other words, men never have agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children minus the emotional, intellectual, and physical contact that is necessary for parenting and they have never agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children without a wife/mother to assist them.

If women are just as capable as men (as feminists say that they are) then let them bear the full burden of rearing children when they file for divorce. Let the law say that whoever has the BENEFIT of full custody of the children also has the RESPONSIBILITY to actually provide for them.

Of course, feminism is not about responsibility, so expect such a theory to be viciously opposed.

Such a law would also have the added consequence of functioning as a disincentive for the ridiculous surge in divorce that is ripping Western civilization apart at the seams. Women, and feminists particularly, need to grow up and recognize that they do have a responsibility to their husbands, to their children, and to society. And if they choose to reject that legal responsibility entered into freely and without compulsion at the marriage altar, then let them bear the burden all alone.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Crazy Feminazi

The rock band KISS was criticized when they made their first live album for tweaking the missed notes, garbled lyrics, and crowd noises to make their album sound better than it really did in concert.

I found a couple of videos of a typical, hormonal, hate-filled feminazi rambling on about something or other - I'm sure it makes sense in the fevered imagination of the feminist. But I was having trouble figuring out which one was NOT doctored. I think I have it now, though.

This is the ORIGINAL, before translation....

And here is that speech in TRANSLATION....

False Allegations Video: WCVB (Boston)

Abuse of Domestic Violence Protective Orders against the innocent. The one thing that the story gets wrong, because it is a feminist talking, is when she says that the vast majority of domestic violence restraining orders are based on legitimate claims. Of course, far more than 90% of them are not.

What Is The Impact of a Missing Father?

The impact of the loss of a father on both boys and girls is wholly negative, in spite of the feminist myth that only mothers are necessary to effectively rear children.

The impact upon boys is well-known. When boys do not have a positive male role model in their lives, the middle part of the behavior bell-curve tends to be erased. Young boys tend to adopt extremes in behavior - becoming prissy (even adopting homosexuality, see sources below) or becoming so frustrated with an emotional mother attempting to act as a stable authority figure that he rebels and becomes aggressive, overly macho, or even criminal.

The impact upon girls is just becoming known (see sources below). Studies show that the single greatest factor in predicting "success" for a teenage girl (no matter how it is defined: avoidance of addiction, avoidance of jail, progression in education, stability of a future marriage, etc.) is the presence of a stable male authority figure in her life. Girls without fathers show exponentially higher likelihood of pregnancy prior to marriage, of contraction of STDs, of psychological instability, and of criminal tendencies.

Following Columbine, there was significant interest in the "profile" of unstable, delinquent, and violent teenagers. Numerous studies were done to try and determine the significant factors that might indicate a child would grow up into a troubled teen or adult. One Columbia University study found that, in single-parent homes where the mother is the head of the home, a child is 30% more likely than the average child to become involved in drugs, alcohol, and violence.

The FBI conducted a similar study and found that, in the history of school shootings there was a peculiar profile which was called "The Classroom Avenger" profile. All 17 school shooters up to the time of Columbine had in common that they were from homes in which the father was absent, distant, or not involved in parenting.

For 30 years, Johns Hopkins University attempted to find contributing factors to various social and medical ills, including suicide, mental illness, and heart disease. After following 1377 people for three decades, there was only one factor common enough to bear a causal relationship to all of these various maladies: that factor was closeness to parents, and particularly the father.

In my opinion, what these studies show is not necessariy the value of the father per se - I expect that the same sorts of problems would be produced by a culture that endorsed motherless homes in the same way that our culture has endorsed and encouraged fatherless homes. But rather, it is not that a child needs a father in order to have the best chance at success in life, but a child (male or female) needs BOTH a father and a mother.

An incredible harvest will be reaped by our world in the very near future. We may simply consider the alternating aggressiveness, flatness, overmedication, lack of ambition, and frankly, lack of intelligence and morals to be a social problem adhering to this generation of fatherless children. But someday this generation of fatherless children is going to grow up.... What then?

Caroline Thomas and Karen Duszynski, "Closeness to Parents and the Family Constellation in a Prospective Study of Five Disease States," Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, May 1974.

James P. McGee and Caren R. DeBernardo, "The Classroom Avenger" in The Forensic Examiner, May-June 1999.

"Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality" by Joseph Nicolosi

National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (

"Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" by Meg Meeker, M.D.

Why Do Some Believe There Is No Wage Gap?

In any discussion with a feminist, after she has been proven wrong on every other issue, her position will eventually devolve to the trump card: "Well, I just believe women ought to get paid the same amount for doing the same work, don't you?"

This is the appeal to the "wage gap," that amount that women don't get paid for doing a man's work. The wage gap is, of course, buttressed by hundreds of newspaper stories, conferences, and senile legislators every year who go about warbling about the unfairness of it all.

But people who are responsive to truth and facts do not believe in the wage gap.

Because, the fact is, there is no wage gap. Any rational human being (which excludes everyone affiliated with NOW in any way) can dispassionately look at the evidence and see that there is no wage gap. However, feminists run to the supposed "wage gap" when they lose all other arguments concerning justice, morality, and the supposed "equality" of men and women, as if the one final, irrefutable reason why everyone should agree that feminism should still exist is because women are being abused by underpaying employers.

In fact, women have achieved parity with men in terms of pay. It is a continuing feminist myth that there is a so-called "wage gap," but once you dispense with simplistic feminist thinking on this issue, it is apparent that no "wage gap" exists.

One way of determining job performance is promotion - but since the positions which folks are talking about are very few and tend to be highly selective, I think a better means of discussing the performance of women as a group (and whether their performance is adequately rewarded) is by peering into the so-called "wage gap." Wages, of course, is the reward given to women as a group - so it is the most direct means of determining how women as a group are treated.

In any survey of men and women aged 35, there will be a stark difference in the median wages of the respective groups - men will always be anywhere from 8 cents to 15 cents on the dollar higher, according to the studies that I have seen. Feminists take this as an evidence of a glass ceiling, reasoning, "Every 35 year old should be making roughly the same amount of money in the same job. Since that is not so, the cause is necessarily that we live in a patriarchal society that discriminates against women."

Of course, this is politically convenient - but as with everything that feminists say, it is not true.

Because, in any grouping of 35 year old people, the males will have worked, on average, 10 years longer than the females in the group. This is because men begin working sooner (or, at least among the current crop of 35 year olds, they did - it seems like kids never work at all today, but that's another discussion), and tend not to have childbearing, sickness, and moving gaps in their work careers.

When the two groups are normalized, i.e., only women who have never had children remain in the group, then the discrepency in the wages drops to a mere 2 cents - which is a reasonable risk premium on the part of an employer that the female MIGHT get pregnant and drop out for 5 years, might move, etc. Of course, such a minor variation could also be explained by imbalances in performance, sickness or other absenteeism - but on the whole 2 cents is statistically insignificant.

The same could be said of the so-called "glass ceiling" issue with promotions of women. If the average woman has worked less and performed less effectively than the men in her peer group by age 35, she is not likely to ever be invited to become a CEO (or any senior officer) of a corporation, simply because she is far behind the curve as far as the experience level of her peer group.

There is no wage gap and no glass ceiling. There is only underperformance by women.

An excellent source on the wage gap myth is Carrie Lukas in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Why Do Women Make False Allegations?

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that false allegations of rape, sexual misconduct, child abuse, and domestic violence do occur. Credible estimates on how often range from 20%-60% of the time. Given that the rate of false reporting for all other crimes hovers in the 2%-4% range, it is obvious that women do lie, and that they have a really serious problem with lying about rape.

But one question that may seem somewhat elusive yet is why? What on earth would motivate someone to level such a charge falsely? What advantage could be gained?

The reasons range far beyond mere spite and hatefulness, though that is a common motivation (a woman in my county made up false rape allegations about her ex-boyfriend and three of his friends to punish him for breaking up with her at the party at which he broke the news to her that he was moving on - the district attorney, as per usual, did not take any action against her, though the four men [one of whom was not even at the party] spent almost a year in jail).

Take a look at the CrimLawProfBlog and you will see some of this discussed. In the mid-80s, the US Air Force did a study on false reporting of rape within its own ranks and found that upwards of 30% of all reports we
re provably false. Several congresswomen, upon hearing about the investigation, demanded that the investigation be stopped and all records of it destroyed for the usual political reasons. You will need to read down into the comments section of the page to get this information.

Women lie for a host of reasons, including spite. One of the comments on this law professor's blog notes that women often lie to "solve a problem." They get pregnant, get an STD, get a hickey, or are found to have been cheating on their significant other and one way of making their problem go away is to claim to have been raped.

Of course, it is common for false allegations of rape, domestic violence, or child abuse to be leveled in custody, alimony, or equitable distribution hearings, where a show of fault can result in greater legal rights for the offended party.

A reason that is just coming to light why women lie is to level the playing field. Where women are going through custody or divorce and are known to be guilty of adultery, assault or battery, substance abuse, or som
ething else, they are being taught at women's shelters to play the "domestic violence" or "rape" card as a means of making sure that they are not the only ones who appear in court with negative information on their record.

It is now a very common ploy - evidence of which I keep in my files - for attorneys who volunteer at women's shelters to (at the behest of the supposed "victim") file false allegations of domestic violence, rape, child abuse, or whatever, and a week or so before a hearing to send an offer of settlement which says, "If you give my client, the "victim", all or most of the property and/or the custody rights, we will drop this claim against you."

(Of course, they also fail to mention in such offers of settlement that for criminal cases, the authority to "drop" charges rests with the D.A., but that is another issue....)

Crystal Gayle Mangum
, in the Duke Lacrosse case, claimed to have been raped as a means of keeping herself out of the drunk tank on the night she was taken in for questioning. And, by the way, this woman has never been taken to task for her wrongdoing either, has she?

Other reasons come to mind: radical feminists have levied such charges to illustrate their own cause (see my blog entry on the NOW president who made a false rape allegation), to get attention, or just because our society says that lots of women get raped, and they don't want to be left out of such noble victimization.

The reasons women lie are multitudinous. The main benefits seem to be that fals
e claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harassment, or whatever else helps them to appear to be a victim rather than irresponsible, or simply helps them to get their way when they otherwise wouldn't.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 907

And note how she states, "I FEEL VERY VIOLATED."

Feminists, when are you going to admit that most rape allegations are false?

Why do women make false rape allegations?

Because they can. Because they are encouraged to do so. Because there is no consequence to being found out as a liar. Because it helps them to get their way.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 732

Of course, it is a (false) doctrine of the feminist movement that women do not lie about rape. They also do not lie about domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harassment, their age, their weight, or their breast size. Come to think of it, when feminists maintain that men and women are equally capable at everything on the planet, we must obviously carve out a single exception: women are not capable of lying.

Like every assertion of feminism, however, the evidence seems to diverge rather sharply from the feminist dogma. Without rehashing old ground like the Duke Lacrosse case, the NOW chapter president in Florida who made up false rape allegations as a means of ginning up interest in her FemmeFascist ideas, and the half dozen other ridiculous stories that I have documented on this blog in the past, we have The Case of the Surreptitious Photographer.

It seems that a 41-year old man who owns a multimedia company in Britain was invited over to the flat of a 27-year old female. Oddly enough, the 41-year old's identity is not private, while the U.K.'s Daily Mail steadfastly refuses to print the name of the lying wench who falsely accused him.

The two of them had sex. Apparently, it was, ummmmmmmmm, sex with gusto. Exhuberant sex. Sex so embarrassingly, ummmmm, "active" that the judge warned the jury that they might find it "extremely distasteful."

Something went wrong after all this great sex (when will men learn to simply leave the apartment after the sex is over?) and the two argued. The 27-year old perjurer and the 41-year old, whose name I refuse to print because I have higher ethics than London's Daily Mail, had an argument. Somebody called the police. The 27-year old female "rape victim" alleged that the two were fighting because she had been serially raped. And the innocent 41-year old businessman was arrested on the spot and charged with four counts of rape.

During the trial, the woman told the jury that the accused "forced her to perform a sex act on him and then raped her in the living room."

Then, during cross-examination, something both strange and wonderful happened. The accused's cell phone was produced. Now, remember, the accused owns a "multimedia company."

So a short film was shown to the jury. A film of, oddly enough, the night in question's proceedings.

Yes, our Multimedia Man had secretly used his cellphone's camera function to film himself and the "rape victim" having sex.

So after the film, the accused's defense attorney stated to the "rape victim," "You and Mr. [X] were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other's presence." Apparently that was an understatement, given the participatory nature of the "rape victim's" sexual calisthenics.

To which the "rape victim" then essentially admitted that while she was very comfortable with the sex, she wasn't happy with the conversation that followed it.

The judge then warned the prosecuting attorney not to present further evidence. You see, the "rape victim" is protected from perjury charges by so-called "rape shield" laws, but anybody else who offered evidence could very well have faced the full wrath of the court for either perjury or contempt.

The jury went into chambers and cleared the accused of all charges.

This despite the "rape victim's" claim that, "He wanted to be intimate. Maybe he thought he could force me into it but he went too far."

Emphasis added to show the direct, unequivocal nature of the false allegations.

It's a good thing that we know that women do not lie about rape, or child abuse, or sexual harassment, or domestic violence. Otherwise, cases like this one might make us believe that they do.

Oh, and by the way, those who work in the "industry" do, in fact, recognize that not only do women lie about these things, but that claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual harassment are MORE likely than other claims to be false. Some say that the majority of such claims are lies.

Like the U.S. Air Force, whose study is referenced in the comments section on this page, where lawyers discuss the phenomenon of false rape claims. Or RADAR's story on false rape claims.

It is certainly worth asking, and a question that Western society ought to be asking itself repeatedly until the significance of both the question and its answer sink in, as to why the normal rate of false reporting for all crimes hovers around 2%-4%, but these feminist-privileged offenses (rape, domestic violence, child abuse and molestation, and sexual harassment) have estimated rates of false reporting exceeding anywhere from 25% to 60%.

Chick Makes Up Rape For A Day Off From Work!

A woman in Marlow, OK recently made up two rapes in an attempt to get some much needed R&R from a job that, undoubtedly, was "stressing her out."

Trisha Bonney, 18, reported that upon returning home on a given night an intruder had been in her home who attacked her, threw her onto her bed, and raped her. Bonney was spotted by a nursing home worker across the street from her home, sitting on a chair and crying.

Police, of course, responded with overwhelming force - increasing the number of street cops by up to 30% on shifts while looking for the perpetrator. Three innocent men were brought in for questioning and tested for DNA matching.

About a week later, Bonney reported a second intruder in her home who also raped her. Nearby contractors (working on the next door home), dudes hanging out in an alley smoking, and physical evidence (or rather, the lack thereof) indicated that either there was no perpetrator in this case, or that the rapist was the beneficiary of new hovercraft Nikes - allowing him to walk above the ground without leaving footprints - and an Invisible Man coat.

Upon sharper questioning, the "victim" admitted that she had made up the second rapist to lend credibility to the first claim of rape. Apparently she didn't appreciate it when cops began to actually investigate her claims of rape rather than merely accepting them. These cops apparently didn't get the memo from the neighborhood women's shelter, "Always believe the victim."

Oddly, Bonney has actually now been charged with a crime - unusual for perpetrators of false allegations (can anyone say Crystal Gail Mangum?). She faces a criminal trial for falsifying a police report.

If all women who made false allegations were similarly charged, two things would be true: 1) There would be fewer false allegations, and 2) there would be a greater need for women's prisons.

Link below:

Article: More than Half of Rape Allegations are False

NOW President Lies About Being Raped!

It is a common assertion by Feminazis that women do not lie about rape, molestation, and domestic violence. However, studies indicate that, while the normal rate of false allegations for every other crime category is approximately 2%-4%, false report of sexual or other violence by females against males can extend has high as 60%.

"In a forensic study of 556 investigations of rape allegations, 33% were proven (by DNA and other evidence) to be false. In another 27% of the cases, the woman either failed a lie-detector test or admitted having lied when faced with t
he prospect of submitting to a lie-detector test. In other words, it was found that at least 60% of rape allegations are probably false. Even the liberal Washington Post has admitted that at least 30% of rape accusations are false {A rate more than seven times higher than the norm for false allegations of all crimes - ed.}.

"In a review of 350 criminal cases in which a person who had been convicted was later proven (by DNA evidence) to have been innocent, it was found that 23 had already been executed and eight had already died in prison."

Thomas B. James, J.D., Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know, (Aventine Press, 2003), p. 86.

Every single one of these persons falsely accused and either imprisoned or executed were males falsely accused, and then punished, by females.

A story from Florida captivated my attention f
or its sheer irony: while Feminazis traverse land, sea, and air, complaining that "women never lie about rape" and cursing the patriarchy for being so bold as to insist on actual evidence of such - isn't a woman's mere assertion all the evidence that is needed? - in the face of mounting evidence that there is a serious problem (Lacrosse, anyone???), I found a story of a regional president of NOW (the Feminazi National Organization of Women) who is now facing charges for false allegations of rape.

Link below!


NOW President Charged with Making Up Story About Campus Rape

In November, Desiree Nall, told Winter Park polic
e that she was raped by two men in a Rollins College bathroom."The college was on high alert and the neighborhood was in confusion because there was a lot of fear," Winter Park police spokesman Wayne Farrell said.

Investigators told WKMG-TV that Nall confessed to making up the story.

Nall is the president of the Brevard Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Local 6 News reported. Police said she may have been trying to make a statement when she lied about the rape.


Nall could spend up to a year in jail and be forced to pay back tens of thousands of dollars police spent of the investigation.


I wonder what "statement" Little Miss Feminazi was trying to make? I wonder if it is similar to the "statements" made by the sixty percent of women nationwide who daily lie about rape as an act of revenge, those who lie about abuse and molestation as a means of securing custody, and those who lie about "domestic violence" as a means of securing the best possible custody, alimony, and property settlement when they have given up on their marriage and family?

Just wondering....

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

International Attempts to Fake "Domestic Violence"

Note that now Asian countries, as Malaysia below, are attempting to follow in the footsteps of the already overly-neurotic and fragile American feminists.

KOTA KINABALU: A husband telling his wife that she is no longer pretty in an attempt to humiliate her can be classified as an emotional violence offence if amendments are made to the Domestic Violence Act (DVA)1994.

The plan is to amend the DVA for the inclusion of a clause on emotional violence against women.

Currently, they are only protected only against physical abuse, Women's Development Department director-general Datuk Dr Noorul Ainur Mohd Nur said.

She said on Wednesday that the aim for proposing the amendment was to safeguard women both physically and emotionally.

Dr Noorul said emotional violence was a form of abuse that would deeply scar a woman and lower their self-esteem, dignity and self-confidence.

“It could be a case where her husband tells his wife she is ugly"....

It is amazing that men are expected to believe that women are their equals in every way, yet feminism is shot through with such trenchant childishness as this. Are women collectively so weak and fragile that they can be victimized by mere words, when the average seven-year old knows that "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?"

Note that the law throughout most of the United States is already what the Malaysian government is considering based on this article. The standard for a determination of "domestic violence" in most states is the subjective fear of the woman, which allows for a determination of "violence" if a male "embarrasses you" or "denies your feelings."

The giveaway on the rationale behind such changes is actually provided at the end of the story, when it is noted that there have already been 99 DV filings in the jurisdiction for 2009, while the prior year had had 220 such filings. The eternal attempt to expand the definition of "domestic violence" to the point that it encompasses every conceivable negative behavior is merely an attempt to ratchet up the number of domestic violence filings.

Of course, in the West, an increased number of DV claims translates into more governmental funding for feminist projects, and the transfer of more and more assets to undeserving women in the form of equitable distributions, alimony, and child support payments.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

The Child Support Industry

Take a woman who can't afford a child and society calls her a victim or a hero and will grant her an abortion - or an endless supply of welfare checks. Find a man who can't afford a child and society calls him a deadbeat dad and tosses him into jail. At least that is the perspective of Kathleen Parker in Save The Males (Random House, 2008). She writes:

It's hard to cough up the dough [for child support] when your broke, harder still if you're behind bars.... Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2005 that 70 per cent of child support debt is owed by men who owe $10,000 a year or less or who have no earnings at all....

The child support industry has been a windfall for states and for middle-class divorcing women. Economist Robert McNeely and legal scholar Cynthia McNeely go so far as to suggest that... governmental policies [on child support] have led to destruction of the family "by creating financial incentives to divorce [and further incentives resulting in] the prevention of families by creating financial incentives not to marry upon conceiving a child."

Penalizing errant fathers has become the only form of chivalry modern woman will tolerate, but it is chivalry, based on the idea that Uncle Sam must come to the rescue of the nation's distressed damsels. The real result of the child support industry, however, has been the creation of a system that grants bureaucrats unprecedented access to private records and control over the lives of people, most of whom have committed no offense. As investigative reporter Robert O'Harrow Jr. wrote in The Washington Post, commenting on the expansion of federal child support initiatives, "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to... keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing."

Women Don't Lie About Domestic Violence: The Strange Case of David Letterman

A woman in New Mexico filed a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint against David Letterman, whom she had never met. The basis of the complaint was that he used his late-night comedy/variety show to control her thoughts. The DVPO was granted by a judge, at the cost of Letterman's freedom of movement (should he have been in New Mexico) and Second Amendment rights (no matter where he was).

How did such an outrage actually take place in the American legal system? Under Bill Clinton's revision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO was changed to "the subjective fear of the woman/complainant." Somehow or other, the woman - tinfoil hat in hand - must have convinced the judge that she was genuinely afraid of David Letterman being a "controlling male," the ultimate offense in the bedwetting radical feminist litany of possible sins.

Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson was accused of raping a woman he had never met. On the night he "raped" her, he was at a speaking engagement states away. He spent tens of thousands of dollars defending himself against the false allegation before he was even charged.

Two words: Duke Lacrosse.

The Criminal Law Professor's blog, populated by people who have been active in both the prosecution and defense bars, contains estimates that anywhere from 20% to more than 50% of all rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse allegations are false.

Yet in most states a woman CANNOT be charged with perjury for any statement that she makes in connection with a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint. And neither of the actually guilty parties - the so-called rape "victims" in the Tucker Carlson and Duke Lacrosse cases, were charged with a crime.

Do we really want to make it THIS easy for women to lie?

For those not actually acquainted with feminist jurisprudence it is a common assertion among feminists that "Women don't lie about rape/domestic violence/whatever" or, conversely, the more moderate claim is that women only make false allegations of rape or domestic violence at the same rate as fale reports of other crimes (around 2%).

However, every legal innovation sponsored by feminists makes it easier to lie (for instance, excluding perjury from DVPO claims, so-called "rape shield laws", and the lowering of the standard of evidence to "the subjective fear of the woman" in DV cases) and the evidence among those in the know is that claims of rape and domestic violence are falsely reported at a rate from 10 to 30 TIMES as high as false reports for any other crime.

And most people do not realize that Bill Clinton's modifications of VAWA essentially made it easier for women to effectively lie. Not only has the standard of evidence been changed to "the subjective fear of the woman" (whereas the standard for civil claims is "the preponderance of the evidence", i.e., 50%+ likelihood, and for criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt"), but it is now the policy of most police departments to have a "Must-Arrest" policy consequent to any domestic violence allegation - no matter how ridiculous the story told by the woman, or no matter the lack of evidence, or no matter the number of contradictions in her account. No matter the evidence to the contrary - local police MUST arrest the person against whom the complaint is filed on some criminal charge if a Domestic Violence Protective Order is filed.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Women Don't Lie About Rape: The Story of Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson is the former conservative co-host of the CNN political debate show, Crossfire, and later the host of his own political variety show on MSNBC, Tucker. The bow-tie wearing heir to the Swanson fortune is a representative of the hip, libertarian, young new face of American Conservatism.

Following an episode of Crossfire, in 2003, a producer brought a registered letter from an Indiana attorney to Carlson. Cringing already - when do you ever received a registered letter from an attorney that contains good news? - he pulled the letter out and read that the Indiana lawyer's client was planning to file rape charges against him within a few short days.

Her story: Carlson had been in Louisville on a certain day and had met the "victim" in a bar. He had bought her drinks and dinner, then unobtrusively slipped knockout drugs into her drink. Having passed out, the "victim" woke up in her seat at the restaurant with Carlson gone and blood all over her. She "knew" he had raped her. In front of everybody. The whole restaurant. The patrons of which were so cold and calloused that they continued with their various romantic evenings - nobody acted as if anything had happened, nobody called the authorities, and nobody remembered having seen a thing. There followed a round of intimidating correspondences between Carlson and his "victim," so motivated by fear and on the verge of a "breakdown," the "victim" had decided to prosecute Carlson just to make all the pain and fear go away.

On advice of liberal fellow co-host Bill Press, Carlson immediately contacted "insider" Washington attorney Bob Bennett. Over $14,000 in legal fees and one minor investigation later, turned up the following facts:

* Carlson had never been to Kentucky, and was, in fact, giving a speech elsewhere on the night in question.

* The "victim" had been sending Carlson "fan letters" for some time, and had sent him small gifts, each of which he had sent a thank-you note for (as was his custom) - hence, the "intimidating correspondence."

* The "victim" had sent an email to Carlson on his birthday - kept alive, though apparently deleted, by CNNs email archiving - claiming to be his biggest fan and telling him he was "great." This email was sent a full month after the "rape" had occurred.

In light of these revelations, the "victim" decided not to go forward with the criminal allegations. She knew that pursuing criminal charges against Carlson, she said, would hurt her reputation and business. Carlson, in a moment of cosmic clarity, thought, "[she] didn't want to embarrass herself by testifying against a rapist like me." "Irony" fails as an adjective here....

But Carlson was out his $14,000, and felt a little victimized himself. Following the accusations, many sleepless nights had followed in which he actually tried to convince himself that he might have committed the rape of this unknown "victim." After all, he knew, as do all journalists, and as feminist American culture continually (mis)represents, that behind all sex scandals is some small grain of truth. As he himself said....

The one thing every journalist knows for certain about sex scandals is that they're always true. Partly true, anyway. Maybe you didn't rape this woman, they'd think; maybe you just had unusually rough sadomasochistic sex with her and she misconstrued it. Or maybe your affair with her simply fell apart in an acrimonious way, perhaps over your cocaine habit. Maybe you had sex with her but never knew her name. Something definitely happened between you, though. People don't just make up specific allegations out of nothing.

Imagine his surprise when he continued receiving mail from the "victim" even after she had dropped her twisted threat of criminal charges.

"I am glad to hear that Mr. Carlson can verify his innocence to the claim that I had made earlier," it began. "In light of the evidence that you provided to me, obviously the person who had assaulted me was not in actuality Tucker Carlson, but an impostor."

In another missive, the Victim explained that Carlson should actually be ashamed of himself, for she, as the woman always is, is the real victim.

"I don't appreciate the statements that you made about my mental status. I am a highly educated individual, with multiple degrees. I am a manic-depressive. [But] everyone of concern knows that this condition can be very well managed. It is usually the ignorant that sensationalize it. There are some very successful people who have this condition. I know many."

So of course, the real crime was not the ridiculous assertions of the "victim," nor the threat to bring criminal charges, nor the participation by her lawyers and others in perpetrating this travesty, but, as in the case of Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) - the REAL crime is the ignorance, intolerance, sexism, racism, poverty, and other attitudes fostered by the patriarchy that force women into making such claims. "Sensationalizing bipolar affective disorder" is, of course, a greater crime than making false accusations which could have sent a man to prison.

In a few months, Carlson received a clock radio from The Victim with a note attached: "for the misunderstanding." A few weeks later, another note professing that she was still "your biggest fan."

The lessons of Carlson's suffering?

* It took arguably the best attorney in the country and over $14,000 to handle this matter appropriately - before the charges were ever filed! How many men with lesser connections and zero funds can afford "justice?" Remember, the falsely accused Lacrosse players at Duke spent over $1 million collectively on their defense without a trial.

* Carlson's alibi appears, to me, to be airtight. How many single men whose excuse was "I was at home sleeping because I had to work the next day" could do as well? How many men whose alibi was, "I met the girl at a bar but she was too weird for me to try to pick up" could do as well as Carlson did?

* A combination of feminist-inspired credulity and a constant desire by those hiding in the dark corners of the "justice system" to make a buck, make a name, or get a promotion, works in tandem to prop up even the most outrageous allegations. Police and DAs in many jurisdictions no longer even "screen" allegations of sexual misconduct made by a woman - they simply file charges and say "let a jury sort it out."

* The lite feminism of Oprah Winfrey has successfully conjured up a moral climate in which women cannot lose if they choose to make false allegations. If they allege, the mere allegation is tantamount to a finding of guilt. If they allege something preposterous, an endless number of psychological disorders and feminist-defined "syndromes" will serve as an excuse. If they allege and are proven to be lying, they are nevertheless still the victim because of their race, gender, handicap, or social status.

* The presumption of innocence for men, is gone. Men are abusers by virtue of their very existence. So a $14,000 tax on maleness is simply the price men are expected to pay - even if they have never been to Kentucky.


From various sources, but see Tucker Carlson's article to reference quotes in this post at excerpt/index.html

Should No-Fault Divorce Be Abolished?

As I understand the story (and I am open to correction on this, though I think the broad outlines are correct), Ronald Reagan led the way for the adoption of no-fault divorce when he was governor of California in the 60's-70's.

Prior to that time, divorce in every state had required a showing of some fault on the part of one or the other partners. This was because marriage was considered a contractual matter which required some sort of basis for dissolution of the contract.

But that a showing of fault was necessary led to couples who were simply determined not to live together anymore engaging in what was disparagingly called "collusive divorce," in which one party would admit to some outlandish infraction that they had, in fact, never committed, in an attempt to end the marriage. This had, in fact, happened to Reagan. His first wife had informed him that she was, ummmm, otherwise engaged, shall we say, and that she did not intend to continue the marriage. While he fought for his marriage for a time, he eventually relented and agreed to confess in a divorce court that he was guilty of "cruelty" to his wife. This was, in California, the most common ploy for "collusive divorce."

Rethinking later, Reagan decided that it was a horrible blot on his character to have people believing that he had ever been cruel to the woman that he so loved. He vowed to do something about it, and spearheaded no-fault divorce legislation, signing it into law in 1970.

He obviously never foresaw the moral wreckage that would follow.

In Reagan's day, some people did decide to stay married rather than perjure themselves in court. They worked on their marriage and generally things turned out well. Since no-fault has spread, however, there is now no longer any brake on divorces and more kids will grow up without two parents than grow up with two parents.

In North Carolina, divorce is no-fault, but the division of assets can be based on fault. I know of one case in which the couple divorced on a no-fault basis (the only choice in the state) , but the husband received all of the marital property except for his wife's IRA as a result of his wife's continued adultery.

I would suggest the following modification, which would both avoid the "collusive divorce" of the past and would also place a brake on the unrestrained divorce of the present: Any divorce in which both parties agree - let it be done on a no-fault basis. But any divorce in which one party does not agree for any reason whatsoever (i.e., a contested divorce) should be dissolved only on a fault basis and only at severe cost to the separating party - loss of kids, loss of assets, loss of everything.

Marriage is more important to society and to the people invovled in it than is the "freedom" of any one party. Marriage is more important to society than is the feminist ideology which opposes it and seeks to destroy it. Marriage is (and prior to feminism had always been treated as) a contract - and in no other area of life would we allow a person to simply walk away from a contract without any consequences merely because she "wasn't happy" with it.

The social cost of divorce has become too high. Too many men's and women's lives, finances, and psyches are being ruined by a too-easy divorce law. Too many children are growing up frustrated, neglected, angry, and lost without two parents. It is, imho, time to end this thing.

Do away with no-fault divorce. And while you are at it, let's do away with child support, the subornation of perjury by women's shelters, and the presumption of female fitness in child custody disputes. Feminism has befouled the waters of justice for too long and the evidence of its cancerous nature is plain for all to see. The legacy of irresponsibility and attendant moral chaos begotten by no-fault divorce will be felt in this country for generations to come.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Fun with Figures

The Domestic Violence Hysteria (DVH) perpetrated upon the unthinking (witless?) American public by the Domestic Violence Industry (DVI) is now an international phenomenon. Not only Americans are subject to this hysteria.

The DVH takes various forms: Domestic Violence is the leading cause of death of women between such and such an age and such and such an age (variously 15 and 44, 19 and 51, etc.). One in four women are subject to Domestic Violence in a lifetime. And who can forget the oldie but goodie, Super Bowl Sunday is "the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman!" due to Domestic Violence by beer-guzzling, football watching Steeler (or, insert football team's name here: ______) fans.

An interesting radio program on the BBC subjects various claims to examination by statisticians.


Don't tell me that somebody is going to subject a claim of feminist propagandists to fact-checking, are they? Isn't that misogynistic? Or against the law? Or maybe that is an act of domestic violence itself (Don't laugh - femtard organizations perpetrate the myth that one of the solutions to violence against women is to "validate the experiences" of the "victim," or "always believe the victim.")?

So statistician Tim Harford, upon examining the nonsensical claims of the DVI, notes that their "rogue statistics" are prone to "mutate as [they] circulate" because they tend to move from mouth to mouth - it is a giant version of the children's game of Telephone (remember when everybody lined up and tried to get a message from one end of the line to the other by whispering in one another's ear?). The statistics are never fact-checked - even by legislators or journalists - and they tend to morph over time.

Upon actually checking the figures, Harford found that annually in Britain, 2,000 women died from cancer. Over 1,000 died from all "external causes" combined - which would include domestic violence - but would also include accidents, street violence, and even causes as diverse as an intentionally-inflicted suicide.

Well, we always said that girls were not good with math, didn't we?

So more prodding. Forget about Britain. What about in the world at large? Because, of course, nobody watches the Super Bowl in Britain! Surely all those drooling beasts in America bump up the worldwide numbers, right?

Well, according to Colin Mavers of the World Health Organizations (WHO), the leading cause of death for women aged 15 to 44 worldwide, is HIV. Domestic Violence doesn't even place or show in this race (sorry femtards!), as tuberculosis and suicide are the second and third causes of death, respectively.

Perhaps women should be protected from themselves, rather than their husbands... errrr, intimate partners?

Homicide, of which domestic violence is a subset, is not even in the top ten causes of death for women of this age group worldwide, according to the WHO.

And incidentally, the WHO's measure of disability ("Well, my man didn't kill me, but he sure harmed me!"), tallies the three leading causes as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, in that order.

Chicks are crazy, you know?

When Britain's Home Office (a governmental ministry) was queried as to where their assertions that DV was a leading cause of death and/or disability came from, it issued a statement saying that the stats were merely used "for illustrative purposes."

Well, now.

One must wonder as to why the Home Office did not choose to "illustrate" the sorry shape of the female populace by blaming it all on candied yam consumption. Perhaps that would not have been as politically expedient.

As Tim Harford, our intrepid statistician puts it, "Thank goodness for 'illustrative purposes!' Otherwise, I would be worried that a bogus statistic had echoed around the world, copied apparently without question into official [governmental] reports, news bulletins, and policy documents."

So how are the statistics on domestic violence gathered when they are not simply made up? Well, women are simply asked in surveys.

Because, of course, women do not lie about such things.

But even so, genuine statistics show that only 4% of women experience domestic violence in any year.

Not quite the 1 in 4 figure that femtards insist on, but then we all know that chicks are no good at math.

On the Web, or click the link above:

The BBC removes links to these radio programs after a few weeks. You will find a (more or less) permalink here:

domestic_violence_statistics_debunked.mp3 - Hosted on

Or at

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Tactics of Women's Shelters 4

We have discussed at length the anti-family, anti-society rationale behind the Domestic Violence Industry in America, and have shown that the trench warfare of the DV Industry is conducted largely from the local "women's shelter," "safe house," or "haven for abused women." We have discussed at length many of the tactics used in the openly-declared war conducted against men by these fortresses of injustice. But any war against the family, which modern feminism loathes, and society, which modern feminism wishes to remake, will necessary involve tactics of subversion and destruction against women and children as well. One does not have to look far to see that women's shelters exist primarily for political reasons, secondarily for the enrichment of those in charge of them, and only on the fringe for the women and children who are encouraged to frequent them. And this group on the fringe, the women and children, are, in fact, abused - but seldom by the men and fathers in their lives. Rather, more frequently by the Domestic Violence Industry itself.

The most common complaint that I have personally heard from the women themselves is that women's shelter workers are prone to make any promise on earth in order to get what they want from a woman who shows up at their door - the filing of a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against a man - but are less than diligent in fulfilling those promises.

Charlotte simply asked for a place to stay for a few days while she contemplated her next step - and her next step might have been to return to her husband, whom she was experiencing conflict with, but who had not hurt her in any way. She was told that she had to file a DVPO against her husband within 24 hours or she would have to leave. As the worker searched for something - anything - that Charlotte's husband had done wrong that could sustain a DVPO, she asked "Has he ever grabbed you?" Charlotte admitted that she remembered once he grabbed her wrist when she started to walk away from him. The DVPO was filed on that basis, and Charlotte was told that she would have at least 30 days to vacate.

When the DVPO was not continued in court (i.e., there was a finding of no civil liability for grabbing a wrist), Charlotte was again given 24 hours to leave. That was a mere 10 days after the filing of the DVPO.

Victoria was promised that she could file a DVPO but that "we will not file charges against your husband." When she asked if that meant no charges would be filed, the shelter worker told her, "You are the victim. Nothing can be done without your cooperation." Of course, days later the District Attorney filed criminal charges against her husband. Victoria was not told, of course, that neither the "victim" nor the women's shelter has control of when criminal charges are filed. Victoria was then left to defend spurious charges that she had invented in order to get "help," and had to leave the state to avoid having to perjure herself in a criminal court.

Time and again, women complain that women's shelter workers and police promise them that if they will file a DVPO, "the system" will always be there to help them. Other than an open door to continue attending "counseling meetings" or "community meetings," there really is no continuing assistance that is rendered beyond the DVPO hearing. This makes sense, since women's shelters are largely funded (at the federal level) based on the number of DVPO complaints that are filed annually. It is simply not cost-efficient to function as a long-term babysitter to women and children whose lives have experienced havoc at the hands of the Domestic Violence Industry. Increases in federal funding only occur when "domestic violence" is shown to be an out of control problem in the community in which the shelter is housed - and this is proven primarily by an escalating number of DVPO filings each year.

Angie said, "I have made a full-time job out of trying to get child support from my ex-husband. They promised that if I filed an order against him, they would always be there to help me and my children, but nobody cares. I pay lawyers and they don't care either. I feel like I was manipulated. I wish I had just separated and seen if he [my ex-husband] could change, but they don't give you any option except filing an order. If I had to do it over again, I would not have gone to the community meetings."

Amy P. said, "They didn't care anything about me and my kids. Here I was with four kids and trying to just get some space to think. When I said I wouldn't file an order, they moved on to the next 'client.'"

But being lied and treated with smug indifference is likely to be the very least of your troubles at a women's shelter.

* A 26-year old shelter worker had sex with a 12-year old boy on a playground in Arizona.

* Young boys become the whipping boys of the man-hating shelter workers, and adolescent males are often denied admission at all.

* In successive weeks at one Florida "SafeSpace" Shelter, a child was negligently killed by a car and a pregnant resident was stabbed to death by another resident.

* At a different Florida shelter, the shelter director was charged with giving alcohol to minors and the driver of the shelter van failed a sobriety test.

* Sexual abuse of children is a common occurrence in some shelters.

* Drug consumption is common in women's shelters.

* Teenagers and other adults are sometimes forcibly "volunteered" to women's shelters to work off community service time. These folks may be watching your kids.

* Lesbian shelter workers have been known to "cruise" women's shelters for companionship.

In fact, one letter, reproduced by Carey Roberts, Ph.D., states (in part):

To: Health and Human Services, United Way of the National Capitol Area, National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, et alia,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been a volunteer worker at Bethany House of Northern Virginia, 5901 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, a private non-profit so called battered women's shelter. I wish to remain anonymous for fear of personal and professional reprisals by my co-workers and the Bethany House staff.

In my experience working at the shelter I am appalled and outraged by what is really going on at Bethany House of Northern Virginia (BHNV). To put it bluntly, it is for most part nothing more than a "one stop divorce shop for emotional and bored housewives who want a change of life".

It is also largely used as a free hostel for women with emotional problems if they are willing to hate their husbands enough and are willing to take out protective orders against their husbands. Women who follow BHNV's agenda are guaranteed residency at the shelter for up to 7 months. All of this in the name of a Battered Women's shelter is sickening to disgust.

From my observations, the goal of Bethany House is to get bored and emotional housewives to leave their marital home after infuriating them with a heavy dose of husband bashing, anti-male talk, patriarchy, and negative motivation. This is carefully planned and executed by the Bethany House staff and volunteers. Simple tasks as cooking, cleaning, laundry, taking care of children are explained to the housewives as abusive and demeaning tasks forced upon them by their spouses.

At one DV shelter, fewer than 15% of "clients" showed any signs of physical abuse. Many DV shelters admit that they do not even consider whether there are any signs of physical abuse.

This is a chance for the victim advocate to evaluate their situation (we do NOT require proof of abuse) and determine if the Crisis Center is the right place for them. Our goal is to provide emergency shelter for victims in immediate need.

Note that those who apply to a "victim advocate" are "victims in immediate need" regardless of any "proof of abuse."

Be careful not to get on the wrong side of the shelter workers. If you appear to be a strong, confident woman, you may be denied entrance. And if you complain too much about a roommate, you and your infant may be released onto the streets with no further questions allowed.

Women's shelters will promise you safety, understanding, support, and sensitive care. How could they do anything else? After all, you are a "victim." But don't kid yourself. These are doctrinaire, manhating feminists in pursuit of federal funds who are going to forget you as soon as your free ride is up, if you make it that far, and may turn you out completely if you happen to not see the world the same way that they do.

You and your children stand a better chance of avoiding abuse living with that oaf of a husband you've got than spending even one night in a women's shelter. If the drug culture, lesbian culture, and child abuse don't sound appealing, maybe it is time to return to the strategies that your mom and grandma used for success in life.

Remember, they didn't have the "abuse excuse" to fall back on? So they just stayed put and worked on their marriages. Like you promised to do: "For better for worse, in sickness and in health."

For additional information, view a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Tactics of Women's Shelters 3

In one DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order) proceeding, a woman alleged that her husband had beaten her severely in a Sadomasochistic event, and alleged that he had beaten her so severely that he had left bruises in the area of her buttocks.

What she did not know was that her husband had her credit card statement for a card that was only in her name and had been utilized at sex shops while he was out of the country. He testified that he had noticed bruises on her buttocks area numerous times and his wife had told him she had "fallen down the stairs." She admitted to having told her friends the same thing.

Despite her own admission of lying in court, the credit card statement showing that she had been frequenting sex shops while he was out of the country, her admission that on one of those occasions she had purchased "an S&M kit," and the husband's allegations that she was coming home with bruises in her buttocks area, the DVPO was continued.

This should indicate everything that you need to know about "Domestic Violence" in the modern family court system - it is not a concept that responds well to evidence. Because, as stated previously, "Domestic Violence" is to law what the "widget" is to economics - it is anything that you want it to be. The continuation of a DVPO and the consequent criminal and civil penalties that almost necessarily follow is not dependent upon evidence, but rather is based upon the "subjective fear of the woman." Therefore, what you will hear in a DVPO proceeding is not truth, but rather a template. This is a key issue that men must recognize in order to protect themselves.

By a template, I mean that what is needed to find liability of "Domestic Violence" is not evidence of violence, but rather to show that a man acts in such a way as to fit the neurotic, fear-fueled, hate-charged stereotypes pushed by feminists. Many men, once served with a notice of hearing for "domestic violence" have the attitude - "I have never hit my wife or even so much as pushed or grabbed her. She is not going to be able to produce any evidence in court. I don't even need a lawyer."

This ignores two basic facts: 1) The Domestic Violence Industry is fueled by perjury. 2) "Domestic Violence" has nothing to do with any act of "violence" that the average person would recognize. In fact, in my experience there are three issues that are normally at the center of a DVPO hearing: a man is mean, a man is negligent, or, by far the most popular, a man is controlling.

And here are a few of the specific, often used strategies encouraged, taught, and practiced by women's shelters that help women catch their men in acts of "domestic violence"....

First, be aware of any sudden changes in sexual preference on the part of your wife (I will use "wife" throughout, recognizing that by far, most of the perjury associated with allegations of Domestic Violence seem strangely coordinated with alimony, divorce, and custody proceedings, but keep in mind that any "intimate partner" could file such spurious charges). A woman who suddenly develops an interest in S&M, and insists that you participate with her, could be up to something.

Victoria, because she could not simply "leave" her husband without risking the disapproval of her strict Baptist and Catholic family members, tried to lure her husband into inflicting bruises on her through S&M "play" and based a DVPO allegation on that. Charlotte says that she was encouraged to agree to watch pornography with her husband, and then claim in court that she was "made to watch pornography." In any DVPO hearing, being "made to" do thus and so is a recurring theme. Though such allegations never survive the first question (i.e., "HOW did he MAKE you...?"), it is part of conjuring up the appropriate template for a judge to base his decision on: women are helpless victims and men are cruel, dangerous ogres.

Some women have been encouraged to engage in whatever sexual interests they may have - orgies, threesomes, gloryholes, porn, even sex toys (one woman claimed that her purchase of a vibrator was evidence of her husband's "abuse") - then claim in court that their husband "pimped them out" or "forced them to have sex with women."

Men should be very careful about 180-degree turns on the part of their wives. Since a marriage that is on the rocks almost always has sexual problems that are central to the conflict, men may misinterpret their wives' new sexual "openness" as a sign that their marriage problems are on the way to being solved. It may be just as likely that you are being set up. Beware! Make sure that your marriage is on a firm footing long before you delve into new sexual horizons with your wife.

Secondly, women are encouraged to get evidence of a controlling, cruel, or negligent husband recorded either on paper or on tape. When you are having marital problems, do not write anything about your marriage and do not sign any documents authored by your wife!

Victoria was committing adultery with a married father of three when her husband found out and insisted that it stop. Weeks of conflict ensued. One night, she "repented" to her husband, asked his forgiveness, and said she wanted to start anew on a "second marriage." She had him draw up a marriage contract for the "second marriage" stating all the things that they both agreed she had done wrong and stating the resolutions for change that she was willing to make. She then signed the document and posted it on the refrigerator. In the DVPO hearing, the central piece of evidence was the marriage contract, which, of course, Victoria alleged that her husband had "forced her to sign."

This desire for written evidence goes both ways. Angie G. says that she was encouraged to get her husband to write her cards and letters confessing to her any time he had committed some sin against her. This all, of course, became evidence. A boxful of evidence.

Another common tactic is taping. Be careful when your wife is wearing bulky clothing indoors when it doesn't seem indicated. She could be hiding a hand-held tape recorder in a large pocket or inside a sweatshirt. Women are taught to stand in doorjambs and talk across the room to their husband so that he cannot see the tape recorder in their hand. They are taught to place the recorder behind a cushion or pillow and record while they sit.

Beware of any conversation that starts with a series of naked allegations, for which a woman seems to simply be seeking your response. If you hear this, you are likely being taped for some legal proceeding! Look for conversations structured like this:

She: I want to talk to you.
He: OK.
She: You beat me.
He: Huh?
She: You beat me and you are an adulterer and you are controlling and you always hated my family.
He: I beat you?

Note how this conversation can be twisted to be used in court. He is so flabbergasted by the false allegation that he beat his wife that he cannot even respond. But the final question, "I beat you?", can be twisted into an admission, on the theory that, if you did not beat your wife, you would flatly deny such. If that doesn't fly, the attorney can allege, "Well, you didn't deny adultery or being controlling or hating her family, did you?"

And these types of subjective, neurotic, adolescent offenses are all that is necessary to fit one into the radical feminist template of a "domestic abuser."

Beware of conversations that simply come out of left field, and again, are phrased as naked allegations. Imagine a guy at work with his instant messenger turned on, and his wife pops up with an instant message:

She: You love my blow jobs.
He: Hey baby, how are you? Yep, your blow jobs are GREAT.
She: You want my blow jobs all the time.
He: You know it.

In court, this becomes, "He makes me give him blow jobs all the time. We can't even have normal sex. He doesn't care about my pleasure at all. I hate giving blow jobs." Remember, most instant messengers have a record conversation feature.

If a woman knows a long-standing marriage boundary, look for her to start violating it and assume that she has a tape recorder so that she can record her response. If you have asked her time and again to let her watch your favorite sports team in silence, or not to cook fish, or to not wake you during a nap, etc., women are taught to start violating these boundaries of consideration with impunity and to record the result.

One man had a study in which he did extra work at home. He had asked his wife not to bother him for anything unless it was very important while he was working. One day, she walked in, wearing shorts and a sweatshirt. Under the sweatshirt was a tape recorder.

She: I want to talk to you.
He: I am working, is it really important?
She: No. I just want to talk to you.
He: What is it?
She: I don't know. I just want to talk. What do you want to talk about?

Now, look at the position this man is in, who does not know that he is being recorded. His mind is focused on something important for work, and perhaps for years it has been a known boundary in his home that he is not disturbed while he works. His wife has honored this boundary. Her behavior has become peculiar of late - she is gone a lot (committing adultery or attending "Community Support" meetings at the local women's shelter) and seems to be picking a fight with him all the time. She has become uncivil, and has crossed every boundary of simple respect that the two of them have established. He is exasperated.

If he yells at her, it is evidence that he is mean. Anything he says beyond "Get out!" is probably also abusive.

If he calmly reminds her of the fact that he is working and, absent a compelling emergency, he is not to be bothered, he is controlling.

If he ignores her, he is negligent, distant, and does not regard her "feelings."

And remember, above I stated that in the 100+ DVPO hearings that I have witnessed, the issues are normally that the husband is cruel, negligent, or controlling.

Women's shelters encourage women to keep logs of any and all physical contact between themselves and their spouse. Angie G. says, "They didn't really encourage me to lie as much as they encouraged everyone to put everything that happened in the worst light possible."

One of the most effective means of getting a man to "get physical," giving birth to some event that can be presented in the "worst light possible," is for a woman to start feigning psychological problems or otherwise acting out.

One woman would scream and yell at her husband while her tape recorder was on, hoping that he would yell back. When he didn't, but rather approached her quietly and knelt on the floor attempting to embrace her, she kicked him and yelled, "Get off me!" In court, she was kicking him because he was "wrestling her and would not let her go." She, of course, was merely "defending herself." Without video, it is difficult to argue with that kind of story.

One woman would act out by screaming, yelling, and hopping in the middle of the floor while spinning around. Her husband, obviously, thought she was having a mental breakdown. He offered to "get her some psychological help" but she constantly refused because it might threaten her professional career. She would talk to people who were not there, talk to the dead, and zone out in public. Eventually, he became so unnerved by her screaming, waving her arms, and rotating in the floor that he started wrapping her up in a bear hug when it would happen, to keep her from falling and hitting her head on a coffee table or squashing the dog.

Of course, in court, he was "squeezing the breath out of me and wouldn't let me go." He was "trying to kill me."

Admissions of wrongdoing are calculated to provoke an angry, and perhaps physical, response. Women's shelter counselors urge the women who attend "Community Meetings" that they must "live their own lives," "live authentically," "expect your spouse to authenticate your feelings and needs," and other Oprahized claptrap.

What this means is this: tell your husband about the affair and tape the result. If he doesn't respond in a way that is helpful to you, keep talking about it and taping it until he does.

Women's shelter counselors have suggested to some women that they convince an especially attractive friend to flirt with their husband prior to the filing of a DVPO. The results are, of course, admissible in court, and this works especially well to nullify evidence of adultery on the wife's part.

And all women's shelters have a bevy of attorneys and private investigators that can be contacted, so traditional black ops tactics such as bugs, videotaping, tracking by P.I.'s, and general harassment tactics are always possible.

A couple of my favorite tactics under this "traditional black ops" category are these:

A woman admits to her husband that she is cheating on him. She tells him, over a period of weeks, "I am going to X on Thursday. You are not invited." "I am going to Y on Friday. You are not invited." Eventually, he realizes something is up and decides to follow her and catch her with her boyfriend. Of course, he does not realize that a P.I. has been hired to follow him following his wife. In court, this is evidence that he is "controlling," though apparently he is not "controlling" enough to stop his wife from committing adultery.

A man slapped with a DVPO hires an attorney. The attorney begins to delay the hearing, knowing that speed is his enemy (it does take time for lies to start to unravel, so don't get upset when your attorney starts to file continuances and generally tries to gum up the works before your DVPO hearing). In the time between the filing and the month or two that an attorney may be able to delay the hearing, the man who has been falsely accused begins to receive three or four telephone calls per night. Every time he picks up the phone, there is nobody there, but rather a robocaller then dials someone else's number. After the 15th time the poor sap is fussed out by a total stranger for "calling in the middle of the night," and after the fifth straight night without a full night's sleep, he is willing to do most anything - including just give her the assets in return for her dropping the DVPO.

An attorney or police agency obtains a warrant to track your cell phone signal as a way of making sure that you are not "stalking" your wife, since you, as an accused domestic abuser, are also a potential murderer. Now, don't be ridiculous - neither your wife nor her attorney (and probably not the judge either) actually believe that you are a threat to her - they just want to know where you are going and what you are doing on the chance that it may help their property division or alimony case! You are not informed that your cell signal is being used to keep tabs on your location. When you show up for your hearing, you are asked, "Have you ever been to a strip club?" "Who lives at 123 Main Street? You've been spending a lot of time there, haven't you?"

And remember, the attorneys that are accessed through a women's shelter are generally not paid by their clients (i.e., your wife). They are paid by block grants to "Community Organizations (women's shelters) from the federal government under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). So don't think that the same cost restraints that you face with your attorney will be faced by your wife. There are plenty of cases of attorneys still performing pro bono work for a woman that contacted them through a women's shelter even two years or more after the DVPO hearing. Free.

These are but a few of the tactics routinely encouraged or made available at women's shelters. Do you see now why the tactics of women's shelters are not admissible in court in my state?

When you see inexplicable behavior on the part of your wife, whether it looks like anything recounted here or not, protect yourself. The perjury-driven Domestic Violence Industry may be setting you up.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Tactics of Women's Shelters 2

Every woman that I have talked to that has attended the monthly meetings held by most women's shelters (alternately called "Support Meetings," "Community Outreach," or something equally as drab and nondescript) agrees that one of the primary subtexts of such meetings is how to catch your man in acts of domestic violence.

Now think about that.

Based on what Joe and Josephine Sixpack on the street consider to be "domestic violence," there would hardly be any need to manipulate circumstances or do anything to "catch" your man in acts of DV, would there? I mean, consequent to DV there are bruises, and broken bones, and burning beds - oh, wait, maybe the burning beds go in the other direction, but you get the idea.

But it is a point worth noting: if "domestic violence" bears any sane relation to the connotation that most of us carry around in our heads, then it is certainly a good portion of overkill to attempt to "catch" someone in such acts, as the injuries large and small will be evidence enough, thank you.

Again, this is a clue that what is going on inside of women's shelters is not exactly what the carefully coiffed image presented to the public might suggest.

So let's delve into the question - what exactly is "Domestic Violence" (DV)?

I have said many times that "Domestic Violence" as a legal concept is not real - it is no more real than the idea of a "widget" is in economics. In fact, DV is to law exactly what the widget is to economics - a catch-all abstraction into which we can fit any conceivable thing, and therefore which represents nothing. Now, don't get me wrong, as a legal concept, assault is real and battery is real, but "domestic violence" is not real, as we will demonstrate below.

Family law attorney Lisa Scott says of "Domestic Violence":

"Domestic violence has become whatever the man does that the woman doesn't like. Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is seen as 'abuse.' This often triggers the woman to file for a restraining order, where no real evidence is required. In my 18 years of family law practice, I have seen this pattern occur over and over."
Think about that: a woman who is a lawyer, who has practiced family law for 18 years says that the real definition of DV, as it is actually applied in real court cases is "whatever a man does that the woman doesn't like."

She couldn't possibly be telling the truth.

At the University of Virginia's Women's Center for Sexual and Domestic Violence Services (hereinafter UVSDS), "Domestic Violence" is defined as

A pattern of physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abusive behaviors used by one individual to maintain power over or control a partner in the context of an intimate or family relationship.
So we see that the definition of DV revolves around physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. So tell me, what is "abuse?"

Is it like the Supreme Court says about porn, "I know it when I see it?"

Actually, at least that standard has the benefit of some minor objectivity. Again and again, those who have attended these "Community Support" meetings hosted by women's shelters have declared that they were told that abuse was "anything that makes them feel abused." And that is thoroughly consistent with the subjective definition of abuse urged by UVSDS:

Remember, when one person scares, hurts or continually puts down the other person, it's abuse.

So if I feel scared, or hurt, or put down, it is because someone has abused me. Because obviously, people - especially hormonal women - are always in control of their emotions and never "feel" anything that is not justified. And of course, nobody would ever go into court and testify on the stand that they "felt" scared just as a means of getting their way, would they?

But of course they would. Because women's shelters teach them to do just that.

It has everything to do with changes in the Violence Against Women Act enacted during the administration of Bill Clinton, in which the standard of evidence for obtaining a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) was lowered to the most ridiculously low standard in the history of jurisprudence (other than, perhaps, "Thus saith the King..."). Consequent to changes in VAWA enacted in the 1990s, a DVPO can now be obtained in the U.S. under the outrageous standard of "the subjective fear of the woman."

So it is apparent why an honest female attorney who practices family law, and sees these cases day after day, would say that when "domestic violence" is alleged, "no real evidence is required."

But exploring the UVSDS site further, we are told that some things are objectively either suggestive of an abusive relationship or are abusive themselves. Things like:

  • Embarrass or make fun of you in front of your friends or family?
  • Put down your accomplishments or goals?
  • Call you names?
  • Make you feel like you are unable to make decisions?
  • Use intimidation or threats to gain compliance?
  • Hit walls, throw things, try to scare you?
  • Tell you that you are nothing without them?
  • Pressure you sexually for things you aren't ready for?
  • Act jealous...?
  • Deny your feelings?
Notice that nothing on this list is even remotely related to violence. But everything on this list sounds like it was compiled by a 16-year old girl whose neurosis had finally overcome whatever reason she once had. It is an excellent list if your goal is to make male-female relationships illegal on their face (or parent-child, or employer-employee, or any relationship), or if your ultimate goal was simply to motivate women to leave men on any pretense and fortify them for such a move by criminalizing the very ability to exist as a man as a means of transferring wealth, en bloc, to women. And, in fact, the only solution proposed by UVSDS for this type of "abuse" is...
The information provided here is designed to empower both survivors and their significant others in making decisions about their lives, in breaking free of an abusive relationship, and finding the support they need to get to a place of healing.

So, the "abuse" of "denying a woman's feelings" is a situation so heinous that the only possible solution is the abandonment of a relationship, ripping a father from his kids, sending a "feelings-denier" into the pen with gangstas, murderers, and cannibals, and transferring all imaginable assets to the woman - no doubt in an attempt to help her "get to a place of healing."

The odd thing, of course (and you will find that in feminist jurisprudence there is always an "odd thing") is that one of the signs of abuse is "Blam[ing] you for how they [the male] feel or act?"

Now wait a minute. If a woman blames me for how she feels or acts, ("I am abused because he denies my feelings."), then I, the man, have committed Domestic Violence. But if I, the man, blame a woman for how I feel or act, then I, the man, have committed Domestic Violence?

And at the end of the day, it is, in fact, the "feelings" of a woman that determines whether she has been abused, not whether a man has actually done something to her.

Do you...?
* Sometimes feel scared of how your partner will act?
* Feel like, no matter what you do, your partner is never happy with you?

And note that, at the bottom of the page linked above, readers are encouraged to call the UVSDS, because otherwise, "the abuse will continue." So obviously, all of this nonsense is, in the mind of those who run UVSDS (and why what these femtards believe is significant is described below), actually abuse.

But thankfully, the UVSDS does give us some inkling as to what can objectively be considered to be "domestic violence." Unfortunately, most of it doesn't have any relationship to actual violence. A "healthy relationship," ostensibly one in which abuse is not occurring, has (in part) the following characteristics:

* Equal decision making power.
* Neither partner restricts the other to gender roles.

Now note - if you are an evangelical Christian, a conservative Catholic, a Muslim, or just someone who believes the family ought to function like old episodes of Leave it to Beaver, with nothing else added you are involved in an abusive relationship. To simply believe in rigid gender roles, to believe that the male ought to be the leader in the home, is an act of abuse.

* Sharing of thoughts and ideas.
* Opinions of each partner are valued equally.
* Partners use respectful language and gestures, even in disagreement.

So if a man suggests that reason is superior to a hormonal bout of irrationality in which his wife is indulging, he is abusive. If a man, to avoid a fight, refuses to allow the "sharing of thoughts and ideas" to escalate by simply turning and walking away, he is abusive. If he stays and argues as the "sharing of thoughts and ideas" escalates, and points, or waves his hands, or yells in order to be heard, he is abusive.

In fact, in one proceeding, a female alleged abuse based on the male pointing at her (which made her "feel scared, like he was going to hit me") and reading the Bible to her. And for good measure, she threw in, "He's tall. About 6'2. And he lifts weights." And in response to the attorney's question, "And how did that make you feel?", she answered, "Very frightened."

* Both partners accept the validity of each others' feelings.
* Partners are emotionally supportive and caring.
* Safe sharing of fears or insecurities.

So any man (and this does NOT run both ways - in the history of DV hearings, no man has ever alleged that a woman was being violent because she did not "accept the validity of his feelings") who says, "I hear you say you are angry. But there is no reason for you to feel that way, and here's why..." is guilty of "domestic violence."

Feeling better about "domestic violence," now? Are you comfortable that men are in jail right now for violating these irrational, neurotic precepts authored by bedwetting whiny adolescents in Women's Studies departments?

But wait, you say, most "domestic violence" proceedings revolve around actual violence. Broken teeth. Bruises. Chaining someone up in the closet.

False. Because if anyone ever broke someone's teeth, they would be charged with assault and battery. If they ever chained someone up in the closet, they would be charged with false imprisonment.

Sometimes it is true that a DVPO hearing is paired with an actual criminal proceeding such as an assault charge. But the vast majority of DVPO hearings are based on the DVPO complaint alone. And in my time, I have witnessed over 100 DVPO hearings, and only one actually alleged anything that would be considered "violence" by the average guy on the street.

The rest of them were based on the kinds of neurotic nonsense described above.

And all but one of the DVPO orders were continued - and as you remember from the first post in this series, "continuation" is a finding of quasi-criminal liability in a DVPO hearing.

In the vast majority of the cases that I have personally witnessed, at issue was whether a man was "controlling" or trying to be "controlling" toward a woman.

Of course, the issue of being a "controlling man" is ultimately only an issue of whether a man cedes control to a woman.

But wait!, you object again. These are the neurotic beliefs of a bunch of man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians! Ultimately, judges don't fall for this neuro-prissy nonsense!

If only you were right. Remember up above when I promised to let you know why the beliefs of these man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians were so important? It is because though the law often requires an actual act of violence in state enactments of VAWA, the law is interpreted through the lens of judicial education seminars (and attorney continuing education) run by... wanna guess?

The man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians who run women's shelters, of course. So the shrill neurotic whining that is found on the UVSDS website, though it is not law, has the force of law because judges are trained to find "domestic violence" based on the ideas propogated by women's shelters!

Every single woman that I have interviewed who has been inside a woman's shelter has stated that women are encouraged to allege that actual physical violence has occurred. An allegation like this ensures a slam-dunk. But if a woman maintains that such violence never has occurred, then they are taught that there are "many kinds of violence" and are taken through a checklist filled with statements and questions like those above. If a woman maintains that a man has ever "denied her feelings" or "felt scared of how her partner might act" or "not shared feelings and ideas" or "believed in Biblical gender roles," she has been abused and her husband is an abuser.

Step two in the process, after convincing a woman who has lived with an Average Joe for 20 years that she has been abused, is attempting to help her gather evidence of such abuse.

This explains why most of the time, allegations of "domestic violence" occur weeks or months after a woman first enters a "Community Support Meeting." Because next on the agenda is a series of manipulations and tactics that are designed to produce actions on the part of the man that are admissible as acts of abuse in court.

Look for a discussion of these in the third entry in this series.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.