Friday, January 26, 2007

Ten Years In Prison For Consensual Sex

.


No one involved believes Wilson should be in jail for 10 years.
The prosecutors don't.
The Supreme Court doesn't.
The legislature doesn't.
The 15-year-old "victim" doesn't.
The forewoman of the jury doesn't.
Privately, even prison officials don't.


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Showing Buddy Playboy Mag Is An Offence

.

Showing Buddy Playboy Mag Is An Offence The ‘crime’ to which Matt ultimately pleaded guilty was showing a Playboy magazine to some 16-year-old classmates. His conviction may be the first of its kind in America. Being in possession of a Playboy is legal, but a teenaged boy who shows it to a buddy now risks being arrested as a sex offender. Wendy McElroy

.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

T-Shirts Sold At Wal-Mart





...






...

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Castration Demands At Duke University

...

Castrate Them Kim Curtis, who is a visiting professor in Duke’s political science department, actively participated in a number of rallies in which protesters held up signs calling for the lacrosse players to be "castrated," William Anderson

To gain a picture of what the Duke University lacrosse players experienced last spring as they walked through a literal gauntlet on their way to class, envision the following things

Students holding signs declaring: "Castrate";
Speakers at regular rallies calling for their expulsion;
Students screaming slogans at them;


...

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Do Not Push Button

...

Do Not Push Button (30 sec)




...

Monday, January 08, 2007

Government Workers Profiting From Manhatred

It was good to see the Times publishing an article by Rod Liddle that exposes the truth behind the reasons for women failing to reach parity with men in the higher echelons of business - an article that was drawn to my attention by Darren's CoolTools4Men.

Watch out ladies — the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is after you. According to this organisation’s latest fatuous annual survey, paid for by you and me, some 6,000 women are missing from Britain’s boardrooms.

The sole reason for this, according to the EOC, is simple: discrimination; discrimination against women by men.

... [But] It has not remotely occurred to them that there might be any other cause, such as a comparatively smaller proportion of women who wish to become company directors, MPs, councillors and the like. Or, indeed, that a smaller proportion of women may possess the abilities to do these awful jobs.

But, of course, Rod Liddle is wrong.

The notion that the EOC is not aware of the fact that women are less committed than men to the workpace is risible.

Indeed, there is surely no longer any realistic doubt in the minds of most intelligent people that women are bound to do less well than men in the workplace because, quite simply, they are less committed to the workplace. And those working at the EOC are undoubtedly aware of this. Indeed, it is inconceivable that they are not aware of the fact that the aspirations of women must have at least something to do with it all.

But why does the EOC not mention this?

Why does the EOC not point out that women, themselves, are at least partly responsible for the fact that they achieve less than men in the workplace? Why must they pin all the blame on men?

Well, the answer to this question must be that the staff at the EOC are purposely trying to fuel hatred toward men in order to further their agenda. There is no other realistic explanation for their dishonesty.

Furthermore, as we know, the stirring up of hatred towards men is the very essence of feminism - an ideology that thrives ONLY by the continual demonisation of men; e.g see
Some BBC Propaganda Tricks.

Certainly, in comparison to the amount of hatred towards men purposely fuelled by various other feminist-controlled bodies and, of course, by the 'abuse industry' itself, this dishonesty by the EOC might seem comparatively trivial, but the effects of it, nevertheless, spread way beyond polite discussions about the progress of women in the workplace. For example, the very idea that men throughout the workplace are busily discriminating against women makes women throughout the land feel completely justified in doing their best to undermine men in many other circumstances, and it raises the hostility that, in general, they feel towards men.

And so what we see here is a very good example of a government agency (organism) profiting itself - justifying its existence, providing jobs for its staff, furthering the feminist cause - by demonising men. Furthermore, not only is this demonisation quite unjustifiable, the negative ramifications of it spread far beyond any academic discussion.

As such, I have no hesitation at all in describing the staff at the EOC as nothing more than pernicious parasites; that is, people who profit by damaging others and by damaging their very own societies.

In my view, these people not only waste the money and resources that we expend on them, they actually inflict a huge amount of damage on us all.

And I have no respect for these people at all. And neither should you!

Indeed, how would you feel about a group of people who went around smashing cars, breaking the windows of houses, throwing rubbish everywhere and, in general, damaging the environment in which you lived?

Why feel any different about those who purposely set out to do the very same to all our relationships?

...

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Woman Beats Boyfriend: What Would You Do?

ABC News
26 December 2006

Turning the Tables

How Do People React When There's Abuse in Public, But the Gender Roles are Reversed? How Would You React?

Woman Beats Boyfriend: What Would You Do?

Will people stop a woman abusing a man? "Primetime" hired actors to find out.

It's the kind of sweaty summer day when you might expect tempers to be short. Even so, though, the scene on a park bench in northern New Jersey strikes bystanders as a bit odd. A young woman with fiery red hair leans over her hapless boyfriend, screaming in his face.

"Nate, stop ignoring me!," she implores, just inches from his face. He all but ignores her.

"You're not even…" She pauses and moves her face even closer to his.

"Hello…Hello! " she screams. At times her rage boils over to physical abuse: she pulls the young man's hair, slaps the side of his head, and beats him with a rolled-up newspaper.

Fortunately, the troubling scene isn't real. The abusive woman and her boyfriend are actors, hired by "Primetime" for a hidden camera experiment.

On previous shows, "Primetime" has staged scenes of abuse in which the man is the aggressor, and the woman is the victim. And in these situations, passersby - men and women - often stepped up and intervened. So producers were curious. What would happen if the tables were turned, and the man was suddenly the victim? Would people be just as willing to come to his defense?

This staged scenario happens more often in real life than you may think.

According to Colgate University psychology professor Carrie Keating, women abusing, even assaulting their male partners "is a big problem in this country."

"There are some data that suggest that women actually hit more than men do," says Keating. "Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do."

A report prepared for the Centers for Disease Control estimates that each year there are over 800,000 serious cases of men being physically abused by women. But the actual figures are believed to be much higher, since many men are often too embarrassed to admit being the victim of abuse by a woman.

Even professional athletes, with their macho reputations, have alleged abuse. In 2002, Major League pitcher Chuck Finley's wife, actress Tawny Kitaen, was arrested and jailed after he accused her of pummeling him, causing bruises and abrasions. She pleaded not guilty, and charges were dropped after she agreed to attend anger management classes.

'You Go Girl'?

Verbal and physical abuse of men by women might be an acknowledged problem, but will people try to stop it when "Primetime"' s hidden cameras are rolling?

One after another, passersby witnessed the abusive scene… and kept right on going.

Mathilda was one of those bystanders. She says she didn't think the man was in any physical danger, and could probably take care of himself. "I didn't immediately think to protect the man at all," she said. "It didn't look like any harm was being done."

The reaction of another woman, Lynda, was stunning. As our actress continued to heap abuse on her make-believe boyfriend, she walked by the scene and pumped her fist in a show of sisterly solidarity.

"Good for you. You Go, Girl!" is how Lynda recalls her reaction.

"I was thinking he probably did something really bad," she said. "Maybe she caught him cheating or something like that…and [it] made her lose it and slap him in the face. I reacted like, 'Yes. Woman power.'"

This type of reaction didn't come as a surprise to Keating. Observers often
excuse their "own lack of response by denigrating the victim and making up stories that he really deserved the punishment he was receiving," Keating says.

She says that perhaps these people have some past frustration in their
lives which makes them "actually enjoy vicariously the experience this
woman was having by being aggressive" toward her boyfriend.

'Old-Fashioned Views'

Later, a husband and wife out for some exercise observed the abusive situation and continued on their way. So "Primetime's" producers stepped in and asked, "Why not stop or at least call 911?"

"What they were havin' there…[they were] just havin' a little tiff. They'll be all right," said the man, a police officer in a nearby community. His wife old "Primetime" that she would have found it "more upsetting if [the young man] had put his hands on" the young woman."

"Oh, without a doubt," her husband readily agreed, acknowledging the double standard. "Call it old-fashioned views. If you're raised the way I was raised, you don't put your hands on a woman, right?"

Keating says that holding those kinds of values and beliefs "is going to give them a very different lens through which they see the behavior of the actress, the aggressiveness of the woman against the man. They under-value the potency of her responses."

Over two days of taping, "Primetime" watched 163 people just walk right by the actors - the abusive woman and her boyfriend. Of all those who had the chance to step up and get involved, only one group of women stopped.

After taking time to assess the situation, these women - four of them - gathered at a distance to assess the situation. They then sent an emissary to offer the fighting couple some assistance.

But when the actress replied that "this is not your business," the woman
respectfully walked away.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Husbands Are Worthless


Husbands Are Worthless The scale of the exodus of young women from orthodox union, along with their reasons for it, are such that it will take an awful lot more than a tax break here or there to change their minds. Carole Sarler

It is no wonder that we encounter newly divorced women revelling in what feels almost like leisure: all the chores they did while married still need doing in exactly the same way — the only difference is that now they’re not cooking his bacon too. Husbands, they have discovered, can be darned hard work all by themselves.

Well, it seems to me that if women are having such a hard time, then feminism has failed them, hasn't it?

Carole Sarler's article is positively loaded with misandry, and I doubt that the Telegraph would dare to publish a similar piece about women.

 

Monday, January 01, 2007

BNP Propaganda



Ten-minute speech by Nick Griffin concerning white victims of aggression.