Archive for October, 2007|Monthly archive page

Need a good laugh?

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Need a good laugh?

Need a good laugh?
Regular Contributor
Talk about desperation. How do Feminists attempt to combat the marriage strike and IMBRA? With propaganda, of course. The gig is up.
Feminist = Misandry

Feminism And Romance Go Hand In Hand

Science Daily — Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.

It is generally perceived that feminism and romance are in direct conflict. Rudman and Phelan’s work challenges this perception. They carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.

They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.

The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, then feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women.

Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.

* Reference: Rudman LA & Phelan JE (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: is feminism good for romantic relationships? Sex Roles (DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9)


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

10-15-2007 10:22 PM

Re: Need a good laugh?
Regular Contributor
if some of the participants in the survey were online, how are we to determine which are “sexually attractive” and which ones aren’t ? a 400 lb mexican could easily take the survey and pass himself or herself off as a playboy model. OH I GET IT ! they let audience members on the OPRAH SHOW determine which ones are attractive. this might work in movies or fantasy islands, but not in the real world. pseudoscience from a bunch of pseudomales. get a real job Rudman and Phelan and get back into the kitchen.

10-17-2007 12:05 AM

Re: Need a good laugh?
Regular Contributor
And the Feminist Propaganda Continues ….

The two researchers for the cited study are … FEMINISTS!

Don’t fall for this BS guys!

Can feminism help your love life?

If the words of some of our more, er, enthusiastic commenters are to be believed, women who identify themselves as feminists must have pretty crappy romantic lives. I mean, aren’t we all ugly, unshaven man-haters, the sorts of women who would spit on a guy if he so much as opened a door for us?

The simple response to that question would just be “No.” But today, dear readers, I can actually offer you scientific proof that not all self-proclaimed feminists are lonely, man-hating trolls! A study that’s to be published in Springer’s Sex Roles says that “feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships,” according to this press release. They’ve got to be kidding, right?

Nope. Rutgers researchers Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan surveyed 242 American undergraduates and 289 older adults and looked at men’s and women’s “perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction” (to quote the press release). And guess what they found? Women who said their guys had feminist beliefs had “healthier” relationships. Men who had feminist partners reported “more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.”

I know what you’re thinking: How can a man report sexual satisfaction with an ugly, man-hating lesbian? To answer this question, Rudman and Phelan decided to examine stereotypes of feminists, too, to see how well they matched up with reality. Were the stereotypes to be true, Rudman and Phelan asserted that feminists would be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian or sexually unattractive. But guess what? They didn’t. In fact, women describing themselves as feminists were actually more likely to report being in heterosexual relationships than those who didn’t identify with the “f” word.

So it looks like we’ve got it all wrong, folks. Feminists don’t actually hate men — they just have a sense of self-worth and a desire for equality in their relationships. When the heterosexual ones are paired up with guys who also believe that women and men are equal, their relationships work better. Who’d have thunk. Let’s hope that Rudman and Phelan can help answer other pressing questions, like whether feminists really do buy bras just to burn them, and whether these feminist-loving men are actually gay.


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

10-18-2007 12:27 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women’s Infidelity

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women’s Infidelity

Women’s Infidelity
Regular Contributor


Women’s relationships today follow a very predictable pattern:

*They push men for commitment
*They get what they want
*They lose interest in sex
*They become attracted to someone else
*They start cheating
*They become angry and resentful
*They begin telling their partners that they need time apart
*They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after making themselves and everyone around them miserable for an indefinite, but usually, long period of time, they end their relationships or marriages.

If you’re a male, like most other males, you would probably never suspect that your partner is cheating, not only because of your wife’s or girlfriend’s seeming disinterest in sex; but also because you have the belief that your wife or girlfriend is a “good girl.” Unfortunately, males are frequently left/divorced by their wives and girlfriends without ever knowing about their wives’ and girlfriends’ infidelities.

If you’re a female, like most other females, prior to cheating on your partner you always proclaimed yourself to be “not the type” who would ever cheat. However, also like most other females, after they have cheated, you’re shocked and appalled by your behavior; but at the same time you can’t stop cheating.

Women’s relationships and marriages will continue to follow this same pattern unless we develop an accurate understanding of females – particularly in regard to their sexuality. In fact, after researching women’s sexuality for more than ten years, I can honestly say that most of our societal beliefs about females are grossly distorted and many are completely erroneous.

The media has finally begun to acknowledge, albeit to a small degree, the widespread problem of female infidelity. Recently, several books and articles have attempted to explain why women are now cheating as much as men. However, none were successful in their attempt. All of them left out very important pieces to this extremely complicated puzzle. I believe the majority were simply unable to find all of the information necessary to figure out the problem. Although, I’m certain that some were just afraid to disclose certain key pieces of information because the truth, quite frankly, is so contrary to our current beliefs. Unfortunately, without these missing pieces, it’s impossible to understand, and to subsequently fix, the real problem occurring in relationships today.

My story:

Shortly after my 27th birthday, I began to feel very different. I had been happily married for 4 years and then, suddenly out of nowhere, I began feeling bored and unhappy. In an attempt to figure out what was causing my unhappiness, I looked for answers in books, tried to talk to my Mother and eventually went to see a psychologist. All of the information I received attributed the way I was feeling to my husband, and similar to the majority of women, I began to view my husband as the culprit too.

Currently, women are initiating 70 – 75% of all divorces

Later, through my own research, I discovered that what I was experiencing was quite normal. In fact, women are the most likely to divorce in their late twenties and thirties after an average of 4 years of marriage. During this time, it’s quite common for women to experience a pre-midlife crisis, which is similar to the male midlife crisis, only with an important difference – a difference that can actually make women more likely to cheat than men.

The “stages” that women often experience during the course of their long-term relationships

Several years into my research I was able to identify distinctive patterns and behaviors in the women I interviewed. I categorized these into four separate “stages” that women often experience during the course of their long-term relationships. The stages begin with a loss of sexual desire.

Stage 1

Women at Stage 1 feel as though something is missing in their lives. They have all the things that they wanted—a home, a family, a great husband—but they feel they should be happier. Over time, many women in this stage begin to lose interest in sex. It is not uncommon for them to spend a great deal of energy trying to avoid physical contact with their husbands because they fear it might lead to a sexual encounter. They frequently complain of physical ailments to avoid having sex and often try to avoid going to bed at the same time as their husbands. They view sex as a job, not unlike doing the dishes or going to the grocery store. Some women in Stage 1 claim they feel violated when their husbands touch them. Their bodies freeze up and they feel tightness in their chest and/or a sick feeling in their stomach. The majority of women in Stage 1 feel as though there is something wrong with them, that they are in some way defective. They are also fearful that their disinterest in sex will cause their husbands to cheat, or worse yet, leave them.

Stage 2

Women at Stage 2 experience reawakened desire stimulated by an encounter outside the marital relationship. Whether these encounters with a “new” man involves sex or remain platonic, women will typically give a tremendous amount of emotional significance to these encounters.

Many women in this stage haven’t felt any sexual desire for a long time. Many experience tremendous guilt and regret, regardless of whether their new relationships are sexual, merely emotional, or both. Most begin to experience what could be termed an identity crisis—even those who try to put the experience behind them. Constant reminders are everywhere. They feel guilt when the topic of infidelity arises, whether in the media, in conversations with family and friends, or at home with their husbands. Women in this stage can no longer express their prior disdain for infidelity without feeling like a hypocrite. They feel as though they have lost a part of themselves. Reflecting society’s belief that women are either “good” or “bad,” women will question their “good girl” status and feel that they might not be deserving of their husbands. Many will try to overcome feelings of guilt by becoming more attentive toward and appreciative of their husbands. However, over time many women will move from appreciation to justification. In order to justify their continued desire for other men, women will begin to attribute these desires to needs that are not being met in their marriage, or to their husband’s past behavior. Many women will become negative and sarcastic when speaking of their husbands and their marriages and it is not uncommon for an extramarital affair to follow.

Stage 3

Women at Stage 3 are involved in affairs, ending affairs, or contemplating divorce. Women who are having affairs experience feelings unlike anything they have experienced before. They feel “alive” again and many believe they have found their soul mates. These women are experiencing feelings associated with a chemically altered state, or what is typically referred to as being in love.

These women are also typically in tremendous pain, the pain of choosing between their husbands and their new love interests. They typically believe that what they are doing is wrong and unfair to their husbands, but yet are unable to end their affairs. Many often try several times. Prior to meeting with their lovers, they will vow that it will be the last time, but they are unable to stick with their decisions.

Unable to end their extramarital relationships, women at Stage 3 conclude that their lovers are soul mates because they are unaware that they have become addicted to the high caused by chemicals released during the initial stages of a relationship. Many live in a state of limbo for years. “Should I stay married or should I get a divorce?” this is the question continuously on the minds of women at Stage 3 – it is also common for women at this stage to attempt to initiate a separation. In most cases, husbands of women at Stage 3, will launch futile attempts to make their wives happy by being more attentive, spending more time at home and helping out around the house. Regardless of women’s past and present complaints, the last thing women at Stage 3 want, is to spend more time with their husbands.

The reason many women will give for their desire to separate is a “search for self.” They convince their husbands that they might be able to save their marriage if they can just have time to themselves. They tell their husbands that time apart is the only hope of improving their current situation. Women at this stage want to free themselves of the restrictions of marriage and spend more time with their lovers. Most think that eventually their confusion will disappear. They think they will eventually know with certainty whether they want to stay married or get divorced and be with their lovers. Separation allows women at this stage, to enjoy the high they experience with their lovers without giving up the security of their marriages. Husbands of Stage 3 women are often unaware that their wives are having affairs. Their lack of suspicion is typically due to their wife’s disinterest in sex and in their belief that their wife is a “good girl.”

Women at Stage 3 may also be experiencing the ending of an extramarital affair, and the ending may not have been their decision. They may have been involved with single men who either lost interest because the relationship could not progress or who became attracted to another women who was single. Women whose affairs are ending often experience extreme grief. They may become deeply depressed and express tremendous anger toward their husbands. They are typically unaware that they are experiencing chemical withdrawal due to sudden changes in their brain chemistry. As a result, many will feel that they have missed their chance at happiness due to their indecisiveness.

Believing they have become more aware of what they want and need from a mate, women at this stage will often place the utmost importance on finding a “new” relationship that will give them the feeling they experienced in their affairs. A new relationship with a new partner will also represent a clean slate, a chance for these women to regain their “good girl” status. Some women will search for new partners during their separations. Others will return to their marriages, but not emotionally and still continue to search. Some women will resume sporadic sexual relations with their husbands in an effort to safeguard their marriage until they make a decision. Although they are often not sexually attracted to their husbands, desire is temporarily rekindled when they suspect their husbands are unfaithful, are contemplating infidelity, or when their husbands show signs of moving on.

Stage 4

The women in stage four included those who chose to stay married and continue their affairs and those who chose to divorce. Some of the women who continued their affairs stated that marital sex was improved by maintaining the extramarital relationship. Some thought the lover was a soul mate, but for one reason or another did not leave their husband and did not feel torn between the two. Others realized that their feelings were intensified by not sharing day-to-day living arrangements with their lover. Almost all of the women in this latter category were having affairs with married men. They believed their affairs could continue indefinitely without disrupting either partner’s primary relationship.

The women who chose divorce and were in the beginning stages of a new relationship typically expressed relief at having finally made a decision and reported feeling normal again. Many of the divorced women who had remarried and were several years into their new marriages seemed somewhat reluctant to talk about the specifics of their past experiences. However, they did mention feelings of guilt and regret for having hurt their children and ex-spouses only to find themselves experiencing similar feelings in the new relationship.

Female infidelity will not only continue to be extremely common but it will also continue to be on the rise women’s infidelity

Women are cheating and relationships are ending because men and women lack necessary information. Today’s relationship problems are not only solvable, but many can be easily solved – once you understand what the real problem is. The information in Women’s Infidelity should be common knowledge to couples, both married and unmarried, and to dating males and females. Trying to have a relationship today without the information in this book is like to trying to read without knowing the letters of the alphabet. This is not an exaggeration – it’s a fact.



“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

10-09-2007 07:56 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

h t t p://

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – h t t p://

h t t p://
Regular Contributor
h t t p://

10-09-2007 12:59 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

h t t p://

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – h t t p://

h t t p://
Regular Contributor

Message Edited by leeraconteur on 10-02-2007 02:07 PM

Message Edited by leeraconteur on 10-02-2007 02:08 PM

10-02-2007 02:05 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

This week’s Gender issues.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – This week’s Gender issues.

This week’s Gender issues.
Regular Contributor
Since the Forum has become somewhat inactive. Michael Noer has done a huge service to both Genders by articulating reality. I have decided to post a synopsis of the important highlights of both the culture and News Events for those who have an interest in Feminism, Relationships, and the Gender War. Mary Winkler the convicted Murderer of her Husband the Pastor from TN, who was angered by her Nigerian Check Scam Fraud. Was released from Jail for serving less than two months. She murdered him in cold Blood by shooting him in the back. She pleaded Domestic Abuse. This despite denials by her 9 year old Daughter who said Her Mother lied. Men’s Activists refer to this as the **bleep** Pass. Meaning the extreme double standard of justice for the Genders. The Federal Government is now enforcing restrictions on US Men who owe back Child Support from obtaining a Passport. Apparently only Men are targetted. This is discrimination Per Se. Britney Spears has been photographed topless with her Former Assistant. Raising speculation that she is Bi-Sexual. She has alot of issues, substance abuse, mental stability, anger issues etc. Meanwhile Lindsey Lohan does rehab in Utah. John Edwards wife Elizabeth claims there needs to be Affirmative Action for White Men in the Democratic Primary race. Meaning Women and Minorities have an advantage. I guess they caught the Patriarchy on Vacation or worse yet… Sleeping. The tragedy of the Utah Underground Miners and death of Three of their Rescuers yesterday. Highlights the Death Professions or Glass Cellar Jobs. Jobs that pay well but are so hazardous or dangerous that only Men will do them. Often at great cost. A Father holding his infant daughter was Tasered by a Hospital Security Guard a day or so ago. He dropped his daughter as a result.

08-17-2007 03:13 PM

Re: This week’s Gender issues.

khank, I wonder what on earth makes men go out and do those jobs and put their lives on the line? to put food on their family’s table? Why men, as a gender, are such naive and gullible suckers, aren’t they? Why not just go on a big nice strike and dump all those mines and sewage systems and garbage collection and firefighting, and plumbing and roofing, etc, etc and hand them over to the oppressed womyn who, due to the world-wide male conspiracy, are mising out on such glorious careers?
I think men have to nobody but themselves to blame for doing nothing better about their problems than keep being silent robots (I mean idiots).

08-21-2007 11:36 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

NAACP admits no Crime in Durham

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – NAACP admits no Crime in Durham

NAACP admits no Crime in Durham
Regular Contributor
The President of the NAACP admits that the NC NAACP Chapter erred in its accusations against the Three (3) Duke LaCrosse Players. That there was in fact no crime committed at all against Ms. Rivers aka. Crystal Gail Magnum. That still has brought no apology from the Group of 88 Miscreants of Duke, aka. the Professors who called for the expulsion of the players. Despite the facts. Our Colleges are bastions of Anti male Hatred. To the Credit of many African Americans they realize they were used by discredit DA Nifong who has been disbarred and is facing Prison for his Criminal Behavior. When will Ms. Rivers be held accountable??? NEVER. Not in FemAmerica where all Men who desire Straight Women are Rapists. Any Sex that is not satisfactory to American Females is Rape. The Best strategy is to leave them alone. Until they demand the Misandric Laws be changed. Women cannot shame us into Loving Them, Marrying Them, or having a Relationship with them. What is truly sad is that in this Vale of Tears. Women have decided to embrace Lesbianism and the hatred of Men. To criminalize our natural attraction to them. And to betray us. Feminism and its hatred of Men. Will Liberate Men from Marriage. US Women can thank Feminists for Men refusing to Marry and have children with them. In fact Last year 12% of US Marriages were to Foreign Women. And with 22% of US Men refusing to every Marry. That is one third of US Men saying No to American Women. Ladies are you listening??? Do you want to end up alone with your Cats?? If so keep listening to Oprah, Katie, Barbara Walters, Connie Chung, Diane Sawyer. They do not care if you are happy. They have an agenda and your happiness is not a part of it.

08-13-2007 06:44 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Is finding a foreigner a better idea?

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Is finding a foreigner a better idea?

Is finding a foreigner a better idea?

The trend in people marrying women from foreign countries is exploding, and with good reason.  The traditional American lifestyle has become more illusive with more women entering the workplace, and becoming obsessed with their careers.  Do you want to learn Spanish to explore the opportunities of the countries of the 3rd most spoken language in the world?  It is worth a shot.

07-18-2007 01:16 PM

Re: Is finding a foreigner a better idea?
Regular Contributor
Since January I have been meeting with Venture Capitalists, Bankers, Lawyers and Accountants. What I have found interesting is how many High Earning, High Net Worth Men are married to Foreign Women. They have had one Divorce and said Hell No to American Women. Even refusing to date them. Most of these Men earn over $450,000 a year. Many are Executives, VC Principals and are not willing to subject themselves to the same BS they have dealt with AW. The human being is basically the same everywhere. What is different is the expectation and culture of Foreign Women. They do not have a “Chip on the Shoulder”. They do not See Men as Sexual Criminals. They appreciate Male Attention and are not hostile. American and Western Women are into Thugs, Criminals, and Bad Boys. The worst type of Men for a Stable life. Our young Celeb Women are Whores. Sluts who are addicted to Drugs, attention, and who are completely self absorbed. They are in fact unfit to breed. Example abound, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton. All are Attention Whores. All have substance abuse issues. If Lindsey Lohan does not get help she will end up like Chris Farley. And our Media worships Bi-Sexual Actresses like Angelina Jolie. Our culture is sick and debased. This is not a life script worth emulating. Look at Ana Nicole and the train wreck of a short life she led. She was a Whore. And died from substance abuse and neglect. Fools Gold shines like the real thing but it is not gold.

08-13-2007 06:56 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Mom at age 60: ‘Age has been redefined’

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Mom at age 60: ‘Age has been redefined’

Mom at age 60: ‘Age has been redefined’
Regular Contributor
There’s hope for Career Chixs!


The psychologist who gave birth to twin boys at age 60 said Thursday she was on a mission to let women know they have choices.

“It’s really basically about women and empowerment,” Frieda Birnbaum told NBC’s “Today” show.

Birnbaum, who underwent in-vitro fertilization last year at a South African clinic that specializes in older women, gave birth by Caesarean section on Tuesday at Hackensack University Medical Center.

“I don’t feel like I went through a lot of trauma during delivery or even through the process of being pregnant,” Birnbaum said.

The hospital said she was the nation’s oldest mother of twins.

“Age has been redefined,” Birnbaum said.

Continued …


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-24-2007 12:40 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women in/out the workplace

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women in/out the workplace

Women in/out the workplace
Regular Contributor
We hear a lot about “getting women into the workplace”, about new schemes or ideas to ensure more women (or subcategories thereof, such as mothers, single-mothers, female ex-convicts, women with AIDs, etc) are in the workplace. Or in a specific workplace (e.g. company directors, I.T., film directors, journalism, politics, etc. But never – strangely enough – construction, sewer maintenance, front-line soldiers, pest-controllers, etc.)

All these schemes and plans always seem to talk of offering:

* Paid maternity leave
* Flexi-time
* Job-Sharing schemes
* Part-time position
* Career breaks
* Paid leave when a child is ill
* No harm done to promotion prospects for taking an X-years-long career break
* Opportunities to work from home

Every **bleep** time there is talk of getting more women into work, or a certain industry, the above items are touted as ways to accomplish this.

Forgive me if I’m being silly, but are all those things actually orchestrated to ensure the woman in question is actually out of the workplace? Either whilst she has kids, whilst she raises them, whilst the kid is ill, or even just to f*ck off at three o’clock every day to make the school run?

There’s always a bit of the old positive discrimination/affirmative action thrown in too of course; nothing like boosting the numbers of women in a job by forcing companies to recruit them under threat of fines or closure. But otherwise, it seems the best way to get woman into a certain job is to provide her with plenty of opportunities to be paid without having to be there all the time, or indeed at all for considerable periods of time (working full-time for ever and ever and ever is, it seems, only us men have to do.)

Whilst, of course, she keeps her fancy job title – for her grrl-power ego-boost – and, most importantly of all, the full salary too.

It says a lot about women’s attitude to work that even the government implicitly accepts that the only real way of encouraging more women into a workplace is to ensure that the women have plenty of opportunities to not actually have to be there.


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-22-2007 09:07 PM

Re: Women in/out the workplace
Regular Contributor

I recently purchased a large television at a store.  When the female retail salesperson found out which one I wanted, she immediately called upon a male associate to get the television for her.  She could not lift it.

If she can’t lift it, then the male associate deserves more pay than her …

Otherwise, this is not equal pay for equal work.

05-23-2007 12:53 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs

Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs
Regular Contributor
Women Hedge Bets By Banking Their Eggs
As More Freeze, Debate Expands

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 13, 2007; A01

As the number of women delaying motherhood continues to rise, many fertility clinics are starting to offer a new service that allows them to freeze some of their eggs to buy more time on their biological clocks.

At least 138 clinics are freezing and banking eggs — more than double the number three years ago, according to one count. Hundreds of women have frozen their eggs so far, and the numbers are increasing dramatically, experts say.

“I think we’re sitting at that tipping point between technology that is quasi-experimental and tipping over into fairly widespread use,” said David A. Grainger, president of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which represents fertility clinics. “It’s one of the most exciting areas in our field right now.”

The popularity of egg-freezing is driven by advances that have boosted the chances of having a baby using thawed eggs and intensifying demand from childless women in their 30s. But the trend has sparked intense debate about whether the technology is ready for wider use and whether society is ready for its impact.

Proponents say egg-freezing could save many women from the wrenching disappointment of running out of time to bear their own children, marking a profound step toward freeing them from some of the constraints imposed by biology.

“In the same way the birth control pill gave women in the ’70s a whole new set of options, I think egg-freezing can do the same with this new generation of women — giving them more control over their fertility and giving them more options,” said Christy Jones of Extend Fertility Inc., of Woburn, Mass., which markets egg-freezing for clinics.

Continued ….


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-17-2007 11:20 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men

The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men
Regular Contributor
New Feminist Term For Cohabitating, Non-Marriage Couples.

Nonmarital Relationships: Property and Debt Division (applies specifically to Washington State)

This article from the Northwest Women’s Law Center shows why cohabitation is a terrible idea. Joining the Marriage Strike is not enough to prevent a woman from plundering your assets with the assistance of the Judicial System. In states that do not recognize common law marriage, the courts have devised a creative way to separate a man from his hard-earned money. Behold, the meretricious relationship.

There are no set standards to determine if a meretricious relationship exists, nor is it limited to being between a man and woman. Basically, a meretricious relationship exists wherever the courts decide it does, and they have a whole lot of latitude in making that decision. While cohabitation is one of the factors that has been used in the past to show that a meretricious relationship exists, it’s kind of scary that cohabitation isn’t necessary for such a relationship to exist.

So what happens if the court finds that you are party to a meretricious relationship? Pumpkin gets a claim on the division of your assets. The pillage of your net worth is supposed to be “just and equitable” (which it isn’t), but it isn’t even required to be an equal split. Again, the courts have a wide degree of latitude in deciding how much of your stuff you get to keep. Divorce Court is probably a good place to look if you want to see what the courts consider “just and equitable”.

It’s bad enough that men are being terrorized by draconian sexual harassment laws in the workplace, now we face the threat of meretricious relationships and judicial activism in our private lives. It took thirty or forty years for men to spread the word about the kangaroo divorce courts. I hope it doesn’t take that long to recognize the threat posed by meretricious relationships. As the Marriage Strike continues to spread, I think we’ll be hearing a lot more about meretricious relationships in the future.


Washington Cohabitation FAQ’s
By Law Offices of Raj Bains, P.S.C.

Published: July 17, 2004

1. My ex-girlfriend lived in my home for the past seven years. We broke up two months ago. Yesterday, I was served papers claiming that we had a meretricious relationship, whatever that is. In her lawsuit, she wants half the equity in my house. She can’t be serious, can she?
She is serious, and you should be too. Under her theory of meretricious relationship, your ex-girlfriend is seeking an equitable distribution of the assets acquired during your relationship. In other words, she wants her share of whatever was accumulated while the two of you were together.

2. But we weren’t married. What is a meretricious relationship anyway?
A meretricious relationship is a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist.

3. I can agree with that. We knew we weren’t married. How does a court determine whose relationship is meretricious and whose is not?
There is no precise formula to determine if a relationship is a meretricious one. Courts will generally review the following non-exclusive list of relevant factors:

(a) continuous cohabitation;
(b) duration of the relationship;
(c) purpose of the relationship;
(d) pooling of resources and services for joint projects; and
(e) intent of the parties.

4. Say that the court looks at the factors and decides that we have a meretricious relationship. What happens next?
Once a court determines the existence of a meretricious relationship, then it will evaluate the interest each party had in the property accumulated during the relationship and make a just and equitable distribution of it.

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-17-2007 12:22 PM

Re: The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men

As a guy who has seen alot over the course of my life, I think the biggest mistake this country made which was in lock step with modern feminism is the abolishment of traditional marriage to “no fault” which allows the unfettered pillaging of a mans assets should his relationships or marriage fail. To make matters worse, this empowers the lesser of the assets to plunder the estates of the wealthy and they need no reason to justify it. Only the time clock that was run on the marriage or relationship no matter how outrageous the behavior. Time and again you read the stories of women who marry into wealth, pop a few kids, then at year ten or so, pull the plug and turn the guys life upside down as they take the kids, keep the house, pillage the assets to atleast 50% and require the man to pay outrageous child support payments far beyond what is reasonable. Custody awards are virtually automatic to the woman unless the guy can prove that she is an absolute deranged mom. ( That usually means she has to be hooked on serious drugs ).  In the meantime, she can move in her current back door man who she’d been fu—-g for the last couple of years why you were hard at work to support her and the kids. Get it? It’s NO FAULT DIVORCE! This is great for the lawyers as well, as they can most surely ignite a huge fight in court to further plunder and bleed the assets down. What a deal, eh? No accountability in the marriage has to be defended. Remember the occasional stories of the guy that goes biserk and one day “for no reason” committs mass murder and suicide on his family then himself? That’s the way the media reports the story. If you look allittle closer, you find that in most of these cases, the woman was about to file for divorce and use the feminized court system to castrate her husband, both emotionally and financially. If the proceedings were “equitable” and the guys could see a future for themselves, or if the injustices of the marriage were truly addressed and used to determine asset distribution, you can bet alot of this ten years and pull the plug BS would stop, as these feminist, controlling, selfish pimpesses would soon see that using a guy in this manner for self gain without respect for the man would fail and they could end up with little or nothing from their abhorent behaviors and self serving descretions.

It is no wonder many guys don’t want to risk having their hard earned assets exposed to this kind of racket. The only defense to any of it nowadays is the prenuptial agreement. This is effective in most states if done right, but I’m told the liberal courts are squirming in their seats looking for ways to justify throwing these agreements out as well, and even if you have one, family law has been crafted around the agreements with respect to having children that again, gives the court the power to tell the guy to again, pull down his pants and bend over. He will still be getting a significant stuffing of the preverbial ” equitable and just ” green hog inserted with very little lubricant.

06-16-2007 07:37 PM

Re: The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men
Regular Contributor
Prenuptial agreements don’t work. They’re routinely thrown out by family court judges (scumbags).

Pre-nups don’t stop false sex abuse charges.

Pre-nups don’t stop imputed child support payments beyond a man’s ability to pay.

Pre-nups don’t enforce visitation.

Pre-nups don’t reduce suicides.

See the discussion here for more:


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

06-20-2007 01:50 PM

Re: The Meretricious Relationship – New Way To Rob Men

BackToTheKitchen: What you are saying about child support, ect. is all true. This is one way that liberal judge scumbags get around prenups. They simply require outrageous child support payments be made so that the guy often has to begin liquidating hard earned assets to pay. And, of course, all domestic violence/ abuse laws were written (by man hating femnazis with the help of spineless male lackey politicians who deserve to be thrown out of office and jailed for derilection of office) as control mechanisms to subdue resistant men to the outrageous behavior of their femnazi wives who want total control or are going to divorce.

Another trap that judges like to use to get around prenups is any comingling of assets. They use this and reason the guy “intended” on giving half of anything shared to the ex whether that was his intent or not. Like I’ve heard many say: ” No kind act or deed in mariage goes unpunished in divorce”. Being kind or gifting anything to a spouse becomes an obligation of the guy to the spouse to pay on forever, and any asset not listed on a prenup aquired during a marriage becomes a “marital asset” regardless if the spouse pays for a dime of it to aquire or not, and is therefore subject to division of property in divorce. No wonder so many women start making demands on their husbands to spend and incurr debt early on in the marriage to aquire real property and physical assets.Like I’ve said before, this just increases all the goodies that the bitc* can take during a divorce, like an expensive house, cars, furniture, china, ect. Oh and lest I forget, if the marital debts are high at the time of divorce, even though the spouse is saddled with paying half of that, the scumbag judges frequently take that into account as well and require a stiff enough support payment to the ex, that it will cover her payments to be made, so in reality, the guy is made to pay one way or the other. It’s what it is. A total sham and fraudelent proceeding that robs a guy blind. A feminazid court system. It’s time to end the outrageous inequities.

06-21-2007 03:28 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Another Day, Another Whore Story!

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Another Day, Another Whore Story!

Another Day, Another Whore Story!
Regular Contributor

After doing a little internet searching, I found a very whorific whore story which needs to get more exposure for men to read because this story hasn’t received the attention it needs to get.

This story was posted by The Black Misogynist

A co-worker has been in the process of divorcing her husband for the past few months. Since you can’t really avoid hearing the latest gossip without getting a referral from your friendly HR department(who knew brushing fellow employees off to focus on work was a bad thing?) I’ve had no choice but to know all about drama it is giving this woman. As somebody else I’ve told about this put it so well a few weeks back, ” She almost makes you never want to marry doesn’t it?”

Amen. You see, She is divorcing her husband not because he has been a bad husband or father but because she just doesn’t want to be married to him anymore.

Yes. It seems that is all that is needed for a divorce nowadays. In fact, She never loved him to begin with he was just an easy way out and away from her parents when she was younger and he helped her though school. Now, Here is where the “amazing” part comes up. You would think everybody around her would see an issue with admitting that you married some guy out of convenience to yourself only.Well, Only a few did. Most just nodded their heads in approval and how she is “doing” the right thing.

Can’t really disagree with that however. It is the “right” thing to do. Would have been even more of the “right” thing to do if she never married him in the first place. How is the institution of marriage not considered nothing more than a joke at this point? Only a few guys can hear her story and think “that is so completely wrong” nowadays? Don’t know about anybody else but it sure shows me my place in the scheme of things. Me, As a man. Is only really here to be used and make life easier for some woman? Worse yet is that people get shocked at the fact that I think it is bull**bleep**. That is where my “misogynist” tag comes from?

I haven’t even got to the worse part of it all.

She doesn’t want him to pay child support for the kid that was born while they were married. If you noticed the wording I used you won’t need to know why but I’ll answer anyway. She is scared that he would have ask for a paternity test.

Yes, She doesn’t think the kid is his. There was a time where that would have gave you a big ol’ “whore” stamp on your forehead. But I guess times are changing as somebody actually tried to convince her to go ahead and try for child support anyway! On the basis that he is another of a father he still should take care of his daughter. Another one chimed in that she should give him a guilt trip if he tries to get a DNA test. After all he should have trust in her if he wasn’t some “**bleep**” jerk. That he should WANT to pay. Not only for the kid he thinks is his. But also for the one she had before they got married. Yea, she was a single teenage mother when he married her. Knew each other throughout high school. Got together their senior year. His parents helped her get though college even. Hell of a scam she ran on that poor guy and his family.

I would bet good money that I already know what kind of guy he was back then and might still be now. Your standard understanding “nice guy” who probably stood at the sidelines while she got banged by the thug who knocked her up and finally got his chance afterwards and was happy for it. The fate of guys who show they give a **bleep** it seems.

Amazing is it not? However blatant it seems to be. It is still wrong to point at times like this and say “This shows what marriage is really about now” yet you will still be ignored by the masses.

Indeed, Pointing out crap like this is where my “misogynist” tag came from. That is amazing. For something to be so blatant yet still not be acknowledged?

And people wonder why I don’t see any true reason to get married.


Now for the comment section.

Here is a comment left by Taras:

Yup, once again this story shows the place nice guys have in this declining and dying society. Convenient ATM’s and babysitters who unwittingly raise thugboyz kids and usually are none the wiser. This saga is one more example why men who do the right thing, who give a **bleep**, who are not a thug or player ought to avoid women and marriage. In this freak show that passes for a society, why should normal guys join the bedlam and chaos or add to it? Normal men have every reason to withdraw from and ultimately tear down the society that oppresses them. It won’t take organized violence on our part, it only takes enough of us to say NO to women, marriage and having kids with women who screw up their lives and expect us to be their Capt. Save a Ho like that silly AFLAC commercial.

Here is a comment left by flint’s gunner:

I’m only 36 and I’m looking around asking “What the hell just happened to America!?” The author of this piece is entirely correct: any man who allows himself to be suckered into a vow simply does not have all the facts. Every man needs to be shouting this from the rooftops! Hey, guess what feminists, the jig is up. You can take your Matriarchix and cram it.


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-17-2007 09:29 AM

Re: Another Day, Another Whore Story!

Yes, and this is just part of the ongoing story. Around the country about the time the Clintons were first in office, many feminist, man hating legislators around the country passed into to law what is referred to in most states as “The Domestic Violence Act Against Women”. This act, in conjunction with “No Fault” divorce law gives women the ultimate power over men in domestic relationships.

It basically is a “shell” created over the already existent and adequate domestic abuse laws that gives women all kinds of perks that empower them and encourage them to end their “abusive” relationships with their men. The packages include publicly paid for victims assistance programs and programs that “snare” the abusive guy. Snaring is the deliberate entrapment of the man through the involvement of law enforcement. So when and if the relationship goes sour, instead of fixing it ( which feminists have never been interested in ) when the feminist pulls the plug on the marriage, ( often exposing the outrageous reasons or behavior for initiating the divorce, and knowing the anger that will result when the guy learns he has just had his ass handed to him on his own silver platter ) she fears she will need a control mechanism to get the guy out of the house and keep her “safe”. So the magic bullet is to call 911 and claim any sort of domestic abuse. This can be as minor as claiming the guy pushed, shoved, or threatened the feminist. Then, law enforecement will come out and arrest the guy whether he did anything or not. You see, it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters. We have to keep the feminist safe. So the guy goes to jail, gets charged with domestic abuse, then gets released. End of story? Not quite. The guy is now on the wrong side of the law, and since he has now been charged with a domestic abuse crime, he is now automatically restrained from speaking to the soon to be ex, and can no longer go back to his home or come within 100 ft. of her. Problem now solved for the feminist who knew all along she was using the guy for his money. And the guy, with an automatic restraining order that can jail him for 90 days or longer on a first violation? He dare not approach or say a thing to the feminist that’s about to steal 50% or more of his assets. In addition, the charge leveled against the guy becomes a serious sludge hammer that the feminist uses against him in divorce court for a nice, big pay off!

These are real stories, guys. And don’t get me wrong. There is such a thing as true domestic abuse, and there has been unwarranted attacks on women in some bad marriages. But what I’m saying is that old laws before this act were adequate to protect women against true abuse. This new act was another example of extreme overreach by liberal, feminist, man haters and is an extreme example of a power grab to help enforce the indefensible conduct of rotten women who use men for their own personal financial gain. Guys, this trashy, self serving piece of legislation was crafted by liberal left wing women. The women Democrats in your individual states were responsible for its’ passage, and the liberal media looked the other way without exposing any of the plentiful unjust assumptions and conditions placed upon men.

06-16-2007 09:31 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Men = ATMs

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Men = ATMs

Men = ATMs
Regular Contributor
“Men’s contribution to the family is really nothing more than a few moments of pleasure 9 months before birth and then years of making the money it takes to finance the resulting kids. Men should keep to their traditional role, which is to be the family’s ATM machine, nothing more. Men have their careers, their work. Women have their kids. And this is why men don’t have many rights when it comes to divorce and subsequent custody/visitation arrangements. They just are not needed when it comes to taking care of children, right?

In saying that, though, I do think the whole “You are getting something that I don’t get” argument from those who remain childless is evidence of what is wrong with our society. To whine because you think that someone else is getting a benefit that you don’t get reflects a selfish attitude. If you feel so aggrieved, go home and be thankful that your life isn’t tainted by having to take care of a bunch of sick kids or some such thing.”


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-16-2007 04:59 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Ultimate Weapon – Living well

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Ultimate Weapon – Living well

The Ultimate Weapon – Living well
Regular Contributor
Women, especially those career chick American women, hate men that live well without them. American career chick women that I know, seem to constantly devise schemes and such to draw me into their miserable lives, but I just ignore them and continue about doing the things I want to in life and living well. I am sure I am not the exception to this, with American career chick women trying to sucker some other man into their miserable world of cats, television, and awful attitudes that don’t attract men – and they wonder why they are single?

By living well, you will also find that certain men will hate you too (this is called jealousy), but who cares, they have crap jobs as some type of salary man at big corporation X or what not, to support some nagging, abusive, demeaning wife under threat of divorce and losing it all or some ex-wife via alimony and child support, or have to put up with some b*tch American girlfriend, but you go home to peace and quite, enjoying a fine cigar and cognac, contemplating what country to visit next in your pursuit of being a world traveler and connoisseur extraordinaire.

You might entertain thoughts of having a family or kids, but then you look around at those that do here in the US, and realize, you won’t be getting off at that stop. Wait for it, plenty of women in world, plenty of countries, pick a place you find that has good laws supporting men’s rights and family and such, and pitch your tent there if you so desire a family. In the meantime, live well, for every second you do such, you are giving the middle finger to countless people around you caught up in the system as well as the system itself, and you remain free. Indeed, as they say, living well is the best revenge.


Message Edited by Back2TheKitchen on 05-15-200705:52 PM

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-15-2007 08:50 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The decline of motherhood

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The decline of motherhood

The decline of motherhood
Regular Contributor
The decline of motherhood
As we celebrate Mother’s Day, we should pause to consider the social factors that keep more and more women from having children

Margret Kopala
The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Hiking along the northern reaches of British Columbia’s Sunshine Coast last week, my sister and I passed by the home of a woman recently taken by cancer. As dignified deaths go, it was exemplary. Predeceased by her husband, her care was assumed in turns by her four grown children. She died peacefully, surrounded by them and her beloved ocean views.

For the generation that’s brought Canada’s fertility rate to below replacement levels, such idylls can only become increasingly rare. With 1.5 children per couple, our best hope is a quiet death in a clean facility where the immigrant workers speak our language. And that’s only the human face of demographic decline. The economic face is hardly more appealing: unfilled labour markets, reduced GDP and no tax revenues to pay for health care — to name a few.

Canada isn’t the only country in this predicament. According to America Alone, Mark Steyn’s self-described and penetrating rant on “demography, Islam and civilizational exhaustion,” the developed world has gone from 30 per cent to 20 per cent of global population. Greece has 1.3 births per couple — the “lowest low” from which no society has ever recovered; Russia, where 60 per cent of pregnancies are terminated, has the fastest-growing rate of HIV in the world and, by 2050, 60 per cent of Italians will have no brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts or uncles. In the developed world, only the United States, with a 2.1 birth rate, is replacing itself.

How did it come to this? In Canada, one answer is infertility. This affects one in every 15 Canadian couples (in Britain one in six are affected), who spend some $30 million a year on in-vitro fertilization alone. Defined as failure to conceive after one year of trying, infertility can result from many factors affecting both males and females, but according to the government of Canada’s Biobasics website, the two biggest factors are delayed childbearing and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Today, mothers giving birth average 29.5 years of age. Since women are born with a given number of eggs that decline in quality and quantity from the age of 30, it is no surprise that for the growing proportion of 30-plus women attempting pregnancy, it is much more difficult to conceive and carry a child.

Compounding the problem, earlier and increased sexual activity means a greater likelihood for contracting gonorrhea or chlamydia. In women, pelvic inflammatory disease and, in turn, blocked fallopian tubes or ectopic pregnancy may result. In men, sterility is possible. According to, rates of STD infection are up 60 per cent since 1997, with girls between the ages of 15 and 19 incurring the highest rates. In 2003, 20,000 new cases of chlamydia were reported in Canada.

Some infertility problems are preventable, but larger social and economic forces make it difficult. Industrialized food production and environmental degradation are taking their tolls. Most recently, a Harvard School of Public Health study implicated trans fats while another from the University of Rochester has raised yet more questions about hormone-treated beef. Clear connections exist between obesity and ovulatory cysts. Combined with the genetic complications already associated with delayed pregnancies, concerns about the ability of future generations to reproduce are valid. Ominously, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is calling for genetic testing of all pregnant women, not just those over 35.

Nor do infertility statistics take into account those deciding not to have children or those resigned to missing the boat. On this front, Mark Steyn blames the “progressive agenda” — abortion, gay marriage, endlessly deferred adulthood — and he’s right. He doesn’t get into many specifics but they are easily identified. In the U.S., 48.5 million abortions since Roe v. Wade only slightly exceeds the estimated 47 million civilians lost in the Second World War. And, as the University of Calgary’s Rainer Knopf predicted, gay marriage means any public distinction between procreative and non-procreative sexuality is now totally abandoned. The latest sad example? A hero’s welcome on MTV for porn king and intersexual sodomy “expert” Ron Jeremy.

So we pump our young with p i lls, wrap them in condoms and, coming soon, jab them with vaccines hoping to prevent unwanted pregnancies, STDs and, now, cervical cancer. This in the name of denying their capacity for personal responsibility by advocates who wouldn’t shake hands with each other if they had a cold.

In other words, the infantilization continues and the price tag increases. Fertility clinics offer hope, but a growing number of ethicists confirm that any rearguard action by science produces as many problems as it solves. Will Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, newly opened in Vancouver to deal with such problems, also address infertility prevention? Who will?

Universal screening may be the only solution for the STD epidemic. And if smoking can be stigmatized, so can other behaviours. Cleaning up our air, water and food and, while we are at it, the airwaves too, would also help. Those who want pornographic services should be required to fetch them elsewhere.

Parents need meaningful support from civil society as well as government. Housing prices that require two incomes make starting a family untenable — a problem exacerbated by immigration policies that raise real estate prices while ostensibly compensating for the children we aren’t producing. But within one generation, immigrants adopt our reproductive habits.

Oh, and have an especially happy Mother’s Day. Soon, there may be few mothers left to celebrate.


“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” –

05-15-2007 06:42 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case

Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case
Regular Contributor
I have not posted here for some time. Recently the Duke LaCrosse case came to a head. When the Attorney General of the state of NC declared the three Athletes “Innocent”. He made the extraordinary steps of stating the evidence showed no Crime of any kind occurred. That the evidence refuted it. These three young Men were verbally lynched, faced three decades of imprisonment.

Like the article that created this board. FemNags refuse to admit that Janette Rivers aka. Crystal Gail Magnum is a lying Whore, Skank, and Criminal. Despite overwhelming evidence that she lied, multiple changes to her story. And finally her candid admission that she cannot recall being penetrated. They refuse to see reality. Their abject hatred for Men is so great, so psychotic, and evil. That they will believe the delusional fantasy of a Gold Digging drugged out Stripper. Who had DNA of 7 Men in her.

The point of False Rape accusations is to criminalize the attraction that Straight Men have for Women. Feminism is the theory, Lesbianism is the practice. If you are a Feminist, you are being trained to embrace the Lesbian Lifestyle. Men are rejecting Feminists and should if they have any survival instincts left.

04-23-2007 06:59 AM

Re: Feminists refuse to acknowledge injustice of Duke LaCrosse case

Very well stated, sir. And I would only add that Crystal Gail Magnam needs to be put in jail for perjuring herself and because of the seriousness of her charges ( which the liberal feminist likes to use against men to jail them without propbable cause) she needs to be given a 20 year jail sentence ( or the equivalent of what the African American community demands for hate crimes )  for the horrific pain and suffering she has caused the families of this lie that only a true man hater and whore like her could perpetrate.

06-16-2007 10:06 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters

Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters
I found this on usenet. It’s a pretty good post actually! It confirms everything we know to be true.

Actually I got part way of feeling like this “guy” did here. The part when he says he was feeling like he was bad and wrong just for having testosterone…. as a teenage boy. That’s how defenceless teenage boys are made to feel, by all the adults and people in society with power over us.

Although that’s where the difference between me and this poster ends. I would never back down on my own gender. I know males have made EVERYTHING good in the world. Who cares what society says, society is evil anyhow. Males have made everything good in the world, and males are stronger, smarter, more creative, and more honest than females. And even though females made me feel bad about being male, I knew these truths even then.

So I decided to fight for what is right, and send their bad negativity back to them instead. This “guy” just caved in and decided to become a woman. I decided to hold my ground, and fight for masculinity.

This *is* a war. Anytime children are harmed by adults in the name of a cause, only a war could be serious enough to try to destroy anyone so innocent and defenceless. And I will always remember that this is a war, because of how early they attacked me. It’s a war they started, and that I will win.


By: Goddess80

I honestly believe that a great majority of American women have become
very much female-chauvinistic. Is it because of extreme feminism? I
have no idea, but here’s why I have these views, and how they pertain
to the large increase of MTF’s transexuals latley.

I’ll start by saying that I am a male-gendered woman. What does that
mean? Simply, I was born a boy and grew up to be a woman. Because I
started transitioning young in life, I pass very well. Now, this also
means one important thing, I’ve lived first as a boy, and now as a

However, I strongly belive anti-male sexism has subtly forced
transgenderism not only on myself, but many mtf-transexuals latley.
It’s as if, more and more boys are simply chooinsg not to become men.

women have power in simply being women. They’ve always had that power.
Now women will complain about the ‘objectification’ of women in media.
I will tell you, the ‘objectification’ of women has simply amplified
that power. The whole ‘sex-sells’ notion and ‘objectification’ works on
a female’s aesthetic superiority. Yes, women are aesthetically superior
to men, and we are reinforced with these images day after day, hour
after hour, and minute after minute.

Why are we constantly being reinforced with things that make a ‘woman
superior?’ To reinforce anything a man does better in the media is
considered sexist!

Now, besides for whole sex-sells media barrage, there’s basic anti-male
sexism that I’ve dealt with ever since being a young boy. Everything
from feminist teachers, to shows that constantly show bumbling male’s
being rescued from their self-stupidly by female peers(everybody loves
Raymond), to girls ganging up and calling boys stupid without any real
retaliation had really destroyed my self image as a young man.

I’ve had relationships where I did everything for my girlfriend, but
she did NOTHING for me and I was completely whipped. Girls behaved as
if they were owed everything and obligated to nothing, and I accepted
this, as MOST MEN do these days!(I hate to admit the fact that I’ve had
relationships with men, where I’ve acted this way towards them. I
really hate myself for this at times. Maybe I’m that jaded towards how
men let women walk over them that I act this way?)

For most of my adolescent life, I walked around in a state where I felt
as if I had to apologize simply for being male, as if I was a bad
being, simply because I was born with testosterone, and this messed
with my self worth until I simply began fantasizing about being female
instead of male. Anti-male sexism continued to destroy my self-worth as
a male until I finally began taking female-hormones and living full
time as a woman.

Bottom Line: Sex-Sells which constantly reinforces a woman’s
aesthetic superiority combined with constant bombarding of media and
schooling subtly saying ‘woman are smarter and better creatures’ really
destroyed my male image(You mean woman are prettier, and smarter, and
BETTER? Wow, why be a man?) And I’m sure I’m not the only boy who’s
grown up into a woman because of today’s anti-male environment. Most
XY-chromosome women will say they always felt like women living in the
bodies of men, when honestly, for some of them, we share the same
truth: We live as woman now because society tells us from the time
we are little boys, that females are simply better creatures all the
way around.

Here’s the second part, my views on sexism after having lived as
both genders.

First of all, let me say, whether any man or woman on this forum should
choose to flame me and say, ‘you’re no real woman,’ I have to let you
know now, it really won’t bother me. (It really won’t).

The point is, I’ve lived successfully as both genders, which has given
me the unique opportunity to see sexism how it TRULY is. And once
again, I will say, the average American woman is a female-chauvinistic.
And when I say average, I honestly mean most of them.

Why does this bother me so much if I live as a woman? The answer is
simple, I do not deny that I am, and will always be biologically male.
My chromosome combination is XY, and that will NEVER change, no matter
what I do. And having lived as a male, I really do sympathize with what
they go through.

1 – Women really do have an easier life in America today! I can’t even
begin to describe the liberation I felt from going from the pressures
of living as a man, to the ease of being a woman. Being a passable
woman, I’ve had many things and opportunities readily handed to me that
I never had living as a man.

I’ll honestly say, living as a boy, I had NOTHING absolutely NOTHING
handed to me at all! Women will say men have opportunities women
don’t. That’s either a knowledgeable lie, or an ignorant
assumption. I’ve lived both ways; I know firsthand what I’m talking

2 – I’ve been in the ‘in club’ with both all male groups, and all
female groups. The things women say behind men’s really are sexist.
Yet, when I was living as a male, the things men say behind women’s
backs really aren’t that degrading. The whole ‘stay in the kitchen’
attitude really is dead, believe it or not.

3 – Why are men afraid to give me a piece of their mind now? When I
meet men on daily occasions, I see them through the eyes of a woman,
who use to live as a man. And honestly, it pains me to think that a
small part of me actually looks down on them; this is so NOT right. But
if I do look down on most of them, it’s only because they let me, and
other women say whatever they want to them, however they feel about
them, without them having no will to retaliate or give me a piece of
their mind.

For instance, I have this one male friend who said something that
bothered me. Yes, I was pissed about it for the larger portion of the
day, and hours later, when he asked if I forgive him, I coldly said
‘no’. He went out and brought flowers for to make it up to me.. ugh..
now some people will say what’s wrong with this? simple, I’ve said many
things(a few sexist) that have pissed him off plenty of times, and he
usually just lets it go. Never once have I ever brought him anything to
make up for it. Yes, I accepted the flowers, but all the time I feel
like telling the guy ‘where’s your backbone, Jesus Christ’ of course
that was my maleness speaking in the back of my head. Men are now so
whipped, their **bleep** near afraid to have their female peers simply
‘angry’ at them!

Society has made men are simply so cowardly, they are AFRAID to
speak out against women!!!!!

I hate the fact that my femininity allows me to walk all over men. But
here’s the horrid truth, if women today have become sexist, it’s
because men make it so easy! My social circle is mainly female, and
yes, I see this all around me.

If a man complains about his problems being a man, a female wall almost
ALWAYS BRUSH it off because ‘being a woman is so much worse’ she will
than go on and dominate the conversation, turning it into a
self-absorbed rant about how women have it worse. That’s sexism folks!
Men aren’t allowed to complain about the problems they face being men!

4 – While living as a guy, I had to deal with tons of sexism from
females, from the media, and ‘friends’ at school. Do I even need to say
that since living as a woman, I’ve suddenly forgotten what it means to
have to even deal with sexism? Here’s the thing, since living as a
women, both men AND women treat me with better respect!

What I’m saying is, I’m MORE respected by men as a female than I was as
a man! Men on average respect women MORE then they respect other men!
While women as well respect women MORE than they respect men! Anybody
see a sad imbalance here? No matter what gender you live as, you getter
better treatment and more respect as a woman!That’s not fair…
simply because men are people too.

And now, having lived six years as a woman, I find myself doing some of
the things to men I’ve always hated women for doing to them, and it
kills me. And I’m just like yelling like Why are men such cowards
and make anti-male sexism so easy

I honestly think men need to start getting just as emotional and
sensitive towards women because sexism is really out of hand now. Men
need to form masculinist groups, and Men’s awareness groups, and not
feel like ‘less then men’ for speaking out about the ways women hurt
them on a daily basis.

P.S. Whether anybody considers me a ‘real’ woman or not is not open for
debate. I readily acknowledge that I’ll never be a ‘real woman to a lot
of people and it does not bother me in the slightest. The point is,
I’ve ‘lived and been accepted’ as a real woman because of my
passability. Therefore, I’m very much qualified to speak of sexism the
way I do because I really have lived ‘both lives’.

04-22-2007 01:01 PM

Re: Transexual m2f speaks out against women-firsters

Everything stated about sexcism is Factual. I believe everybody has dealt with some aspect of sexcism atsome point. However your not taking into account most men are men for a reason! The very essence of being the steriotypical man today is to bare the load, push on and keep your mouth shut whilst doing it! It’s seen as bitching to establish a pre falible arguement. Men are not pussies or incapable for standing up to women. Most of us just recognise the consequences if we do. You can not express one’s inability to adapt with out some change taking place! Some men may find the strength in becoming a woman. Most realise the futility of the War aspect and ride out therough times to better futures.

Surely we must recognise these are just opinions being stated and the driving force behind them is Human Emotion! Men need not start arguing over who’sgot it worse, as this is insignificant in a fit male individual with strong identity definition. We should be concentrating on the poor little guy who saw the Ultra Femanists as role models over us.

And yet the more we talk and discuss these issues which has so long plagued our society as some form of contemporary taboo, We feel as many have in the face of great undertakings. Like the sheer volume of opinion and experimental subjects. The problems which arrive from Sexcism and it’s enduring ignorance will on give rise to far more complex issues such as Transgender, Transexual natures.

We live in an era which has produced mass capacity for many things including learning, far greater standards of living and general excessive living. Instead of being aware and focusing. Most people feel powerless until they near and end of some means. We’ve witnessed Men over the past centuries do incredible things, and as men we carn’t help but measure ourselves up. So What! Nature is cruel, life wasn’t meant to be so easy. And if you can resolve an issue by creating something more beautiful. Why not do it! I am proud to live in a world we’re a transexual can express themselves to me.

Finally we should all recognise one man may arise with a solution. Chances are the solution is wrong! Even mine, However we must not ever forget to see each other surface first then deeper. this is appreciation of man. And id an understanding of that which can not be simply scribed away for future reference. The problems aren’t THE END! and to treat them like such only serves the ignorance, and only perpectuates it respectively

05-16-2007 11:54 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The female brain

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The female brain

The female brain
Are females genetically pre-disposed to lying, stealing men’s houses and children?

Are females genetically pre-disposed to being so hateful malicious and determined to destroy all innocent males that they create a matriarchal male-hating media primarily designed to crush the psychological health of boys so that we end up with a male suicide rate that is 4x higher? Or at least just deny it’s existance so that the anti-male hate can continue.

I think the female brain is excellently equipped for lying and manipulation. 90% of the female brainpower is squandered on lies. All that extra white-matter in the female brain is used for lying. This is why no female genius has ever emerged. And don’t give me any lies that females are better at communicating. If they are, then how comes all the best businessmen and writers are male? (You don’t succeed in business without being a good communicator!) If females are so good at communicating, how comes they never make any sense? Females are only good at lying and warbling like a little bird.

Message Edited by BoyTheo on 04-22-200706:18 PM

04-22-2007 12:58 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist

Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist
Most guys at some point will have been called a misogynist (by your
average vile arrogant commoner female), for saying pretty fair and
reasonable stuff, that’s not even hateful.

Like mentioning how women steal unfairly from fathers in divorces. Or
mentioning that females do not get paid less than males, it’s just a
lie made by feminists.

And you will be called that, even if at the time you were saying this,
you could not be called a misogynist. Some guys only started into this
whole area very slowly, starting off with the standard stereotypes that
society has because as a child you absorb all of this stuff and don’t
get a chance to verify it for yoursel. Those kind of guys may be
thinking “yeah sure women in other countries have it worse off, but
over here they have some things better too”.

This kind of “proto-misogynist” guy might have female friends which
they would gladly have defended from anti-female sexism… if there
were any to defend them from. (which there isn’t these days). And
outside of the area of gender issues, he might have been a good
potential friend to the females he knew. Like just ordinary every day
stuff, what normal friendships are based on, acceptance, good advice,
letting people be themselves…

And yet still after all that, be called a misogynist, when all of these
qualities were apparant.

Well, that doesn’t seem to make sense, does it? This kind of
“proto-misogynist” guy might easily think “how can I be a misogynist if
I like females? All I want is equality. All I did was mention the

But the reality really is that she was right. He *is* a misogynist for
daring to speak any truth about females, unguarded with more lies.

That’s the catch. You can speak a truth about females, but only if you
guard it with more lies, so the truth does not break out into something
larger. And even speaking that “lie-guarded-truth” is taking a big risk
that should only be taken in dire circumstances. Like Bob Geldof seeing
the dire circumstances for fathers, and speaking his
“lie-guarded-truths” about females today.

His “lie-guarded-truths” of how females can easily steal and ruin an
innocent man’s life, unncessarily, for the harm of the children and
society in general, for some temporary financial gain. One of his lies
that guarded these truths were that men are naturally silent and
unsocial, and women expect too much of them to get communication from

It works like this. Imagine this:

A dam.

A big, concrete dam. 3 meters high, 4 meters deep, and kilometers

This dam, is the dam of female lies. The lies of how females are
oppressed today, underpaid at work, ignored by authorities, undervalued
at home, etc. The lies of how females have been oppressed throughout
all history. The lies of how females are naturally more talented,
honest, and creative than males. The lies of how females are naturally
healthier, tougher and more pain resistant than males. The lies that GO

The lies of females. A dam of lies, stopping the truth from coming out.

An ocean of truth. The truth that females have oppressed males
throughout all history. That it is males who get sexually mutilated at
birth. Abused more by their parents. Thrown out onto the streets.
Disfigured by female’s sexual selection into hairy cavemen simply
because females like to make other human beings suffer and we are a
convenient target. Expected to work a life to pay and protect and
provide for ungrateful hateful small-minded heartless fake evil
monsters who only exist to drain the life energy out of our beings,
scorning us and getting us into trouble or death the whole way along.

And that truth is misogynist. That is the truth. The truth is too awful
for almost anyone to believe in. And yet all of it can be proven with
solid down-to-earth logic. Knowing that truth would leave any fair
person unable to feel anything else but hate for females.

You see, in life, for your actions you must pay. And this payment
requires first for your actions to be known.

Females, have caused such evil actions over all of history, that for
them to pay would probably destroy them. Or at least make existance
pure hell for them.

And this hell females have indebted themselves into, requires the truth
for it to come about.

So, yes, by speaking the truth, you are being a misogynist. You might
not think it much to question to your much appreciated female friends,
something so harmless as “women don’t really get paid less now, do

But that question is a hole in the dam. If you don’t guard that hole
with more lies, more lies forming the concrete of this dam, you are
risking more holes appearing. Then small cracks in the dam of female
lies. And soon enough the whole thing will break.

So, for those females to call you a misogynist for speaking such
innocent truths… They are right. They are absolutely 100% right. It’s
just that for you to realise they were right to call you a misogynist,
would require you to learn just how big their dam of lies is. You were
only able to see a small fraction. But females felt the whole thing,
because they are the dam, the lies are them, because females made it.

I think feminists and females in general, since the 1960s, KNEW that
unless they did something drastic, the truth would come out. After all
females were given a superior position in society (all of the
privileges like working/voting, but none of the responsibilities like
having to pay or fight to protect and provide for men.)

If females could not measure up to males after all of that, people
might start to ask. “Why”? Why is it that females cannot measure up in
the brain and “heart” (determination) department?

Awkward questions for you females, eh? Especially awkward when you know
the awful truth, because you FEEL IT in your very being every **bleep** DAY,
but you REFUSE to let the truth out.

The truth that females are stupider and weaker than males, because you
have made us do everything for you over all of history. And so you have
atrophied over generations, losing the abilities to think and work,
that you never used. Atrophied, just as parasites do.

And you, female, you KNEW this all along, deep in your heart, you knew
this. You might have not had the words, or understood consciously, but
instinctively you KNEW this.

You have forced us into this by saying “If you don’t give us your
possessions, suffer to please my sick desires, and give me your soul, I
won’t give you any children”. How you females have made us into their
torture-dolls to manipulate into a life of suffering.

Wow. What you have done is pure evil. No wonder you didn’t want the
truth to come out, now that a fair comparison of males to females in
modern society would naturally lead to discovering this.

So, in the 1960’s, feminists and females in general did something
drastic to stop the truth from coming out. They stopped us thinking,
and talking.

They harmed the minds of us males (hatred via the media, society, and
school teachers) so that we could not think for ourselves.

They blocked up and took control of the media so that we could not talk
to each other as only pro-female anti-male topics were allowed.

The only problem with all of this, is that it only ups the stakes. In
life, you must pay for your actions. You can delay it by building up
your debt, but that only gives you a bigger payment in the future.
Eventually the force pulling you in the other direction, making you
have to pay, will become so strong that you cannot fight it back.

It’s started already, with men getting sick and fed up of the divorce
laws and unfairness there. But I will make sure that it does not stop

Females will pay for making males suffer through all of human history.
See my other postings on “Females reversing evolution” for what I am
talking about having made us suffer.

04-22-2007 12:49 PM

Re: Speaking the truth makes you a misogynist

I think a major part of this problem stems from the biological hardwiring of men: males are genetically and then socially conditioned to protect women and their offpsring. Hence the origin of so many wars when men were killing each other by millions to get better resources for their families (women and children) e.g. when resources became scarce and famine was looming.
The privilege of being killed (mutilated, crippled, etc) to protect the rest of the community have always belonged the Oppressing Class, i.e. men. Women have always known that and taken advantage.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that whenever a man tries to question this status quo and invite women to please start pulling their weight in matters other then stupid backlash of men, “liberated women” go hysterical and come up with even more backlash. This time it is called “MYSOGINY”.

One of the latest jingles on US feminist websites is that the Iraqi war is due to the innate nastiness of men and their aggressiveness, proness to fight and kill.
At the same time, few of them ask themselves about the country of origin of the petrol that they put daily in their fancy men-made cars at men-operated gas stations, served by male attendants and the number of the Coaltion forces that have so far given their lives for that in the Middle East (as far as I know only 1 female soldier has been killed in Iraq so far. Talk about a Male Protection Instict really!..)

04-27-2007 04:43 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

New blog you all might like, if anyone is around

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – New blog you all might like, if anyone is around

New blog you all might like, if anyone is around
Regular Contributor

03-07-2007 09:43 AM

Re: New blog you all might like, if anyone is around

Not a bad blog actually, a variety of views that seem to be more balanced..

03-08-2007 12:22 AM

Re: New blog you all might like, if anyone is around
Regular Contributor
Hey HappyMom, long time no see.

Some of us are over at berating feminists in the womens studies section. They’ve already expressed an extreme dislike for Christians and stay at home mothers already. One called Alexandra was bugging them like crazy.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

04-10-2007 10:46 PM

Re: New blog you all might like, if anyone is around

Men get compared too…only we don’t talk openly about the men we compare!  ohahha!!  Yeah…so…there’s some EQUALITY THERE.  But then again there is sometimes no equality – men always do the moving of heavy furniture!!

I got here doing a google search on fantasy art and blog!  lol

Anyway, this is my “personal blog”

I am in the IMVU Apprentice competition too!
Okie…jus thought I’d brag a lil here!

Am just looking to meet new people.
I am available to chat (decent chat) on some weekends too.

If u like furry animals like chickens…oh no…chickens must be of the deep-fried variety and love watching scary movies, and chat and chat and chat, please leave me a message as we may more things in common?

“Friends are important to me – they make me smile!”

Message Edited by qutepangy on 04-19-200712:20 PM

04-19-2007 12:17 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Hatred of Women

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Hatered of Women

Hatred of Women
Several women have suggested that some of the men who posted on this board hate women. This couldn’t be further from the truth, at least in my case.

I love women, I adore them, I enjoy women’s company, and think one of the greatest pleasures in life is to spend time with a good woman. I love women from Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia.

However, I will freely admit, I don’t like American/Western women, I can’t stand being in their presence. And not only because they’re fat, ugly, bitchy and obnoxious, but also because of what they’ve done to the legal system of this once great country. I don’t like them because of the Kangaroo family courts they’ve helped set up, I don’t like them for enacting crazy divorce laws where people are paying $500K a year in child support (how do you spend half a million dollars a year on a 3 year old child?). I don’t like them for enacting unconstitutional laws like VAWA and IMBRA. I don’t like them for the insane sexual harrassment laws they’ve helped create that got the president of Harvard fired for simply saying that men and women are different.

What is there to like about American/Western women? I can’t really think of a single thing!

02-17-2007 05:24 PM

Re: Hatered of Women
Regular Contributor

“Several women have suggested that some of the men who posted on this board hate women”

…  yet the vast majority of these same women probably have no problem with all the male bashing that has been going on for years in the media.

You have to understand something.  These women feel threatened when a man expresses his desires and wants when it comes to a female partner.  They are the ones who think they have a monopoly on this sort of topic.  But they know deep down they are dangerously close to being undesirable.  They get angry when a guy doesn’t want what they want him to want.

In other words .. there’s no stampede of guys wanting a power-suit wearing, brief -case toting, conference-call making, jock – strap wearing careerist out there.

03-17-2007 11:55 AM

Re: Hatered of Women
Maybe it’s because you spent several decades hating us? Being hated as kids by adult women, girls and the rest of society just for being male.

And finally we’ve been able to grow up enough to speak back.

It’s the standard pattern of abuse.

A parent beats his kids. Then later finds out the kids don’t love him anymore, and is “shocked” to find them rebelling against him. Well duh, maybe if you didn’t beat the kids they wouldn’t hate you.

Well, I was a kid for quite a few years, hated by adult women and girls who were empowered by adult women. Same pattern.

You’ve hated me. Now I’ve finally grown up enough to be able to fight back against this evil matriarchal world.

Basically, you are getting what you deserve for being evil and hating innocent males.

04-23-2007 07:47 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief

Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief
Regular Contributor
Well after the revelation of the undisclosed DNA results, the ATM, taxi and dorm alibis, the umpteen times the stripper has changed her story, Amanda Marcotte still is willing to blast the Duke Lacrosse Three as guilty, guilty, guilty; and what do you know, the John-Edwards-for-President campaign has just saluted Marcotte’s acuity by naming her its blogger-in-chief (Pandagon, Jan. 21, foul language galore; Edwards blog, Jan. 30; Blogger News Network, Jan. 30, via Taranto; LieStoppers, Feb. 1). It’s enough to distract attention from all the comic joshing over the Friend of the Downtrodden’s gigantic new residence, or “Suing-’em Palace” as Mark Steyn calls it (NRO “The Corner”, Jan. 30; Dean Barnett, Jan. 30).

Update: Marcotte has now (1 p.m. Friday) yanked down her original post of Jan. 21, and appears also to have deleted several comments, but GoogleCache still has it for the moment. Here is its text, in the spirit of Fair-Use-ery:

Naturally, my flight out of Atlanta has been delayed. Let’s hope it takes off when they say it will so I don’t miss my connecting flight home.

In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f**king god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.

111 Responses to “Stuck at the airport again…..”

Further update (1:20 p.m. Friday): Here are two comments that Marcotte appears to have deleted from the original thread. The “In her part of the country” comment had already drawn criticism from readers on the LieStoppers site:

Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Yes, how dare a rape victim act confused and bewildered like she was raped or something.

# Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Natalia, do you know the details of the case? If so, why do you think a women enthusiastically jumped into a sexual situation with men making slavery jokes at her? Furthermore, what is your theory on why she supposedly looooooved having sex with guys holding her facedown on the bathroom floor? There’s no “if” they behaved in a disrespectful manner. We have conclusive evidence that happened.

This is about race and class and gender in every way, and there’s basically no way this woman was going to see justice. In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men.

Plus: I see that K.C. Johnson (“Durham in Wonderland” is on the case in typically thorough and powerful fashion. Marcotte also provides this further comment reacting to her critics (“if I see the words ‘Duke’ or ‘lacrosse’ in an email that has the whiff of accusatory tone, I’m deleting it and simply not going to reply to it”.

And again (11:30 p.m. Friday): In a further post, K.C. Johnson cites chapter and verse about how Marcotte’s hiring won much praise for the Edwards folks as a shrewd way of reaching out to progressive netroots forces. More discussion: TalkLeft forums, Betsy Newmark, Jeff Taylor at Reason “Hit and Run” (R-rated), Outside the Beltway, Patrick Ruffini, South of Heaven, Little Miss Attila, Brainster; & welcome Glenn Reynolds, Kevin O’Keefe and Michelle Malkin readers.

02-04-2007 03:06 PM

Re: Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief
Regular Contributor

Sadly, she is no longer on the Edwards campaign payroll.

Now she can apply for a janitor position at a favorite all female college campus so she won’t have to clean up after Duke type male rapers.

02-13-2007 06:41 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Sen. Biden in Denial about Female Violence

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Sen. Biden in Denial about Female Violence

Sen. Biden in Denial about Female Violence
Regular Contributor
By Carey Roberts

Senator Joe Biden is planning to propose a new bill called “International-VAWA,” a law modeled on his earlier Violence Against Women Act. The bill is designed to eradicate domestic violence from the farthest reaches of the globe.

This is certainly welcome news, because research is now saying that women are more likely to be the instigators of abuse. [] We guys need all the help we can get — I’m not kidding.

A recent report from Japan said increasing numbers of women are hauling off on their husbands. Mitsuko, a woman in her late 30s, openly admits to being a batterer: “I punch guys for the same reasons people ‘discipline’ their children. I’ve got expectations in love and I want them to improve.” []

Some would say that doesn’t really count as domestic violence – Mitsuko was just putting a deadbeat in his place. And there must be a lot of deadbeats in Japan, because a 2005 government study found that 13.8% of men had been beaten at least once by their wife.

But goodness, I don’t need to tell you, Mr. Biden — you’ve seen female violence up close and personal. Remember the hearings you held in 1990 for the Violence Against Women Act? This was your testimony, as reported in the Congressional Record:

“In my house, being raised with a sister and three brothers, there was an absolute – it was a nuclear sanction, if under any circumstances, for any reason, no matter how justified, even self-defense – if you ever touched your sister, not figuratively, literally. My sister, who is my best friend, my campaign manager, my confidante, grew up with absolute impunity in our household. And I have the bruises to prove it. I mean that sincerely. I am not exaggerating when I say that.”

“And I have the bruises to prove it.” Joe, I’m feeling for you right now, because lots of guys were bullied when they were a kid – but by your older sister? She must have been a total brute.

I know most people never believed your story – they thought you were a wimp, you made it up, or maybe you did something to provoke her. People don’t want to hear about men who were bruised and bloodied by members of the fairer sex, so men keep their pain to themselves.

This is where I’m developing some heartburn, Mr. Biden.

Because last May you were briefed on the Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health of the World Health Organization. Researchers know this study was a sham from the beginning because the interviews excluded men – what better way for the WHO to claim that female-on-male violence doesn’t even exist?

I debunked this laughable study in one of my columns a year ago: .

But a few months later you hailed the research as a landmark event: “The depth and scope of the global landmark study is remarkable. This report reveals a global picture of the treatment of women – and the statistics are appalling and egregious.” []

Time for a reality check, folks.

The Violence Against Women Act has become hijacked by the radical feminists, who claim that domestic violence is all about men trying to keep women in their place. The Damsels of Denial assert that women can never be abusive, or say that women’s violence is done only in self-defense.

But when we downplay the possibility of female abuse, the problem can only get worse.

Last week CNN aired a segment on violence among teenage girls. FBI crime data show that while assaults by boys are slightly down over the last 10 years, attacks by girls have increased a startling 24%. I saw the story while sitting in a doctor’s office – everyone in the room cringed as the girls pummeled their victims into submission. “There’s no argument, though, that the sugar and spice moniker does not fit all,” CNN concluded. []

And columnist David Usher recently compiled a listing of over 50 YouTube videos of violent females – viewer discretion definitely advised. []

Guess what happens when aggressive girls grow up and become violent women? Sometimes these ladies realize they need help so they go to a local VAWA program. “He must have done something to provoke you,” comes the response from the enablers of female aggression.

Our society is in denial about the epidemic of violent women. Before we can talk about International-VAWA, Mr. Biden, we first need to wake up to the reality of female abuse.

01-25-2007 07:36 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking

Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
Regular Contributor

This is the logical consequence when crazy cat ladies get power. A CA bill to punish spanking with a year in jail. This same woman finds abortion to be completely loving and non-violent.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 01-22-200708:29 PM

01-22-2007 08:25 PM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
Regular Contributor

first of all,  good to see you again happymom.

it’s awfully tough to keep a positive frame of mind with people who want laws like this.  if parents or potential parents can’t discipline their kids,  might that not DISCOURAGE some of them from having kids ??

will not some people think twice about having kids if the gov’t is going to be THIS INVOLVED in how they are raised ?

if parents can’t discipline the kid, then can we also apply this to ADULTS ?   i mean, why not ?  if a parent can’t paddle a kid,  then why can police force be used against adult criminals ?

this strikes me as unequal treatment under the law.

in fact, NO ONE should be disciplined.   we should all do whatever the hell we feel because that is what we want to do and makes us happy.

01-23-2007 01:13 AM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
Regular Contributor
Good point about punishing adult criminals. Times outs are a favorite tool of the anti-spanking set. They most resemble solitary confinement in prison. Hmmm.

This law would:
– increase children living inpoverty (parent(s) goes to jail and loses their job)
– increase likelihood the kids would wind up in prison as adults
– increase divorce
– creat trauma in the lives of otherwise healhty and well cared for children and their parents
– increse the number of uncontrolled beasts running around whose parents where too afraid to spank them. Our juvenile facilities are already overflowing now (thanks to 35+ years of Dr Spock’s no spanking advice, his son comitted suicide, btw)

Note that it applies to parents but not nannies, grandparents, aunts etc. Strange.

All this is the result of taking parenting advice from a vetinarian’s guidelines for a cat owner. Perhaps our children should use a litter box and eat off the floor and be left alone while we leave the house as well?

The studies that claim to show a link between spanking and violence and other negative effects refuse to distinguish between a swat used as loving guidence to help develop character and beating a child out of rage. This shows their initial bias and leads to incorrect conclusions.

You may find it interesting the Japan and Singapore allow and encourage judicious spanking while Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, The UK etc criminalize it. Which societies are fairing better I wonder?

I thank my parents for spanking me as a child. What a wretched beast I’d be otherwise.

01-23-2007 01:37 PM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
Regular Contributor

yea it is gov’t involvement gone way too amuk.

while it may be true that parents aren’t perfect, gov’t is even more imperfect.

the child is a result of the parents.  it is their very own creation.  not the gov’t.  the parents are the ones that have a direct stake in their children.

who has more love for  their child …  parents or gov’t ??   while the gov’t may “care” about the child, they aren’t the ones doing the daily and often difficult tasks of child raising.

precious ivory tower “oh be still my bleeding heart” liberals need to move on to the next cockamania idea.

Message Edited by Halladay on 01-24-200705:59 PM

01-24-2007 05:57 PM

Re: Crazy cat lady trying to outlaw spanking
Regular Contributor
Fine, let the police deal with the extra criminals.

The bible says “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

Silly liberals think they know more than God!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!

01-25-2007 01:59 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Long live feminism!

Long live feminism!

I knew you would click on my post :-))


I think you didn’t have the time to read that article in depth (“51%of women live alone”;) before putting it up here. It actually portrays modern WWs as so “liberated” as they do not need men in their lives at all. Well, that’s the impression I got anyway. Well, let them live alone and let them look after their assses BY THEMSELVES!

In fact, I wonder what’s so wrong with the traditional feminism that you guys keep criticising it so much all the time? Apart from some radical idiots who turned themselves into laughing stocks (yes, while screwing up familiy courts along the way and so on), the early feminists did lots, lots of good to men too.

Continue reading

Adultery could mean life, court finds

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Adultery could mean life, court finds

Adultery could mean life, court finds
Regular Contributor
That’s what the law says in sex-drug case Cox appealed

January 15, 2007



In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan’s second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

“We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today,” Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, “but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion.”

“Technically,” he added, “any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I,” the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan’s criminal code.

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court’s decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Murphy’s opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan’s gossipy legal community.

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan’s criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever “sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony.”

Charlevoix Circuit Judge Richard Pajtas sentenced Lloyd Waltonen to up to four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of delivering a controlled substance. But Pajtas threw out the sexual assault charge against Waltonen, citing the cocktail waitress’ testimony that she had willingly consented to the sex-for-drugs arrangement.

Charlevoix prosecuting attorney John Jarema said he decided to appeal after police discovered evidence that Waltonen may have struck drugs-for-sex deals with several other women.

Cox’s office, which handled the appeal on the prosecutor’s behalf, insisted that the waitress’ consent was irrelevant. All that mattered, the attorney general argued in a brief demanding that the charge be reinstated, was that the pair had sex “under circumstances involving the commission of another felony” — the delivery of the Oxycontin pills.

The Attorney General’s Office got a whole lot more than it bargained for. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor in Waltonen’s case needed only to prove that the Oxycontin delivery and the consensual sex were related. But Murphy and his colleagues went further, ruling that a first-degree CSC charge could be justified when consensual sex occurred in conjunction with any felony, not just a drug sale.

The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, “considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code.” Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery — although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971.

Some judges and lawyers suggested that the Court of Appeals’ reference to prosecuting adulterers was a sly slap at Cox, noting that it was his office that pressed for the expansive definition of criminal sexual conduct the appellate judges so reluctantly embraced in their Nov. 7 ruling.

Murphy didn’t return my calls Friday. But Chief Court of Appeals Judge William Whitbeck, who signed the opinion along with Murphy and Judge Michael Smolenski, said that Cox’s confessed adultery never came up during their discussions of the case.

“I never thought of it, and I’m confident that it was not something Judge Murphy or Judge Smolenski had in mind,” Whitbeck told me Friday. But he chuckled uncomfortably when I asked if the hypothetical described in Murphy’s opinion couldn’t be cited as justification for bringing first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges against the attorney general.

“Well, yeah,” he said.

Cox’s spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution.

“To even ask about this borders on the nutty,” Hills told me in a phone interview Saturday. “Nobody connects the attorney general with this — N-O-B-O-D-Y — and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic.”

Hills said Sunday that Cox did not want to comment.

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan’s Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached.

Whitbeck noted that Murphy’s opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships.

“We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling,” he wrote.

Hills declined to say whether the Attorney General’s Office would press for legislative amendments to make it clear that only violent felonies involving an unwilling victim could trigger a first-degree CSC charge.

“This is so bizarre that it doesn’t even merit a response,” he said.

Meanwhile, Waltonen has asked the state Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling. He still hasn’t been tried on the criminal sexual conduct charge. His attorney said a CSC conviction could add dozens of years to Waltonen’s current prison sentence.

Justices will decide later this year whether to review the Court of Appeals’ decision to reinstate the CSC charge.

The appeals court decision is available at Search for Docket No. 270229.

Contact BRIAN DICKERSON at 248-351-3697 or

01-16-2007 07:41 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse
Regular Contributor

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.

In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women.

In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable.

“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,” said Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”

Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery.

William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, described the shift as “a clear tipping point, reflecting the culmination of post-1960 trends associated with greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women.”

“For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,” Dr. Frey said. “Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”

Emily Zuzik, a 32-year-old musician and model who lives in the East Village of Manhattan, said she was not surprised by the trend.

“A lot of my friends are divorced or single or living alone,” Ms. Zuzik said. “I know a lot of people in their 30s who have roommates.”

Ms. Zuzik has lived with a boyfriend twice, once in California where the couple registered as domestic partners to qualify for his health insurance plan. “I don’t plan to live with anyone else again until I am married,” she said, “and I may opt to keep a place of my own even then.”

Linda Barth, a 56-year-old magazine editor in Houston who has never married, said, “I used to divide my women friends into single friends and married friends. Now that doesn’t seem to be an issue.”

Sheila Jamison, who also lives in the East Village and works for a media company, is 45 and single. She says her family believes she would have had a better chance of finding a husband had she attended a historically black college instead of Duke.

“Considering all the weddings I attended in the ’80s that have ended so very, very badly, I consider myself straight up lucky,” Ms. Jamison said. “I have not sworn off marriage, but if I do wed, it will be to have a companion with whom I can travel and play parlor games in my old age.”

Carol Crenshaw, 57, of Roswell, Ga., was divorced in 2005 after 33 years and says she is in no hurry to marry again.

“I’m in a place in my life where I’m comfortable,” said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons. “I can do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. I was a wife and a mother. I don’t feel like I need to do that again.”

Similarly, Shelley Fidler, 59, a public policy adviser at a law firm, has sworn off marriage. She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when her 30-year marriage ended.

“The benefits were completely unforeseen for me,” Ms. Fidler said, “the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.”

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15, according to the marital status category in the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, 63 million are married. Of those, 3.1 million are legally separated and 2.4 million said their husbands were not living at home for one reason or another.

That brings the number of American women actually living with a spouse to 57.5 million, compared with the 59.9 million who are single or whose husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005.

Some of those situations, which the census identifies as “spouse absent” and “other,” are temporary, and, of course, even some people who describe themselves as separated eventually reunite with their spouses.

Over all, a larger share of men are married and living with their spouse — about 53 percent compared with 49 percent among women.

“Since women continue to outlive men, they have reached the nonmarital tipping point — more nonmarried than married,” Dr. Frey said. “This suggests that most girls growing up today can look forward to spending more of their lives outside of a traditional marriage.”

Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, agreed, saying that “changing patterns of courtship, marriage, and that we are living longer lives all play a role.”

“Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce,” Ms. Smock added, “and both are increasingly likely to cohabit rather than remarry after a divorce.”

The proportion of married people, especially among younger age groups, has been declining for decades. Between 1950 and 2000, the share of women 15-to-24 who were married plummeted to 16 percent, from 42 percent. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, the proportion dropped to 58 percent, from 82 percent.

“Although we can help people ‘do’ marriage better, it is simply delusional to construct social policy or make personal life decisions on the basis that you can count on people spending most of their adult lives in marriage,” said Professor Coontz, the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Besse Gardner, 24, said she and her boyfriend met as college freshmen and started living together last April “for all the wrong reasons” — they found a great apartment on the beach in Los Angeles.

“We do not see living together as an end or even for the rest of our lives — it’s just fun right now,” Ms. Gardner said. “My roommate is someone I’d be thrilled to marry one day, but it just doesn’t make sense right now.”

Ms. Crenshaw said that some of the women in her support group for divorced women were miserable, but that she was surprised how happy she was to be single again.

“That’s not how I grew up,” she said. “That’s not how society thinks. It’s a marriage culture.”

Elissa B. Terris, 59, of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, who is now an adult.

“A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no,” she recalled. “I told him, ‘I’m just beginning to fly again, I’m just beginning to be me. Don’t take that away.’ ”

“Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options,” Ms. Terris said. “There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.”

She said she was returning to college to get a master’s degree (her former husband “didn’t want me to do that because I was more educated than he was”), had taken photography classes and was auditioning for a play.

“Once you go through something you think will kill you and it doesn’t,” she said, “every day is like a present.”

Ariel Sabar, Brenda Goodman and Maureen Balleza contributed reporting.

01-16-2007 07:37 AM

Re: 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse
Regular Contributor

khankrumthebulg wrote:

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Doesn’t seem quite right. Unless they are including all females 15 and over, and including women who are cohabitating or living with roommates but not a boyfriend. Then I think that 51% is possible.

01-28-2007 05:01 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

AG’s Office Takes Duke Case, Won’t Rule Out Rape Charges

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – AG’s Office Takes Duke Case, Won’t Rule Out Rape Charges

AG’s Office Takes Duke Case, Won’t Rule Out Rape Charges
Regular Contributor
State Office Accepts Durham DA’s Request to Recuse Himself

ABC News Law & Justice Unit

RALEIGH, N.C., Jan. 13, 2007 — North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has announced that his office will take over as prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case.

After the case is reexamined by special prosecutors Jim Coman and Mary Winstead, rape charges could be reinstated against three former Duke University lacrosse players. It’s also possible all charges could be dropped.

When asked about the possibility of new rape charges, Cooper told reporters “anything can happen.”

This comes one day after Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong recused himself from prosecuting a sexual assault and kidnapping case against the three former Duke lacrosse players.

Nifong faxed a letter to Cooper, asking his office to appoint a special prosecutor take his place.

Cooper said he has accepted the request.

“[Nifong’s] basic reasoning,” his attorney, David Freedman, told ABC News, “was that he would be more than a hindrance than a help” as the case moved forward.

Nifong’s letter, sent to Cooper’s office sometime after 2 p.m. ET on Friday, cited charges of ethics violations brought against him by the North Carolina Bar on Dec. 28. Those allegations and the possible disciplinary action against Nifong apparently created a conflict of interest that drove Nifong to step down from the case.

On May 11, a panel of three members from the bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission will decide if Nifong’s behavior warrants punishment, ranging from a private admonition to disbarment. He is accused of making inappropriate comments in the press about the three indicted players and the case against them.

Nifong met with the accuser in his office on Thursday. During that conversation Nifong told the accuser of his decision to recuse himself.

“He wanted to tell her his decision first,” Freedman said. “He is very loyal to her, and he didn’t want her to hear about this through the media.”

Nifong, a career prosecutor for nearly 30 years, was “devastated” by having to prosecute the Duke case, his lawyer said.

“It’s devastating to him,” Freedman said. “He cherishes his reputation as an ethical attorney and prosecutor.”

His resignation does not reflect of the strength of the case overall, Freedman told ABC News, adding, “He believes in the case.”

Separate sources close to the investigation say the accuser has every intention of moving forward and telling her story in court.

North Carolina legal analysts say it is not unusual for a prosecutor to recuse him or herself when charges of unethical conduct arise. What is highly unusual, however, is that a sitting district attorney is targeted for violating standards of professional conduct in an ongoing case.

“It’s extremely rare, if not unprecedented,” said Thomas Lunsford, a member of the North Carolina Bar Ethics Committee and a professor at Duke Law School.

01-13-2007 05:24 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case

Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case
Regular Contributor
Associated Press Writer
Jan 12, 7:32 PM EST

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Facing ethics charges that could lead to his disbarment, the embattled district attorney in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case has asked the state attorney general’s office to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.

Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Friday in an e-mail that District Attorney Mike Nifong sent a letter requesting the special prosecutor. She did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Nifong did not return several calls from The Associated Press. His attorney insisted the veteran prosecutor was not running from a weak case, and said Nifong is disappointed he will not be able to take it to trial.

“He feels, as a result of the accusations against him, that he would be a distraction and he wants to make sure the accuser receives a fair trial,” attorney David Freedman told The Associated Press. “He still believes in the case. He just believes his continued presence would hurt her.”

Last month, the North Carolina State Bar charged Nifong with violating four rules of professional conduct for making misleading and inflammatory comments about the athletes under suspicion.

It was not immediately clear what impact Nifong’s decision would have on the troubled criminal prosecution of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s office has previously declined to comment when asked about the prospect of taking over the case.

“If he accepts it, then they would transfer the files over, and they would probably have a lot of interviews to do,” said Peg Dorer, director of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. “It would probably stop things for a while I imagine.”

Under North Carolina law, only a district attorney can formally request a special prosecutor. The request can be made when there are potential conflicts of interest, when a case is particularly complex or when there are other unusual circumstances.

Legal experts and observers have railed against Nifong in recent weeks, calling his case pitfully weak and casting doubt on his chance of winning.

“I think we’re all delighted that we’re going to have objective and competent prosecutors reviewing this case,” said James P. Cooney III, an attorney for Seligmann. “We look forward to cooperating with those prosecutors fully and completely in bringing this prosecution to an end.”

Wade Smith, an attorney for Finnerty, was also pleased and pledged to meet with any new prosecutors. “We will assist them in every way we can.”

From the case’s earliest days, Nifong has led the investigation into allegations that a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University – hired to perform as a stripper – was gang-raped and beaten at a March 13 party thrown by Duke’s highly ranked lacrosse team.

Experts have said it appears his case is based only on the testimony of an accuser who has told wildly different versions of the alleged assault – a shifting story led him to drop rape charges on Dec. 22.

01-13-2007 05:19 PM

Re: Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Asks Off Case

Nifong is a self serving arrogant **bleep** that deserves more than just disbarrment.

He needs to serve 5 years in jail for perjury and be forced to pay back the $ 800,000.00 in attorneys fees he costed the defendants families through forfeiture of any assets he has followed by garnishment of any future wages, investment income or inheritance.

06-17-2007 12:51 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Sex and Consequences

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Sex and Consequences

Sex and Consequences
Regular Contributor
By Janice Shaw Crouse

On college campuses, counselors are seeing double the number of depression cases and triple the number of suicidal students.

On college campuses, counselors are seeing double the number of depression cases and triple the number of suicidal students. The American Psychological Association reported in 2003 that counselors on the nation’s college campuses were seeing significant increases of these and other “severe psychological problems.” Why are the nation’s brightest young adults flooding the student health centers to overflowing? What has changed since the late 1980s to produce such emotional and psychological devastation among the nation’s college students?

A campus psychiatrist at a major American university has written a book attempting to answer the questions about what has gone wrong. The book, Unprotected, (written anonymously but revealed to be Dr. Miriam Grossman from the student health services of the University of California, Los Angeles) reveals that “radical politics” has replaced “common sense” in the campus health and counseling centers to the detriment of students’ well-being. In short, Dr. Grossman declared that her profession was “hijacked” and that college students are the “casualties” of “radical activism” by the health professionals on college campuses.

The nation’s 17 million college and university students are being denied truth while their risky behavior is condoned by the prevalent social agenda on campus. Dispassionate objectivity and compassionate concern for an individual’s health and well-being have been replaced by social activism. Now, the “polarization” of “opposite” sexes and a “binary gender system” must be replaced by androgyny and “alternative sexualities.” Nobody dares mention that emotionally destructive behavior produces negative consequences. Ideology takes precedence over consequences. In fact, consequences are never mentioned except in the context of smoking, diet, exercise or sleep. Certainly, no one mentions the “fascinating research on the biochemistry of bonding” which reveals that casual sex is hazardous to a woman’s mental health.

When I was an academic dean, I found that there was often (though not always) a relationship problem — usually a broken romance — behind a sudden drop in a student’s grades. Dr. Grossman describes story after story of students who came in with academic and psychological problems that, she discovered with a little probing, turned out to coincide with sexual intimacy that produced one-sided attachment. Dr. Grossman quotes a neuropsychologist who described the effect of oxytocin (the attachment hormone that produces bonding and trust): “You first meet him and he is passable. The second time you go out with him, he’s OK. The third time you go out with him, you have sex. And from that point on you can’t imagine what life would be like without him.”

Ironically, Dr. Grossman (who laments political correctness) uses the term, “sexually transmitted infections” (the politically correct designation because “infections” seem less serious than “diseases” instead of “sexually transmitted diseases.” Today, on and off campus, STDs are considered no big deal. Yet, human papillomavirus (HPV) — a major cause of cervical cancer — is so common and so contagious that some doctors recommend that women “assume” that a partner has the infection. Condom use among college students is a joke — one study revealed that less than half of college students used a condom during their last vaginal intercourse. Discussions about HIV/AIDS are even more off-limits: while definitive information is available about the specific behavioral risk factors, myths spread misinformation — anybody can get it or AIDS doesn’t discriminate. Dr. Grossman lays out the facts: HIV is spread through **bleep** sex, shared needles or a partner who does those things.

Dr. Grossman reveals, too, that God is not welcomed in college health clinics. In fact, psychologists are almost five times more likely to be agnostic or atheist than the general public. Almost 90 percent of Americans believe in God. Among students, over three-quarters say they pray, and an equal number say that they are “searching for meaning and purpose in life.” In fact, “cultural competency” (respecting the values of inclusion, respect and equality, especially in respect to gender, race, sexual orientation, disability and other identities) is replacing religion, even though evidence reveals that religion protects against drug and alcohol use, early sexual activity and suicide.

While the public generally sees abortion as a “woman’s issue,” Dr. Grossman cites a Los Angeles Times survey indicating that post-abortion men experience more regret and guilt than post-abortion women do. She also reveals that chlamydia is far more serious than generally perceived and that the college years are a good time to address the ramifications effectively; instead the dangers of chlamydia are ignored or profoundly sugarcoated. As a result, untold numbers of women discover too late for intervention that they are infertile.

Another profound misrepresentation takes place on college campuses: by focusing exclusively on career, many women will pass their window of opportunity for finding a husband and having children. After age 30, a woman’s chances of conceiving drop by 75 percent; if she gets pregnant, her chance of miscarriage triples, the rate of stillbirth doubles and the risk of genetic abnormality is six times greater. Sadly, as Unprotected points out, the waiting rooms of infertility centers are crowded with professional women who bought into the myth that they should focus on career and wait to have a husband and children.

The basic message of Unprotected is that today’s women are amazingly misinformed and unprotected. Casual sex has consequences, and the steady flow of students crowding campus health centers is a clear indication that somebody needs to be telling young women the truth. Dr. Miriam Grossman has begun the enlightenment. Let’s hope that others will follow her lead.

01-13-2007 05:16 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – BOXER’S LOW BLOW

Regular Contributor
January 12, 2007 — Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go – attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party – New York’s own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic – but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”

Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”


Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It’s hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

But put that aside.

The vapidity – the sheer mindlessness – of Sen. Boxer’s assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

In contrast to Boxer, Sen. Clinton seemed almost statesmanlike – until one considers that she was undercutting the president of the United States in time of war: “The president simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course.”

Schumer, meanwhile, dismissed the president’s speech as “a new surge without a new strategy.”

Frankly, we’re not surprised by Hillary Clinton’s rush to judgment. With both eyes firmly set on 2008, her Iraq position flits like a tumbleweed in the political wind. Who knows where she’ll wind up?

Heck, she admitted as much by citing November’s midterm elections to justify her newfound opposition to the war. (And who needs a commander-in-chief who tailors war-fighting strategy to public opinion?)

Clinton would do well to consider the words of GOP Sen. John McCain, another White House hopeful, who frankly admits that his strong support for a troop surge in Iraq has cost him votes. (Some Democrats, in fact, already are calling this “McCain’s surge.”

Said McCain: “I’d rather lose a campaign than lose a war.”

As for Schumer, we’re profoundly disappointed by his remarks.

While he’s always been a fiercely parti san Democrat (nothing to be ash amed of), time was when Schumer seemed to understand the existential threat posed by Islamic extremism.

Now he’s been elevated to a top position in his party’s Senate leadership – and he has bigger fish to fry.

Like electing Democrats.

And so, like Boxer, he cheers on Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards – with Clinton, presidential aspirants – as they trash Bush’s plan.

To the extent that such behavior encourages America’s enemies – and of course it does – he, like they, stands to have innocent blood on his hands.

Yes, the party’s bloggers will be happy.

So will al Qaeda.

True enough, Democrats don’t hold a monopoly on appalling behavior.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican presidential candidate and favorite of some conservatives, has joined with Democrats in opposition to the troop surge – and he’s not alone.

The president deserves better.

Indeed, the least these critics can do is suggest an alternative that leads to success in Iraq rather than simply criticize.

Or suggest that America simply wave the white flag.

As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said: “Now that the president has outlined a change in strategy, we should give his proposals an opportunity to work.” Instead, Kyl rightly noted, “some declared the president’s proposals unworkable even before they were announced.”

No such nay-saying, however, was to be heard from two Capitol Hill stalwarts: McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut.

“I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq,” said Lieberman, who alone in his party genuinely comprehends what a U.S. defeat in Iraq would mean.

As for McCain, his support is tempered by the fact that he argued correctly, from the start, that the war was being fought with too few troops. Had the administration listened four years ago, this tactical shift might not be necessary now.

It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country’s uniform.

And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.

01-13-2007 05:15 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Judge exposes inequality of women’s jurisprudence

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Judge exposes inequality of women’s jurisprudence

Judge exposes inequality of women’s jurisprudence
Regular Contributor
David R. Usher
January 2, 2007

Judge Robert Dierker’s new book, “The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault,” demonstrates that some judges are waking up to the truth: behind the mysterious veil of feminist humanism hides the most profound contempt for men, marriage, and ultimately the well-being of non-elitist women.

In the past couple of years, feminism has received much long-overdue scrutiny. Kate O’Beirne excoriated radical feminism in her book “Women Who Make the World Worse.” Christina Hoff Sommers made a career trying to repatriate feminism to behave as an egalitarian movement (an impossible task given the meaning of the word). Phyllis Schlafly successfully blocked the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would have created a two-tier society based on gender. Phyllis continues to be one of the most outspoken and forthright opponents of radical feminism.

Unlike his feminist opponents, whose evasively-encoded messages often take much pondering to approximately decipher, Dierker cut to the chase in Chapter One: “The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism.”

Dierker proved the thesis of his book is correct even prior to publication. Feminists dominating the St. Louis Post Dispatch attacked him on page one. Missouri Senator Joan Bray (D-St. Louis) filed a complaint with the Missouri Bar even before the book was published. Joan is a classic feminist legislator, and heiress to feminist machines run by former Missouri Representatives Kaye Steinmetz and Sue Shear. Bray continues to seek ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would create inequality based on sex; supports socialized health care [1] [2], sponsored a bill promoting abortions that pretends to prevent them, and wants to force gay values on the state of Missouri.

In a St. Louis Daily Record article, Rep. Bray ranted “The venom in the book was shocking to me.” But she admits, “I probably meet his definition of femifascist.” Given the fact that modern radical feminism is the lineal great-grand-daughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan, we must credit Rep. Bray for owning up to her discriminatory attitudes towards men.

The feminist elite is attempting to pillory Judge Dierker in the same failed fashion they tried to abort Justice Antonin Scalia for his personal belief that abortion is wrong. Never mind that feminists thought it was lovely every time Ruth Bader Ginsburg waxes in favor of killing babies for no reason whatsoever.

Feminist attacks immediately point back to those who complain the most vociferously. Lynn Ricci, President of the St. Louis Women Lawyers Association gave us an in-home demonstration of how feminists slyly project their behavior on to others to avoid scrutiny. She whined that “he’s [Dierker] cloaking his own personal preferences against women in alleged legal research and a partial examination of the law.”

Ms. Ricci apparently does not understand that opposing a revolting belief system has nothing to do with what one thinks about women.

Since Ms. Ricci pretends that “alleged legal research” and “partial examination of the law” supports her position, let us look at the partiality of femi-fascism:

The Duke Rape Case never would never have happened if Prosecutor Mike Nifong had not been trained to pursue feminist jurisprudence in law school.
Feminist jurisprudence pretends that female allegers are not to be doubted or questioned (one professor I know at Washburn University school of Law will not pass any intern who in any way attempts to ascertain the veracity of allegations made by a self-appointed female victim).
The “feminist majority” believes women are always the victims and men are always the oppressors. The alleged perpetrator must somehow be guilty, even if he proves himself innocent. They continue to monkey with evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. Their goal is to establish a legal system where unverifiable allegations alone are considered sufficient for conviction.
Discrimination against men in the family and marriage is endemic in literally every A.B.A. publication and law school. Only a corpse or a feminist could not intuitively recognize this truth.
Fortunately, radical feminist agenda is finally being rebuffed at the United Nations: The U.N. Secretary General’s Report on Domestic Violence Against Women was unanimously rejected by the Third Committee in November, 2006. It is time we do the same in the United States.
Every major study on domestic violence proves that men and women are equal initiators of serious domestic violence.
Every major study on marriage demonstrates that the the intact married heterosexual two-parent family produces the best economic and social outcomes for women, children, and men.
Every major study on divorce and illegitimacy demonstrates that single mothers have the highest poverty rates, are the most likely to seriously abuse children, and are the least likely to have access to health care.

Judge Dierker is to be greatly commended for his work helping to advance the rule of law and jurisprudence. Pointing out that feminist jurisprudence is radical and damaging to America does not make Judge Dierker the radical. Anyone who files a complaint against him or refuses to have a case heard in his courtroom is an enemy of the very fairness and quality jurisprudence that Judge Dierker strives to achieve.

The Missouri Bar should embrace Dierker’s book. A new Gender and Justice Commission Report should be ordered, but this time the Commission should recommend changes in jurisprudence to weed out the hate and intolerance towards men and marriage on which so many laws and court decisions in Missouri are based.

01-13-2007 05:12 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – FEMINISM AND THE CONTROL OF WOMANHOOD

Regular Contributor
Nancy Levant
January 9, 2007

I received a note from a “feminist” who was quite disturbed with my opinions about “feminism.” Her arguments were dialectically predictable as she simply regurgitated the pat lines of the movement, but for the benefit of young women who grow up amidst the dialectic, I will respond with clarity.

The one-world government scenario is dialectically based upon economics, environment, and equity – known as the Three E’s. These Three E’s involve global control of the common man’s labor and money, “sustainable” nature, and forcing all commoners into financial sameness. These same intentions are also documented in the U.N. Agenda 21 game plan for our “sustainable” environmental future.

The feminist movement was crafted by the one-world political initiative and invented to create and sustain global depopulation goals. That is and remains the primary mission of the feminist movement.

Women’s “rights” are disallowed definition by culture, religion, personal opinion, or any other social definition minus the feminist movement. In today’s world, we have no choices as women, whatsoever, but to agree to the think tank morality written and coded by this global movement. The feminist movement is no different than the global environmental movement, the global healthcare movement, the global education movement, or the global economy movement. All are social re-engineering tactics used to forward the take over of all world governments, economies, and cultures, and to force all commoners into the custom-made livelihoods and service of corporate-based governors. According to this government, we have no choices but to accept them all.

The “governors” are the world’s wealthiest industrialists and bankers. Their one-world government hands all power and control of people, land, water, food, human health, children and education, employment, militaries, and economic potential directly to themselves and their personal fortunes. Over and over and over again, when you tie corporate wealth and power to governing agencies, you have Fascism. However, the long-term goal of a one-world government has always been to bring Communism to fruition on a global scale. So, today, we see a hybrid Fascist-Communist system by Three E design, and it is bitterly obvious in every nation on the planet. Almost all global economies are crashing by design, and particularly America’s economy. Note that America’s elite pulled their investments out of the U.S. years ago.

The feminist piece of the global puzzle deals specifically with depopulation through women’s “healthcare,” big pharma, and the “mental health” industrial complex. Women’s rights are now defined by the right to abort, the right to be drafted, and the right to take drugs that will render women and children incapable of bearing children. And just as many women worldwide earned the right to own property, that right has now fallen to other plans, which state that no “individual” may own private property.

Also, one must note that the industrial and banking powers that be are mostly men – the men whose dynastic families created their one-world government of choice. And these same men also created the feminist movement in order to curb the tendencies of commoners to breed and out-number them billions to one. The feminist movement is based upon political lies and the control of reproduction. “Sustainable” nature is also based upon enforcing a remarkable decline in birth rates. I assure you this enforcement will not fall upon the world’s elite.

Equally, and thanks to the help of the feminist movement, “mental health” has taken center stage in the lives of women and children in the United States. It is estimated that 25 million American women are now taking “anti-depressants.” In the 1980’s and 1990’s, it became chic to seek “therapy.” Women ran in droves to see “therapists” and to tell their social circles they were taking anti-depressants. The mental health complex has now arrived in every American school, and they are now arriving in America’s daycare centers. The main impetus for the mental health “advocates” is to screen and profile America’s families to see if they are religious, procreating, and if they are mainstreaming into new government citizens. All children who fall short are then redirected to the mental health industries, which then feed the big pharma complex, which 1) drugs children, and 2) determines who will be “fit” to reproduce in the future. Let us also wonder if the mass drugging of children – and new vaccines specifically targeted to pubescent female children – will not result in future “problems” with reproductive health.

In today’s new world, women are also “checked” for mental health issues during and following pregnancy. In a nutshell of truth, women are profiled for the number of pregnancies, the health of pregnancies and babies, and genetically data based. This we are to call “liberation.”

Today’s “liberated” women are still raising children – many of which are raising children alone – and they are working one or two jobs to make end’s meet. Today’s “liberated” women are obsessed with weight, beauty, divorce, money, spending money, and careers to make money. They are far less concerned with their children, who are now raised in state-controlled (government) daycare centers, federally controlled (government) public schools, and state controlled (government) universities. In other words, the government is raising our children in ways that the government sees fit – the government of the world’s industrialists and world bankers. Your children are being raised by and into the new world order, while you are working to support the new world order rather than your children. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Take a pill. You will feel much better – or, perhaps, nothing much at all.

Let me give the women of the West a clue – “liberation” means that you are free – free to think as you choose and free to create your life according to your efforts and your beliefs. I suggest to you that the “liberation” you have achieved through the misguidance of the feminist movement is false. I suggest that Westernized women are often miserable, overworked, and suffering due to separation from their children. Think of it this way – the feminist movement actually believed they could change the fundamental meaning and purpose of womanhood, biological and instinctual gendering, and that they could culturally remove children from mothers, and call it “liberation.” You are equally liberated to destroy any children that you don’t want. Wow. I guess that means that you have a great deal of power. Congratulations. It is far greater to be a drugged laborer than a mother. Let us thank the feminist movement for making this clear to us dim-witted females.

If you are a woman in today’s new world, I suggest you read The Cultural Devastation of American Women. None of us have come unscathed through this new world culture, for it has been working on us for many, many decades. Once read, you will begin to decipher the facts from all the dialectic fiction. Read the other side for a change. Find out why you are, in fact, depressed and unhappy as contemporary women. Find out why your children are very much the same.

And to the world’s feminists – I say this: You are the dumbest women who have ever walked the face of the Earth. Week by week, day by day, you are losing every right you thought you invented. You fell hook, line, and sinker into the dialectic, and you are nothing but dictator pawns to the larger mission of total control over people and freedom. What a shame when arrogance literally beats brains useless. What a crime and a shame when you brutally victimize the very people you claim to represent – much like all other destroyers of human freedom. The day will come when you and your brothers in crime will be fully understood for your true missions. The day will come when YOU finally comprehend what you actually stood for – the total denial of rights and freedom for all.

01-13-2007 05:08 PM


You are ridiculous.  I can’t even see a point or a purpose in what you are saying.  I was, however, able to tell that you think feminists have undermined the rights of women.
I’d very much like to disagree.  I have great education opportunities, a wonderful career, a wonderful fiance who treats me respectfully, who honors my choice to be a career woman.  And, I’ve been with guys who didn’t, so I can tell you that my happiness is infinitely higher when I am allowed to pursue humanity through education and personal achievement.  Women and men are not so different: we are both human beings, and some men just don’t get it.  Why differentiate against another human being, deny them the rights to be fully human in their lifetime, for a genital?  The women’s movement has granted women the right to freedom of sexuality, freedom of speech, freedom of education, freedom of career, freedom of reproductive choice, and you are going to try to convince women that because men don’t throw their coats down to protect our little feet from the rain anymore, that we are being denied our rights?  Women are treated better in this country than men are sometimes, at least as well, and we like it that way, thank you very much!

You didn’t seem to specify what rights we deserve to have that we don’t as a result of the women’s movement?  What?  To exchange one’s pu**y and not one’s ideas for living decentIy? I don’t buy that for a second.  The only things you mentioned were that women fought for reproductive rights that you disagree with.  So, you’re anti-choice, is that your point?  Because, it seems like that’s all you said in your hugely superfluous mass of nonsensical words.

02-03-2007 11:09 AM

Regular Contributor

“You are ridiculous.  I can’t even see a point or a purpose in what you are saying.  I was, however, able to tell that you think feminists have undermined the rights of women. ”

You do realize that the original thread here was written entirely by a woman, correct ?

“Women are treated better in this country than men are sometimes, at least as well, and we like it that way, thank you very much! ”

Agreed.  Which is why I will be very glad and rejoiceful to step out of the way of any missles aimed at precious career women.  Don’t worry about me spilling any of my blood to protect your ungrateful a$$.

“I have great education opportunities, a wonderful career, a wonderful fiance who treats me respectfully, who honors my choice to be a career woman ”

Which is why Noer wrote the article he did..  so that he can be forewarned before it’s too late.

02-04-2007 12:23 AM


“Women and men are not so different: we are both human beings, and some men just don’t get it.  Why differentiate against another human being, deny them the rights to be fully human in their lifetime, for a genital? ”

For the same reason that you went ahead and differentiated between men and women yourself when you said…

“Women are treated better in this country than men are sometimes, at least as well, and we like it that way, thank you very much! ”

And not only did you differentiate between the two… you very much were pleased to when it benefited your gender.

02-04-2007 02:57 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

hatred of women

hatred of women

Unfortunately I got to this board a little after the fact, but I’m sure someone is still out there reading this. Anyway, I was hardly offended by the editorial. It was just plain silly. I could pull 15 different studies out of my ass that would support just about anything I want, just as Mr. Noer has. The fact of the matter is generalizations are dangerous and almost always prove to be null. I don’t care how many years of schooling you have had or how articulate you may be. If you fail to realize that simple fact, you are a moron. I can sit here and nit pick every fallacy and question every piece of data presented by this editorial and those who have posted their comments, but that would just be arbitrary and a waste of time. If you have even a half of a brain you would be able to find them out for yourself.

But nonetheless, the thing that drove me to signing up for this message board and posting is the pure hatred for women I see here. I’m not talking about the man who is simply asking questions are offering criticisms of feminism. There are some men who post just plain malicious comments toward women, who truly hate women regardless if a woman is labeled a feminist or not (and just because a woman is on here pointing out the stupidity of the editorial it does not make her a feminist, but that’s a whole different subject). Why do you hate women so much?

01-06-2007 09:56 AM

Continue reading

Man Sentenced to Prison For 10 years…

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Man Sentanced to Prison For 10 years…

Man Sentenced to Prison For 10 years…
Regular Contributor
Owed 14,995 dollars in child support!!

I have an Idea, if all men go on strike to stop paying child support they can’t throw us all in prison!!!

They need to reform the system. If men didn’t give women money this year 40 billion would not be changing hands!!!

That would send a message, “we want more time with our children.”

BTW, the children should go to the party that can afford said children!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!

12-01-2006 03:47 PM

Re: Man Sentanced to Prison For 10 years…
Regular Contributor

“I have an Idea, if all men go on strike to stop paying child support they can’t throw us all in prison!!!”

of course they can’t throw all the men in prison..  who would then die in wars and other workplace fatalities ?

we do the dying the other gender refuses to do

12-05-2006 01:29 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby

Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby
Regular Contributor
Associated Press Writer


A mother was arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn daughter by putting the baby in a microwave oven.

China Arnold, 26, was jailed Monday on a charge of aggravated murder, more than a year after she brought her dead month-old baby to a hospital.

“We have reason to believe, and we have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief, that a microwave oven was used in this death,” said Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County coroner’s office.

He said the evidence included high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby, Paris Talley.

Arnold was arrested soon after the baby’s death in August 2005, then was released while authorities investigated further. Betz said the case was difficult because “there is not a lot of scientific research and data on the effect of microwaves on human beings.”

The death was ruled a homicide caused by hyperthermia, or high body temperature. The absence of external burns ruled out an open flame, scalding water or a heating pad as the cause, Betz said.

Arnold’s lawyer, Jon Paul Rion, said his client had nothing to do with her child’s death and was stunned when investigators told her that a microwave might have been involved.

“China _ as a mother and a person _ was horrified that such an act could occur,” Rion said.

The night before the baby was taken to the hospital, Arnold and the child’s father went out for a short time and left Paris with a baby sitter, Rion said. The mother didn’t sense anything out of the ordinary until the next morning, when the child was found unconscious, Rion said.

Arnold has three other children.

In 2000, a Virginia woman was sentenced to five years in prison for killing her month-old son in a microwave oven. Elizabeth Renee Otte claimed she had no memory of cramming her son in the microwave and turning on the appliance in 1999. Experts said that Otte suffered from epilepsy and that her seizures were followed by blackouts.

11-28-2006 08:11 PM

Re: Police Say Mother Microwaved Her Baby

Two Questions: Did they eventually convict the mother?

And what does “Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo” mean? Just curious.

01-10-2007 12:46 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke

Julius Streicher, Catharine MacKinnon, Jesse Jackson, And David Duke
Regular Contributor
Deciding Which Is Which

August 17, 2006

I found myself some time ago under social circumstances in a group that included an angry radical feminist, which is to say a radical feminist. Out of nowhere that I remember, she announced, “Men are sexist pigs.” Such assertions are par for the species.

It was not easy to know how to respond. She was clearly attacking. You don’t insult a group some of whose members are present unless you mean to offend. While I may have doubts about, say, the legitimacy of psychotherapy, I do not say while dining with a practitioner, “Therapists are swinish frauds.” While “sexist” might be regarded with sufficient straining as a political category, “pig” is a schoolyard insult. The comment was simply ill-bred. So are feminists.

I could have responded, “Women are useless bitches.” The problem is that I don’t think that women are either useless or bitches. A few are, yes. A few men are sexist pigs, and I don’t like them either. True, I don’t care for some of the attitudes that seem to characterize a lot of American women. This is far thinking that women are pigs or bitches.

Why do feminists go out of their way to be disagreeable? Much of human behavior is templated. Certain kinds of personality do certain things. They can’t help it. Common templates are the True Believer, the Hater, and the Victim. The salient point is that the template comes first, the content second and sometimes almost as an afterthought. They are like empty forms waiting to be filled in.

The True Believer needs to believe in something truly and, really, doesn’t much care what: Christianity, evolution, Islam, Marxism or market forces. He needs the certitude. He doesn’t need to hate anyone, however. For example, evolutionists do not.

The Hater does need to hate something. Sometimes the choice is obvious, as when a black in the slums comes to hate Whitey. Sometimes the choice is less explicable, as when a man who has suffered no direct or clear damage at the hands of Jews becomes virulently anti-Semitic. A defining characteristic of the Hater is that maintaining the grounds of his (or, most assuredly, her) hatred is far more important than truth, reason, or kindness. The hatred is an end in itself, an identity, the core of his (or her) being. All thought and balance vanish in the insistence on painting the hated in as bad a light as possible.

The Victim believes that all of his miseries and failures are the fault of others. Victims are often Haters as well. Feminists combine the two.

The need to hate is different from the possession of an opinion. A reasonable person might believe, for example, that Jews exert too much influence over American foreign policy and various domestic policies, but also grant without demur that Jews had contributed much to the economy, the sciences, and the arts. The details could be debated, but the position is not that of a Hater. The Hater in anti-Semitic form cannot go for ten minutes in private conversation without adverting with hostility to various crimes and conspiracies which he attributes to Jews, and can never concede that Jews every, however inadvertently, have done anything good. He is obsessive about it.

So are feminists.

A feminist sees men exactly as anti-Semites see Jews. This is because she is an anti-Semite—the same template, the same bottle but with different wine. She has a more hair-trigger anger (“Men are sexist pigs”) because she can get away with it, a more bellicose incivility for the same reason, but the same (watch, and see whether I am right) lack of humor, obsessiveness, and the characteristic basing of her personality on the hatred.

Haters seldom know much about those they hate. It doesn’t matter to them, and just gets in the way. As anti-Semites are clueless about Jews, so feminists are clueless about men. Anti-Semites know that Jews rub their hands and say “heheheh” and want to destroy Western civilization. Feminists know that men don’t have feelings and want to oppress women, and hurt them, and degrade them. Yet they (both) think they know the hated enemy. They both pour forth half-truths, thudding clichés, carefully selected facts, and abject foolishness, and both are blankly unable to see the other side’s point of view or to concede it any virtue at all.

I have known only a few such feminists well, though I have read many. They have struck me, without exception that comes to mind, as fitting a peculiar mold: bright, very hostile and combative, but physically timid and pampered, hothouse flowers really, usually from fairly moneyed families and often Ivy or semi-Ivy schools. Often they have done little outside of feminism and would be helpless out of an urban setting. They have no idea how anything around them works—what a cam lobe is, how a refrigerator makes things cold, or how a file-allocation table might be arranged. Their degrees run to ideologizable pseudosubjects such as sociology, psychology, or Women’s Studies. They seem isolated from most of life.

None of this is characteristic of women in general. I used to belong to a group called Capitol Divers, of Washington, DC. About a third of the members I’ll guess were women. We dove the deep wrecks off North Carolina, chartered the Belize Aggressor for a week near Central America, and so on. It wasn’t lightweight diving. Sometimes we were in the open Atlantic in seas a lot higher than recommended, or ninety feet down at night on a wreck or, I remember, at 135 in the Blue Hole of Belize. (Cap Divers was a bit of a cowboy outfit.)

The women were fine divers, treated as equals by the men because they in fact were equals. Nobody thought about it. In a lot of aggregate time with them over the years, I never heard a single, “Men are sexist pigs.” The pattern is one that I’ve noticed anecdotally but widely. Women who are good at things that men respect are respected by men, and they tend to like men because they have things in common. They are not templated neurotics. Feminists are.

If you do not believe that haters are all the same people, wrestling with internal demons rather than trying to solve real problems, make a point of talking to them or, failing that, reading them. Remember though that a hater is not someone who recognizes an unpleasant truth about a particular group. A woman who says that men are much more given to violence is stating an obvious fact. So is a white who recognizes that low academic achievement among blacks is a problem. Neither is a hater.

No. You want the ones with the grinding all-encompassing hostility. “The kikes are destroying America.” “The niggers are destroying America.” “Men are sexist pigs.” These people are fascinating. Talk to them. Care is needed, particularly with feminists, to keep them from exploding before you can conduct an examination. But do it. Note that many are well educated. They can be polished. But the fundamental difference between a radical feminist and a Jew baiter is…is….

Wait. I’m thinking.

11-28-2006 07:44 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why

Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why
Regular Contributor
Just for You Moneyneversleeps.

New York Times
November 14, 2006
Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why

Correction Appended

In recent years, women’s health has been a national priority. Pink ribbons warn of breast cancer. Pins shaped like red dresses raise awareness about heart disease. Offices of women’s health have sprung up at every level of government to offer information and free screenings, and one of the largest government studies on hormones and diet in aging focused entirely on older women.

Yet statistics show that men are more likely than women to suffer an early death.

Now some advocates and medical scientists are beginning to ask a question that in some circles might be considered politically incorrect: Is men’s health getting short shrift?

The idea, they say, is not to denigrate the importance of women’s health but to focus public attention on the ways in which men may be uniquely at risk — and on what a growing men’s health movement has termed the “health disparity” between the sexes and its most glaring example, a persistent longevity gap that has narrowed but still shortchanges men of five years of life compared with women.

“We’ve got men dying at higher rates of just about every disease, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Demetrius J. Porche, an associate dean at Louisiana State University’s Health Sciences Center School of Nursing in New Orleans, and the editor of a new quarterly, American Journal of Men’s Health, that will publish its first issue next March.

The Men’s Health Network, a not-for-profit educational foundation based in Washington, has called for creating a federal office of men’s health to mirror the office on women’s health within the Health and Human Services Department, and it is backing a bill sponsored by Senator Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho, and Representative Vito Fossella, Republican of New York, to do so. Several federal offices on women’s health were recently established to compensate for years in which women were often excluded from medical research, but there is no federal office of men’s health.

Men’s health advocates say that men are silently suffering through what may be a serious health crisis. “We keep throwing out lifestyle as an explanation for the differences in longevity, saying that men come in later for care and have unhealthy behaviors, but I’m not sure we really know the reason,” Dr. Porche said. “And we haven’t answered the question: Is there a biological determinant for why men die earlier than women?”

It is a question that has piqued the interest of some medical scientists, including Dr. Marianne J. Legato, founder of the Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine at Columbia University. Five states — Maryland, Georgia, New Hampshire, Louisiana and Oklahoma — have either established or plan to establish offices or commissions on men’s health, and the Nov. 15 issue of JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, is entirely devoted to studies on the topic.

But the mere suggestion that men need their own health bureau or that they must advocate for their rights like a victimized minority rankles some women’s health advocates, and some politicians are reluctant to take men’s health on as a cause, for fear of alienating women.

“Saying we need an office of men’s health ignores the fact that men’s health always was the main focus of medical research,” said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network in Washington, a membership organization for improving women’s health.

“During the first half-century of our nation’s investment in medical research, the majority of resources went to studying men and the conditions that affected men disproportionately,” she said. “Is their health perfect? No. But they don’t need a movement.”

Still, by just about any measure, men’s health is abysmal. American men have an average life expectancy of 75.2 years, and even less — 69.8 years — for black men, compared with 80.4 years for women over all.

Men die of just about every one of the leading causes of death at younger ages than women, from lung cancer to influenza and pneumonia, chronic liver disease, diabetes and AIDS. One notable exception is Alzheimer’s disease: more women than men die of it.

Topping the list for both sexes is heart disease.

But while the American Heart Association has been conducting an aggressive public education campaign to raise awareness about heart disease among women, called Go Red for Women and featuring pins in the shape of dresses, progress among men has been slipping, said Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. Yet, he added, the illness exacts a disproportionate toll on men.

Although heart disease occurs in women in their 30s and 40s, he said, it is “extremely unusual,” while severe heart disease in men that age is “not exceptionally rare.” Heart disease in women increases as they age, he noted.

“We’ve got to put it all in perspective,” Dr. Nissen said. “Coronary heart disease has a devastating impact on men, particularly on men who are in the prime of life — 45-year-old men with major heart attacks, who may never work another day in their life, who may have children.”

Cancer also strikes men disproportionately: one in three women at some point in life; one in two men. In part, that is a result of the fact that more men than women smoke, and possibly of occupational exposures.

But experts and advocates say that when it comes to government financing for the most common sex-specific reproductive cancers, breast cancer financing exceeds prostate cancer financing by more than 40 percent, with prostate cancer research receiving $394 million in 2005, and breast cancer receiving $710 million. The figures, for financing by the National Cancer Institute and Defense Department, were provided by the not-for-profit Prostate Cancer Foundation.

More women die of breast cancer than men do of prostate cancer: some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer this year, compared with 27,350 deaths of men from prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

Breast cancer also strikes young people more often. But men’s chances of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis at some point in their lifetimes are high, with about 234,460 new cases expected to be diagnosed this year, compared with 212,920 new cases of breast cancer.

Nevertheless, said Dr. Peter Scardino, a prostate cancer surgeon and chairman of the department of surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, “there are still more people doing research on breast cancer than on prostate cancer, there’s more industry support for research on breast cancer drugs, there’s been more attention to the quality of life effects of breast cancer and we have more-effective chemotherapy agents for breast cancer because more trials have been done.”

Men’s vulnerability appears to start quite early. More male fetuses are conceived, but they are at greater risk of stillbirth and miscarriage, scientists find. Even as infants, mortality is higher among newborn boys and premature baby boys.

As children, boys are at higher risk for developmental disabilities and autism. Boys and men are more likely to be colorblind, suffer higher rates of hearing loss and are believed to have weaker immune systems than women. They may also recover more slowly from illnesses.

“It’s not that we ‘could be’ the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex,” said Dr. Robert Tan, a geriatrics specialist in Houston who is on the advisory board of the Men’s Health Network. “Even when men and women have the same disease, we often find that men are more likely to die. Hip fractures stand out, for instance: women seem more likely to recover, while men are more likely to die afterward.”

Behavior plays a role in some of the extra deaths and illnesses among men: they tend to be more aggressive than women and to take more risks. Men smoke at higher rates than women, drink more alcohol and are less likely to wear seat belts or use sunscreen. Men also suffer more accidental deaths and serious injuries and are more likely to die of injuries and car accidents. They are three times as likely to be victims of murder, four times as likely to commit suicide and, as teenagers, 11 times as likely to drown.

Some experts think that depression contributes to these reckless and self-destructive behaviors, but that just as heart disease was initially defined by men’s experiences and therefore ignored or missed in women, depression may have been framed by women’s experiences and therefore may be missed and go untreated in men.

In any case, as a result, even though more baby boys are born, among people in their mid-30s, women outnumber men. Among people age 100, women outnumber men by 8 to one.

Among the questions research might explore, Dr. Legato said, are: “Why are there more miscarriages of boy fetuses? What is it about the sexing of the fetus that makes a male more vulnerable? What makes a boy less mature in terms of lung function after he’s born? And what is this propensity for risk-taking?”

One theory is that males are vulnerable because of their chromosomal makeup: where women have two X chromosomes, men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. “It is said that even before implantation in the wall of the uterus, the newly fertilized XX entity has a leg up,” Dr. Legato said, “because it can use that extra X to combat mutations in the chromosome that might be lethal or detrimental. And that might be a reason why females have a more sturdy constitution.”

Scientists and advocates who are concerned about men’s health are encouraging men themselves to take the first steps by accepting responsibility for their health status, seeking preventive care and making changes in habits, if necessary. New drugs for erectile dysfunction have helped bring men into doctors’ offices in recent years, experts say, but that is not enough.

“Men need to take as good care of their bodies as they do of their cars and trucks, and they don’t,” said Dr. Ken Goldberg, a urologist and the author of “How Men Can Live as Long as Women,” among other books. “We need men to come in” to the doctor’s office, he said, adding, “A lot of men think they’re bulletproof and invincible.”

Research based on a 2000 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that almost a quarter of all men had not seen a doctor during the previous year, compared with only 8 percent of women, and that one in three men had no regular doctor, compared with one in five women. More than half of men had not gone in for a routine checkup or cholesterol test during the previous year.

Even if something was bothering them, the survey found, men often expressed reluctance to seek medical help. Nearly 40 percent said they would delay care for a few days, and 17 percent said they would wait at least a week.

Strangely, some insights into men’s behavior in regard to their health have been gleaned from studies intended to yield information about women. A 2001 national study on ambulatory care found that women, who are in the habit of seeing doctors regularly if only because they need reproductive services, had double the number of annual exams that men had. Other studies have found that because poor women with children may qualify for Medicaid, poor men are more likely to lack health insurance.

Advocates say that research must be directed at how specific diseases develop in men, but that studies should also be done to explore the underlying reasons that men do not take better care of themselves.

Many psychologists think the problems are rooted in how boys are raised.

“We’ve socialized men from the time they are boys that ‘You have to stand on your own two feet,’ ‘If you have a problem, handle it by yourself,’ ‘Be a man, take one for the team,’ ” said Dr. William Pollack, director of the Center for Men at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., affiliated with Harvard Medical School. “All of which means, ‘Don’t complain, don’t ask for help and solve the problem by yourself.’ ”

He added: “Men think that being vulnerable is the worst thing. But to recognize there might be something wrong with you, you have to acknowledge: you’re vulnerable.”

11-26-2006 05:19 PM

Re: Health Disparities Persist for Men, and Doctors Ask Why

Raw deal for Oz men

1.      Men comprise of 56% of employed people

2.      93% of those who die from work-related illnesses are men

3.      Men have higher death rates than women for all major causes of death

4.      Men’s use of health services in Australia is 40% lower than women’s

5.      40% of Australian marriages break down

6.      Women initiate divorce 4 in 5 cases

7.      For every $12,000 spent on women’s health research there is less than $1,000 spent on men’s health.

8.      Boy’s VCE results up to 20 per cent below female results.

1. Males make up a paltry 44 per cent of university enrolments, females now dominate most tertiary courses,
2. Boys than twice as likely as girls to drop out of High School,
3. The overwhelming number of remedial students are male,
4. Male unemployment rates for almost every category is higher than female rate,
5. Male unemployment rates for graduates is up to 40 percent higher than equivalent female graduate.

11-27-2006 11:01 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Agency Culpable in Child Support Scam

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Agency Culpable in Child Support Scam

Agency Culpable in Child Support Scam
Regular Contributor
Friday , December 17, 2004

By Wendy McElroy

Last week, Viola Trevino carried her 5-year-old “daughter” into an Albuquerque (search) court to satisfy a judge’s demand to produce the child.

Complications arose.

One: Trevino had kidnapped the child moments before to pass off as her daughter. Two: the “real” daughter never existed. Three: the “father” and ex-husband Steve Barreras had paid $20,000 in child support. Four: the system finally noticed Trevino was lying.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has asked the state’s Human Services Department for a full report.

Specifically, he wants to know how several government agencies became not only unwitting partners in the fraud, but also resisted efforts to correct it.

Richardson deserves a tip of the hat for taking responsibility. The official response to child support (search) or welfare debacles is usually silence.

Sometimes a finger of accusation is pointed at specific individuals as though the abuse resulted from a few “bad apples” in an otherwise clean barrel. Richardson is acknowledging there is a problem with the system itself.

The system is broken. In recent years, heartbreaking stories from every state have flooded the media. Often they focus on the plight of children who are abused or neglected by those assigned to protect them. But just as often they highlight the abuse of parents — especially non-custodial fathers — who are processed as paperwork, not people.

With Trevino, several government agencies processed papers. Trevino falsified a paternity test by using a sample from an adult daughter who is Barreras’ child and then had a family friend process it at the lab. On the basis of the test, Trevino obtained a court order for child support.

Trevino also obtained a Social Security card, a Medicare card and a birth certificate for the “daughter.”

When a fraud is so blatant, there is a tendency to blame the victim for somehow facilitating his or her own victimhood. But Barreras, who works as a corrections officer in law enforcement, attempted repeatedly to expose the fraud and to protect himself.

His petition for a restraining order was denied. Evidence that his vasectomy, conducted a year prior to the child’s “birth,” had left him with a zero sperm count, was ignored. Phoning and writing to New Mexico’s child support agency to have them verify his daughter’s non-existence resulted in a letter. The child enforcement worker stated, “your daughter does exist, as I am sure you already knew.”

Barreras went so far as to hire a private investigator to expose the scam. Indeed, without his persistent refusal to be victimized, the fraud would have probably never come to light. It would have remained just one more injustice tucked away and protected by the system’s closed file.

Richard Farr of the family-oriented KRightsRadio has spearheaded an investigation of the matter. [For an interview on this topic with Barreras’ second wife, click here.] Farr calls the case “an egregious example of an overzealous child support agency who apparently ignored the alleged father’s repeated cries … Unfortunately, too many child support agencies are virtually accountable to no one.”

Reports from an investigative journalist at KOBTV, Albuquerque, finally brought enough pressure to bear that Trevino was ordered to produce the child in court. On the day of her hearing, Trevino went to a mall, where she convinced a grandmother and her 2-year-old granddaughter that they should all go to see Santa Claus. Instead, Trevino took them to the courthouse, snatched the girl, and tried to pass her off as the missing daughter.

The panicked grandmother could not keep up with Trevino and got left behind in the parking lot. She stated: “I thought I was never going to see my baby girl again. It’s the scariest thing.”

Richardson’s question keeps rising: how could this happen?

A partial explanation is that the child welfare system seems to automatically favor the claims of custodial mothers over non-custodial fathers.

Consider one scenario. A custodial mother swears under oath to have given birth and perhaps provides false documents. In many states, if she also swears that the absent father is violent, her statement can result in a restraining order that de facto terminates the father’s visitation rights. If a subsequent order to pay child support is delivered to an invalid address, which is often provided by the mother, then the father may not respond within the window of time provided for a protest. Now he must pay, go to jail or endure a process similar to the one Barreras suffered.

But why did the child support enforcement system not follow up despite complaints? Farr suggests an answer: “[S]ome officials see child support agencies as revenue-generating agencies. States make money off the collection of child support while the taxpayers lose money at the federal level overall. Too often, this money-mindedness does not give incentives for agencies to do the right thing for children and families.”

The stakes are higher than money, however. If Barreras had fallen behind in support payments, he would have been sent to jail. His life might have been destroyed.

Barreras is reportedly suing to recover the $20,000. There is some indication he may also sue other individuals who “perpetuated” the fraud. According to Barreras’ attorney: “the parties that were involved in this fraud will be sought. We’ve played defense. Now, it’s time to play offense.”

It’s about time.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

11-26-2006 12:04 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Kicking the F butt :-)

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Kicking the F butt :-)

Kicking the F butt :-)

Hi all Y-mates,

Just wanted to kindly invite you to one of the best “kick butt good” web-sites Down Under at the moment..
Sam is real smart and does a very good job, his topics are not really PC but, understandably, he still has to keep at least his language so..
Welcome to the show!

Khan, also I hope it can be of help to yol with the great job you are doing on the net, mate. Thanks.

11-24-2006 01:59 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels

Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels
Regular Contributor
In Some Cities, Half of All Students Quitting School


Nov. 20, 2006 — In several of the largest school systems across the country — from Baltimore to Cleveland to Atlanta and Oakland, Calif. — half of the students are dropping out.

And the problem is not only in the big cities.

Watch the second part of Pierre Thomas’ report Tuesday on “World News with Charles Gibson.”

A recent study by the Department of Education found that 31 percent of American students were dropping out or failing to graduate in the nation’s largest 100 public school districts.

The implications from dropping out of high school are enormous, including a higher risk of poverty and even an abbreviated life span.

So why do they drop out? Eli Thomasson, 16, of Georgia, explains why he wanted to drop out of school earlier this year.

“I was just tired of school, you know. I didn’t like it. I had made my mind up that I wasn’t going to school anymore,” Thomasson said.

His mother, Donna Thomasson, was frantic.

“Terrified,” she said. “I thought his life was over. I didn’t really see how I could force him to go because you can’t force them to learn if they don’t want to.”

And Eli Thomasson wasn’t the only student at his high school to consider walking away without a diploma.

Berrien High in southern Georgia is part of a national epidemic. More than 40 percent of students there do not graduate.

Sheila Hendley, Berrien High’s graduation coach, has the daunting job of trying to stop this epidemic.

“I have sat with students and literally begged, ‘Please don’t do this,'” Hendley said. “I don’t want you to have to suffer like I know you will if you don’t finish school.”

And in the case of Eli Thomasson, it worked. She stayed on his case and persuaded him to stay in school.

“He said, ‘You know, mom. She probably just saved my life,'” Donna Thomasson said.

It is estimated that about 2,500 students drop out of U.S. high schools every day.

“It’s like seeing a child in the middle of the lake that can’t swim, and you see them bobbing up and down. It’s like watching them drown,” Hendley said.

At Berrien High, the faculty is fighting to save students who are at risk of becoming a part of that troubling statistic. “It’s a real fight. Every day you talk to someone who needs to be motivated,” said Berrien High School Principal Mike Parker.

And why is a high school diploma so important?

Consider this: High school dropouts have a life span that is nine years shorter than people who graduate.

Dropouts are more likely to face poverty, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Typically high school dropouts earn $19,000 a year. High school graduates earn $28,000 a year on average.

If you drop out of high school, your chances of running afoul of the law increase.

Nationally, 68 percent of state prison inmates are dropouts.

Sheriff Jerry Brogdon of Berrien County, Ga., sees those consequences every day at the Berrien County Jailhouse.

He said that “81.2 percent of the inmates we have in here today is high school dropouts.”

Anthony White is a 17-year-old Berrien County Jail inmate.

He quit high school just two weeks before he spoke to ABC News from the jailhouse. He was arrested for allegedly firing a gun in the air just three days after he quit school.

“I felt like I was grown,” White said. “Nobody could tell me not to make my own decision. That’s how I felt at the time.”

But White said, “Now I wish I would’ve listened.”

James Keefe, 19, is another inmate. He dropped out of high school, too.

He has been arrested on burglary charges twice.

“When I was in school, I didn’t get in no trouble,” Keefe said.

On Tuesday, Pierre Thomas looks at some programs that school boards are implementing to reverse this drop-out trend. Watch “World News” for the full report.

11-23-2006 09:12 AM

Re: Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels
Regular Contributor
With all the Single Mother households, with boys raising themselves, what would one expect?

By the time a boy hits 6, he can give his mother a run for her money, by the time he is 9 he is stronger than her. By the time he is 12, he IS the man of the house!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!

11-26-2006 02:44 AM

Re: Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels
Regular Contributor

That is an utterly stupid statement you made.  There is no such thing as a boy of 12 (or 17 for that matter) who is capable fof making intelligent decisions as a man.  You are proving that now.

12-01-2006 10:55 AM

Re: Students Dropping Out of High School Reaches Epidemic Levels

A nine year old boy would not be stronger than a grown woman. I think perhaps a boy of fifteen would more likely be stronger.

I work with a woman who is raising two boys on her own. Both of them are in school and doing well. My husband was raised by only his mother.

I still believe it would be better for everyone if a stable and loving father was there as well. Children need good examples of both men and women as they grow, so they can avoid being judgemental of either sex.

01-09-2007 01:03 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Feminization of American Culture part 3

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Feminization of American Culture part 3

The Feminization of American Culture part 3
Regular Contributor

his process of femininization manifests itself, though somewhat differently, when you turn on the TV or watch a movie. Throughout the mid-twentieth century, leading men were, as a rule, infallible: think of Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind, Cary Grant in North by Northwest, or Fred McMurray in My Three Sons. But no longer. In family comedy, the father figure has metamorphosed from the all-knowing, all-wise Robert Young of Father Knows Best to the occasional bumbling of Bill Cosby and the consistent stupidity of Homer Simpson.

A mature adult nowadays is someone who is comfortable talking about her inner conflicts, someone who values personal relationships above abstract goals, someone who isn’t afraid to cry. In other words: a mature adult is a woman.

Commercially successful movies now often feature women who are physically aggressive, who dominate or at least upstage the men. This description applies to movies as diverse as Charlie’s Angels and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. In today’s cinema, to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, all the leading women are strong and all the leading men are good-looking.

A transformation of comparable magnitude seems to be under way in the political arena. Military command used to be considered the best qualification for leadership–as it was with Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, and Dwight Eisenhower, to name only a few. Today, the best qualification for leadership may be the ability to listen. The feminine way of seeing the world and its problems is, arguably, becoming the mainstream way.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran against George Bush p?e for the presidency. Clinton was an acknowledged draft evader. Bush, the incumbent, was a World War II hero who had just led the United States to military success in Operation Desert Storm. Clinton won. In 1996, Clinton was challenged by Bob Dole, another decorated World War II veteran. Once again, the man who had evaded military service defeated the combat veteran. In 2000, Gov. George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain competed for the Republican presidential nomination.

McCain was a genuine war hero whose courageous actions as a prisoner of war in Vietnam had won him well-deserved honors and praise. Bush, on the other hand, was alleged to have used family influence to obtain a position in the Texas National Guard, in order to avoid service in Vietnam. Once again, the man who had never experienced combat defeated the military veteran. Moral of the story: It’s all very well to be a war hero, but in our modern, feminized society, being a war hero won’t get you elected president.

Conversely, being a draft dodger isn’t as bad as it used to be. A number of authors have recognized the increasing feminization of American society. With few exceptions, most of those acknowledging this process have welcomed it.17 As Elinor Lenz and Barbara Myerhoff wrote in their 1985 book The Feminization of America, “The feminizing influence is moving [American society] away from many archaic ways of thinking and behaving, toward the promise of a saner and more humanistic future…. Feminine culture, with its commitment to creating and protecting life, is our best and brightest hope for overcoming the destructive, life-threatening forces of the nuclear age.

I think we can all agree on one point: there have been fundamental changes in American culture over the past fifty years, changes that indicate a shift from a male-dominated culture to a feminine or at least an androgynous society. The question is, what’s causing this shift? Some might argue that the changes I’ve described are simply a matter of better education, progressive laws, and two generations of consciousness-raising: an evolution from a patriarchal Dark Ages to a unisex, or feminine, Enlightenment. I’m willing to consider that hypothesis. But before we accept that conclusion, we should ask whether there are any other possibilities.

11-22-2006 03:12 PM

Re: The Feminization of American Culture part 3

I prefer Peter Griffin to Doc Savage. He’s just funnier.

I do not like George W. Bush. I voted against him. Twice. It didn’t matter.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the last two paragraphs. Can we get there without alienating half the country, though?

01-09-2007 12:52 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Feminization of American Culture part Two

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminization of American Culture part Two

Feminization of American Culture part Two
Regular Contributor

t isn’t only psychology that has undergone a process of feminization over the past fifty years, and it isn’t only women whose attitudes have changed. Take a stroll to your neighborhood bookstore or newsstand. You’ll find magazines such as Men’s Health, MH-18, Men’s Fitness, Gear, and others devoted to men’s pursuit of a better body, a better self-image. None of them existed fifteen years ago. The paid circulation of Men’s Health has risen from 250,000 to more than 1.5 million in less than ten years.13 Many of the articles in these magazines are reminiscent of those to be found in women’s magazines such as Glamour, Mademoiselle, and Cosmopolitan: “The Ten Secrets of Better Sex,” “The New Diet Pills–Can They Work For You?” or “Bigger Biceps in Five Minutes a Day.” (The women’s magazine equivalent might be something like “slimmer thighs in five minutes a day.”

Men didn’t use to care so much about their appearance. Psychiatrists Harrison Pope and Katharine Phillips report that in American culture today, “Men of all ages, in unprecedented numbers, are preoccupied with the appearance of their bodies.”14 They document that “men’s dissatisfaction with body appearance has nearly tripled in less than thirty years–from 15 percent in 1972, to 34 percent in 1985, to 43 percent in 1997.”15 Cosmetic plastic surgery, once marketed exclusively to women, has found a rapidly growing male clientele. The number of men undergoing liposuction, for instance, quadrupled between 1990 and 2000.16

11-22-2006 03:09 PM

Re: Feminization of American Culture part Two

Men’s Fitness = Good! Men ought to take very good care of their hearts and bodies in order to stay alive well into their 100s.

Men’s Cosmetic Surgery = ….. why? I mean… why for either sex? Ugh…

01-09-2007 12:43 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

The Feminization of American Culture

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Feminization of American Culture

The Feminization of American Culture
Regular Contributor

Leonard Sax, M.D.

n ancient times–by which I mean, before 1950–most scholars agreed that women were, as a rule, not quite equal to men. Women were charming but mildly defective. Many (male) writers viewed women as perpetual teenagers, stuck in an awkward place between childhood and adulthood. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, for example, wrote that women are “childish, silly and short-sighted, really nothing more than overgrown children, all their life long. Women are a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man.” 1

Psychologists in that bygone era devoted considerable time and energy to the question of why women couldn’t outgrow their childish ways. The Freudians said it was because they were trapped in the pre-Oedipal stage, tortured by **bleep** envy. Followers of Abraham Maslow claimed that women were fearful of self-actualization. Jungians insisted that women were born with a deficiency of imprinted archetypes. Back then, of course, almost all the psychologists were men.

Things are different now. Male psychologists today are so rare that Ilene Philipson–author of On the Shoulders of Women: The Feminization of Psychotherapy–speaks of “the vanishing male therapist as a species soon to be extinct.2 the gender of the modal psychotherapist has changed from male to female, the standard of mental health has changed along with it. Today, Dr. Philipson observes, the badge of emotional maturity is no longer the ability to control or sublimate your feelings but rather the ability to express them. A mature adult nowadays is someone who is comfortable talking about her inner conflicts, someone who values personal relationships above abstract goals, someone who isn’t afraid to cry. In other words: a mature adult is a woman.

It is now the men who are thought to be stuck halfway between childhood and adulthood, incapable of articulating their inner selves. Whereas psychologists fifty years ago amused themselves by cataloging women’s (supposed) deficiencies, psychologists today devote themselves to demonstrating “the natural superiority of women.”3 Psychologists report that women are better able to understand nonverbal communication and are more expressive of emotion.4 ,5Quantitative personality inventories reveal that the average woman is more trusting, nurturing, and outgoing than the average man.6 The average eighth-grade girl has a command of language and writing skills equal to that of the average eleventh-grade boy.7

As the influence of the new psychology permeates our culture, women have understandably begun to wonder whether men are really, well, human. “What if these women are right?” wonders one writer in an article for Marie Claire, a national woman’s magazine. “What if it’s true that some men don’t possess, or at least can’t express, nuanced emotions?”8 More than a few contemporary psychologists have come to regard the male of our species as a coarsened, more violent edition of the normal, female, human. Not surprisingly, they have begun to question whether having a man in the house is desirable or even safe.
years ago, scholar Sara Ruddick expressed her concern about “the extent and variety of the psychological, sexual, and physical battery suffered by women and children of all classes and social groups … at the hands of fathers, their mothers’ male lovers, or male relatives. If putative fathers are absent or perpetually disappearing and actual fathers are controlling or abusive, who needs a father? What mother would want to live with one or wish one on her children?”9 Nancy Polikoff, former counsel to the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, said that “it is no tragedy, either on a national scale or in an individual family, for children to be raised without fathers.”10

The feminization of psychology manifests itself in myriad ways. Consider child discipline. Seventy years ago, doctors agreed that the best way to discipline your child was to punish the little criminal. (“Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Today, spanking is considered child abuse.11 You’re supposed to talk with your kid. Spanking sends all the wrong messages, we are told, and may have stupendously horrible consequences. Psychoanalyst Alice Miller confidently informed us, in her book For Your Own Good, that Adolf Hitler’s evil can be traced to the spankings his father inflicted on him in childhood.12

11-22-2006 03:08 PM

Re: The Feminization of American Culture

Meh, I was spanked as a child.

These women being quoted are dead wrong. My husband has a myriad of different emotions. He’s not the slightest bit dangerous, unless someone tries to hurt me or someone else he cares about. I look forward to having children with him.

01-09-2007 12:40 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Single-Sex Ed 101

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Single-Sex Ed 101

Single-Sex Ed 101
Regular Contributor

Welcome to the latest educational fad.
By Meghan O’Rourke
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2006, at 12:43 PM ET

Not long ago, the idea that American public schools should offer separate classes for boys and girls would have been regarded as retrograde; in the late 1980s, single-sex public schools had almost disappeared. But during the last decade, single-sex education has come to seem cutting-edge once again, backed by a startling rise of bipartisan support. In October, the Department of Education announced new federal regulations making it easier for public schools to become single-sex institutions, provided that “substantially equal” opportunities are available to the other sex. Part of the impetus behind the new rules is simply Americans’ love of choice. As a Department of Education spokeswoman told me, single-sex schools will aid families by adding “one more tool to the toolbox.” But part of it is the belief that single-sex schools will be a panacea for struggling boys and girls: Some of the staunchest advocates of alternatives to co-education are preaching new approaches based on magnifying, rather than trying to overcome, gender differences.

Behind what has been billed as a pragmatic decision lurks a more programmatic (and pseudoscientific) agenda. Invoking murky neurobiological data about innate gender differences, these advocates leap to cut-and-dry classroom prescriptions—ones that may ultimately provide less pedagogical variety for students themselves. It’s one thing to offer students the option to learn the same things in separate classrooms. It’s quite another to urge that all students learn in programmatically gender-tailored ways—and possibly even learn different things.

Among the most influential of the lobbying groups, the National Association for Single Sex Public Education is headed by an MIT-educated psychologist named Leonard Sax. Extrapolating rather freely from neuroscientific studies—many with small sample pools—Sax argues that, paradoxically, treating students in a gender-neutral manner tends to reinforce stereotypical weaknesses in the classroom, leading to declines in aptitude for both genders. His remedy is to urge educational techniques that cater to the unique “boy” brain and unique “girl” brain. Girls, Sax believes, don’t enjoy abstraction; they have more sensitive hearing than their male peers; and they work better than boys do in groups. For them, using more context in math class is useful. Boys, on the other hand, relish abstraction and are bored by context. They benefit from moving around constantly. Therefore, Sax claims, “It’s not sufficient just to put girls in one classroom and boys in another. In order to improve academic performance and broaden educational horizons, you need to understand how girls and boys learn differently.”

Consider a typical example from the NASSPE Web site: “Girls have a sense of hearing which is two to four times better than boys (depending on the frequency tested) … if you have a male teacher speaking in a tone of voice which seems normal to him, a girl in the front row may feel that the teacher is practically yelling at her. Remember that she is experiencing a sound four times louder than what the male teacher is experiencing. The simplest way to accommodate these differences in a coed classroom is to put all the boys in the front and the girls in the back—just the opposite of the usual seating pattern that the children themselves will choose.” Sax’s best-selling book, Why Gender Matters, is full of similar illustrations.

The trouble with this type of reductive emphasis on group identity is that it contributes to the very problem the other single-sex education promoters aim to combat: pedagogical practices that unwittingly enforce gender stereotypes. First of all, group differences between the genders, as psychologist Elizabeth Spelke at Harvard University emphasizes, should not obscure the wide overlap in capacities among individual boys and girls. Second, what differences do exist rarely dictate one clear-cut pedagogical response. A good teacher is, or should be, fine-tuning classroom chemistry, not proceeding on the basis of simplistic biology. Putting all the girls in the back, for example, might result in the queen bees distracting each other, and more than a few boys turning around to look at them. Third, we still don’t fully understand the import of the neuroscientific studies Sax cites, or what, precisely, “blood flow” to different areas of the brain means. Leaping to sweeping, untested conclusions is hardly scientific.

That’s not to say that single-sex education should be dismissed out of hand. Numerous studies do show that students from Hispanic and black single-sex Catholic schools score significantly better on cognitive tests than their peers at co-ed Catholic schools do. Others have found that girls at single-sex institutions demonstrate more interest in math than their co-educated peers do. And one laudable goal of single-sex educators is simply to get kids to enjoy school. You’re more likely to practice things you enjoy, and you’re more likely to learn when you’re engaged. It’s no service to students when schools push one didactic approach above all others—an emphasis in kindergarten, say, on fine-motor and academic skills and lots of sitting activities that slower-developing boys tend to find more frustrating. Finally, more than a few parents and kids themselves will attest that single-sex schooling can help focus an adolescent hopelessly distracted by the other sex.

But whatever advantages might ultimately derive from single-sex schools, the gender-specific approach all too easily devolves to formulaic teaching that promises to narrow (rather than expand) learning options for kids. When it comes to English, for instance, single-sex-education advocates tend to disparage what they believe is a “feminized” verbal curriculum and approach, arguing that it plays to boys’ weaknesses and handicaps them. Sax suggests, then, that girls and boys be asked to do different exercises in English. The girls would read Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret and engage in a role-playing exercise about the characters. The boys, meanwhile, would read Lord of the Flies and then create a map of the island, demonstrating that they’ve read closely enough to retain key details. Neither exercise sounds particularly useful. But the latter simply doesn’t accomplish the most essential work of an English class. It’s a test of reading for information—and a reaffirmation of boys’ good “spatial skills”—rather than an exploration of the thematic complexities of William Golding’s classic. Even well-intentioned prescription easily becomes a form of zealotry, as when Sax declares that “Ernest Hemingway’s books are boy-friendly, while Toni Morrison’s are girl-friendly” and adds, “some teachers suggest that we need to stretch the boys’ imaginations … surely such a suggestion violates every rule of pedagogy.”

There’s a curious paradox here: Sax’s goal is to get kids to feel more comfortable with skills that don’t come easily to them. Yet his recipe for doing so is to segregate them with similarly challenged kids. In this, the NASSPE ethos scants another central goal of school: learning how to work with those who have different aptitudes from your own. In the right circumstances, a classroom can profitably expose kids to diverse thinking and aptitudes. A friend who teaches at a private school recently told me a story about asking his students to compose a list of metaphors. In his English class is a kid—let’s call him J—who fits the stereotypical “male” learning model. He is remarkably good at abstract concepts and at logic, and it’s hard for him not to blurt out answers to math problems (which can lead to quiet girls being overlooked). But his verbal skills are less honed. In class, J read his list out loud; most of his metaphors were highly logical but somewhat literal. Then a few girls read theirs, including a student of remarkable verbal talent. After listening to her, J said, “I think some of my examples weren’t really metaphors; they were more like comparisons.” If you buy the gender-specific line of thinking, J might never have arrived at that insight.

Proponents of single-sex education would protest that their approach gives children more latitude to carve out a distinctive identity. Removing “the other” from the classroom can help kids conceive of themselves as individuals rather than as members of a gender. But the risk is that the more didactic—and “scientifically” justified—the campaign for single-sex schools becomes, the more the idea of “essential” gender differences will filter down to kids themselves. And as psychologist Carol Dweck and others have shown, the way we think about how we learn has a profound effect on the way we actually learn. Claude Steele’s work on “stereotype threat” has shown that students who absorb others’ ideas about their group’s handicaps exhibit further declines in aptitude in the contested areas. (And a 2001 study of pilot single-sex programs in California demonstrated what can happen when programs are badly implemented: In this case, unconscious teacher bias inadvertently accentuated more trivial stereotypes as well, with girls encouraged to be “concerned with their appearance,” and boys encouraged to be “strong.” What is designed as an escape from gender-based thinking—boys are better at math than girls—could, in the end, only reinforce gender-based thinking, if a more nuanced form of it: Girls aren’t as good with abstraction as boys are. That’s a result that even those who believe in innate differences, like Sax, shouldn’t be in favor of accentuating further.
Meghan O’Rourke is Slate’s culture editor.

11-22-2006 02:58 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Desperate Feminist Wives

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Desperate Feminist Wives

Desperate Feminist Wives
Regular Contributor
Why wanting equality makes women unhappy.
By Meghan O’Rourke
Posted Monday, March 6, 2006, at 7:35 PM ET

In The Feminine Mystique, the late Betty Friedan attributed the malaise of married women largely to traditionalist marriages in which wives ran the home and men did the bread-winning. Her book helped spark the sexual revolution of the 1970s and fueled the notion that egalitarian partnerships—where both partners have domestic responsibilities and pursue jobs—would make wives happier. Last week, two sociologists at the University of Virginia published an exhaustive study of marital happiness among women that challenges this assumption. Stay-at-home wives, according to the authors, are more content than their working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and “emotional work” men contribute (or are perceived to contribute). But the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive—the 15 percent who agree most with feminist ideals—have a harder time being happy than their peers, according to an analysis that has been provided exclusively to Slate. Feminist ideals, not domestic duties, seem to be what make wives morose. Progressive married women—who should be enjoying some or all of the fruits that Freidan lobbied for—are less happy, it would appear, than women who live as if Friedan never existed.

Of course, conclusions like these are never cut-and-dried. This study is based on surveys conducted between 1992 and 1994, and measuring marital happiness is a little like trying to quantify sex appeal. But the data are nonetheless worth pausing over, especially if, like me, you’ve long subscribed to the view that so-called companionate couples have the best chance at sustaining a happy partnership. Among all the married women surveyed, 52 percent of homemakers considered themselves very happy. Yet only 45 percent of the most progressive-minded homemakers considered themselves happy. This might not seem surprising—presumably, many progressive women prefer to work than stay at home. But the difference in happiness persists even among working wives. Forty-one percent of all the working wives surveyed said they were happy, compared with 38 percent of the progressive working wives. The same was the case when it came to earnings. Forty-two percent of wives who earned one-third or more of the couple’s income reported being happy, compared with 34 percent of progressive women in the same position. Perhaps the progressive women had hoped to earn more. But they were less happy than their peers about being a primary breadwinner—though you might expect the opposite. Across the board, progressive women are less likely to feel content, whether they are working or at home, and no matter how much they are making.

What’s really going on here? The conservative explanation, of course, is that the findings suggest that women don’t know what they really want (as John Tierney implied in the New York Times, and Charlotte Allen suggested in the Los Angeles Times). Feminism, they argue, has only undermined the sturdy institution of marriage for everyone. The feminist and liberal argument is that reality hasn’t yet caught up to women’s expectations. Women have entered the workforce, but men still haven’t picked up the domestic slack—working wives continue to do 70 percent or more of the housework, according to one study. If you work hard and come home and find you have to do much more than your husband does, it’s little wonder that you would be angry and frustrated.

11-22-2006 02:21 PM

Re: Desperate Feminist Wives

Perhaps another suggestion is that being constantly worried about how to be ‘progressive’ is causing these women more stress. Honestly, being a ‘feminist’ would be far too much of a headache for me. I don’t want to care what other people think of me. I don’t want to have to be an example for other women. I don’t want to blame other people for my own issues. I’ve got enough on my plate as it is without worrying about crap like that.

01-09-2007 12:29 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

TEEN GOES NUCLEAR : He creates fusion in his Oakland Township home

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – TEEN GOES NUCLEAR : He creates fusion in his Oakland Township home

TEEN GOES NUCLEAR : He creates fusion in his Oakland Township home
Regular Contributor

On the surface, Thiago Olson is like any typical teenager.

He’s on the cross country and track teams at Stoney Creek High School in Rochester Hills. He’s a good-looking, clean-cut 17-year-old with a 3.75 grade point average, and he has his eyes fixed on the next big step: college.

But to his friends, Thiago is known as “the mad scientist.”

In the basement of his parents’ Oakland Township home, tucked away in an area most aren’t privy to see, Thiago is exhausting his love of physics on a project that has taken him more than two years and 1,000 hours to research and build — a large, intricate machine that , on a small scale, creates nuclear fusion.

Nuclear fusion — when atoms are combined to create energy — is “kind of like the holy grail of physics,” he said.

In fact, on, the Stoney Creek senior is ranked as the 18th amateur in the world to create nuclear fusion. So, how does he do it?

Pointing to the steel chamber where all the magic happens, Thiago said on Friday that this piece of the puzzle serves as a vacuum. The air is sucked out and into a filter.

Then, deuterium gas — a form of hydrogen — is injected into the vacuum. About 40,000 volts of electricity are charged into the chamber from a piece of equipment taken from an old mammogram machine. As the machine runs, the atoms in the chamber are attracted to the center and soon — ta da — nuclear fusion.

Thiago said when that happens, a small intense ball of energy forms.

He first achieved fusion in September and has been perfecting the machine he built in his parents’ garage ever since.

This year, Thiago was a semifinalist for the Siemens Foundation’s National Research Competition. He plans to enter the Science and Engineering Fair of Metropolitan Detroit, which is in March, in hopes of qualifying to be in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in New Mexico in May.

To his mom and dad, he’s still reminiscent of the 5-year-old who toiled over a kid-friendly chemistry set and, then at age 9, was able to change the battery in his older brother’s car.

Now, in a small room in the basement, Thiago has set up a science lab — where bottles marked “potassium hydroxide” and “methanol” sit on shelves and a worn, old book, titled “The Atomic Fingerprint: Neutron Activation Analysis” piled among others in the empty sink.

Thiago’s mom, Natalice Olson, initially was leery of the project, even though the only real danger from the fusion machine is the high voltage and small amount of X-rays emitted through a glass window in the vacuum chamber — through which Olson videotapes the fusion in action..

But, she wasn’t really surprised, since he was always coming up with lofty ideas.

“Originally, he wanted to build a hyperbaric chamber,” she said, adding that she promptly said no. But, when he came asking about the nuclear fusion machine, she relented.

“I think it was pretty brave that he could think that he was capable to do something so amazing,” she said.

Thiago’s dad, Mark Olson, helped with some of the construction and electrical work. To get all of the necessary parts, Thiago scoured the Internet, buying items on eBay and using his age to persuade manufacturers to give him discounts. The design of the model came from his own ideas and some suggestions from other science-lovers he met online.

Someday, he hopes to work for the federal government — just like his grandfather, Clarence Olson, who designed tanks for the Department of Defense after World War II. Thiago, who is modest and humble about his accomplishment, said he knew from an early age what he would do for a living.

“I was always interested in science,” he said. “It’s always been my best subject in school.”

But, his mom had other ideas.

“I thought he was going to be a cook,” Natalice Olson said, “because he liked to mix things.”

Contact GINA DAMRON at 248-351-3293 or at

11-22-2006 09:29 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?

Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?
Regular Contributor
By Carey Roberts

It was one of those claims that only a feminist could dream up: “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70% of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape.” Despite the lack of credibility of anything that comes from the United Nations, this straight-faced claim actually made its way into a front-page article last week in the Washington Times.

That, despite the fact that the research shows Indian women are the gender more likely to abuse. Plus, no one could track down the UN report that supposedly made the claim.
The Washington Times is certainly no feminist rag. So what’s going on here?

In the wake of the November 7 electoral debacle, conservatives are doing a lot of soul-searching. Maybe it’s time to assess whether the feminist ideology has been allowed to invidiously dilute the conservative message.

There was a time, of course, when the women’s movement held the moral high ground. Susan B. Anthony not only championed women’s right to vote, but also took a principled stand against abortion.

But after Anthony died in 1906, her movement fell under the sway of a group of neo-Marxist women who dubbed themselves “feminists.” The Misses of Misery asserted that everything that is wrong in the world can be blamed on the vast anti-woman conspiracy they call the patriarchy. Here’s Gloria Steinem: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole… patriarchy.”

For years, conservatives have underestimated the dogged determination of the women’s libbers to undermine everything that is good and right in our society: the inviolability of life, sanctity of the family, free speech, opportunities not quotas, law based on due process, and limited role of government.

Let’s be perfectly plain about it: Feminism is the antithesis of everything conservatism stands for.
Thankfully, some in the conservative ranks have bravely spoken out against the rad-fem jihad, including Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, Laura Schlessinger, Catherine Seipp, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and Myrna Blyth.

But why are there only six, not 600 conservative women on the list? And what about conservative men? Are the conservative no-shows intimidated or merely complacent? Why haven’t the mainstream conservative organizations come out four-square against radical feminism?

To be sure, one reason is that the conservative movement has become beholden to the electoral imperatives of the Republican party, fearing that any criticism of feminism might stir a backlash on election day. This fear is misplaced, however, as only a quarter of American women call themselves feminist, and 22% of women say that being called a feminist would be an “insult.”

Another reason is that many conservative men – especially politicians and newspaper editors — confuse ladies-first chivalry with becoming water-carriers for the latest feminist myth-de-jour.
It’s time that these guys wise-up to the feminist bait-and-switch. These gals claim to be the complete equals to men. But voice any doubts about their ideology, and they lapse into a pathetic cocoon of hurt feelings.

And then there are those ladies who claim to be straight-laced conservatives, but bristle with an anti-male hostility or spread poisonous gender myths.

Take conservative columnist Suzanne Fields who had the habit of making nasty asides about men. Finally her readers objected en masse, their letters appearing under an editorial headline that took exception to Fields’ “Anti-Male Diatribe.”

And then there’s marriage maven Maggie Gallagher who never passes on the opportunity to diss men. Once Gallagher claimed that, “battering is largely a male prerogative, the way a tiny fraction of evil men seek to control the women they sleep with.”
Really, Mrs. Gallagher?

Try telling that to the family of Dennis McGlothin of Peoria County, Ill., who last week was run over and killed by his ex-wife Krystle. Just to make her point, the woman also rammed his pickup truck and smashed his windows.

This case is not an aberration. Psychologist Renee McDonald has found that American wives are twice as likely as their husbands to engage in severe domestic violence.

A few months ago Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden reflected on the feminist opportunists who seize on military sex scandals to push for women in front-line combat positions. Prudent ridiculed the flat-footed military brass as “Powerful men who know better are unable to stand up to the stamp of little feminist feet.”
It’s time that conservatives found the moral courage and personal gumption to say ‘no’ to the latest feminist demands, lest we bequeath to our children and grandchildren an unruly and emasculated culture.

11-22-2006 09:07 AM

Re: Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?
Regular Contributor
Feminism and their inability to grasp the most basic parts of Mathematics has become a lethal combination!!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!

11-26-2006 02:48 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Risk your life for your country today

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Risk your life for your country today

Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor
pay alimony and leave your house tomorrow, so that your wife can be f*cked in your bed by her bfs after she got rid of you. Seriously it boggles my mind how can a boy risk his life for America. They need guys who know nothing about anything. Must be why the average age in Army and Marines is nearing the levels of Hilters Youth.

11-21-2006 10:22 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor

i agree with part of your statement and don’t agree with another part.

the guys that sign up to join the military are usually just as smart (if not smarter), than the general population.  they are voluntarily signing up and getting paid  for their services (which i admire).  i doubt that the precious career women that noer orginally wrote about could hold a candle to these guys and what they do out in the field of battle.

now as far as risking one’s life for america.. it depends on the reason.  if the reason is to defend my freedom and the freedom of my family, then i’d be willing to do it.  if the reason is to go to war and set women free in other countries (or even here), then no i wouldn’t do it.  i’m not willing to put my life out there for women who in turn would use it against men (i.e. courts, divorces, etc).

11-21-2006 10:38 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor
By not knowing nothing about anything I was referring to life experience or even knowing the enviroment they live in, not about intelligence and school performance. I doubt a 17-20 year old did look into marriage divorce and feminism to the point of beeing sickend of how the system is stacked against him. Of course he might sign up to defend country and family, I just wonder if the average GI would be as willing if he had the knowledge and made the realizations the guys on here have, did.

11-21-2006 10:51 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor

no problem cassius.. thanks for the clarification

11-21-2006 11:10 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor
I have two Sons in the Military. One in Special Forces the other a Marine on his Fourth Combat Tour in Iraq. He is a Lance Corporal, his photo is hanging on the wall behind me. In his Dress blues. His Great Uncle fought at Iowa Jima, Korea, and two Tours in VietNam. That is part of his family’s heritage. Two Brothers came from Rotterdam in 1749 on the Ship Posana. Into Philadelphia and fought with the Calloway Mounted Regiment in Kentucky to free this nation. Their descendents have been defending this Republic ever since.

On the Mother’s side of the Family. Their Grandfather and Great Uncles fought with the Marines at Tarawa, Okinawa, and at Midway. They are also descendants of Judge Roy Bean. One was in the Service when 911 happened. The other quit a $60,000 a year job to serve the Nation. The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the demographic make up of our front line people, shows they are better educated than the Average Citizens, predominately White, and not the losers John Kerry claims.

Perhaps you should inform yourself of the facts before spouting off nonsense. Their younger Brother intends to join the Army. He wants to be an Army Ranger. His Great Uncle was in WW2, his other Uncle was in the 101st and fought at Bastogne, another Uncle was killed at Anzio, another on D-Day. I have respect for those who serve to defend the nation. Neither of my Sons is fighting for Halliburton, Feminism, or the New World Order.

11-22-2006 02:19 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor
I wasnt talking in direspect of Gis or your sons, quite the opposite. When grandpa returned from world war he returned to a country that valued his sacrifice a wife that respected nutured and supported him and I bet he did never regret serving his country or asked himself what he risked his life for. Now how do you think your sons are going to feel if divorce hits, witht he system walking all over them, about the risks they took for their country that basically stabs them in their back now, maybe even jailing them because of unpayed child support while some bad boy does their ex wife.

11-22-2006 10:36 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor
No argument there Brother. Family Court Judges have taken children away from Military Fathers while they were engaged in Combat. In both Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a fundamental betrayal of their sacrifices for this Republic. And one reason the GOP (Geriatric Oppulent Pedophiles) don’t deserve your vote. The GOP has done not a **bleep** thing to support Military Fathers. Zilch, Nada, Gar Nichts.

11-23-2006 08:58 AM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
I think that America has moved well beyond the point where men’s status as first class citizens can be peacefully restored. It’s time American men realize that in America they’re second class citizens, just like blacks in the South were before the civil rights movement, and the only way to get back their first class status is to let the country collapse, or be taken over by muslims. It’s very sad, but unfortunately, there is no, and can never be a relatively peaceful movement, similar to the civil rights movement in the 1960’s whereby men can achieve equal rights in America again, because women are simply not rational creatures that can be reasoned with, and will not give up their first class status voluntarily.

11-25-2006 10:46 AM

Re: Risk your life for your country today
Regular Contributor
If a men movement would come along the situation could change like feminism did it for the women. You are right though if men would go on strike they sure would have a problem. Men will not even have to be told to be selfish and think only of themselfs. If wifey plays hubby she plays her sons as well and if it keeps escalating we will be surrounded by your kevin Federline type of guys who will not lift a finger to defend their country.

11-26-2006 08:53 PM

Re: Risk your life for your country today

My husband does what he wants. I don’t treat him like some child or lesser person. I don’t have any dominance or supremacy over him, that’s ludicrous. I love him and I want him to be happy. He wants the same thing for me. To put it simply, there’s plenty of freedom and respect for BOTH of us to be ‘first class citizens’.

We’ve both been in the military, and gotten OUT after our three years. I hope very much that your sons are safe in their duties.

01-09-2007 12:12 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism

How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism
Regular Contributor
By David R. Usher

Feminists absolutely cannot stand the healthy moral values of marriage, family, and fatherhood.

Feminist political players have always tended to take strong oppositional positions on issues of importance. None are based against a reasonable yardstick of moral, ethical, or social behavior.

The latest political trick applied by institutionalized feminists to scare the public away from healthy legislation is to claim that realists are “absolutist.” This word instantly dredges up visions of boorish male dictators, thus derailing meaningful debate into a trench-battle in a swamp that few realists can recover from.

We can now officially add the word “absolutism” to the unabridged Institutional Feminist dictionary. This repository of social terrorism includes other favorite bludgeons such as “intolerance,” “stigma,” “diversity,” ‘patriarchal,” “sexist,” “woman-hater,” and “abuser.”

Absolutism is not limited to spherical feminists (a “spherical feminist” is a person who is a feminist no matter what side you view them from). Conservatives have more than their share of practicing institutional feminists.

For example, former-Senator John Danforth dropped the “divisive” bomb in an attempt to make gay clerics and marriage an irrelevant issue for the Episcopal Church. Danforth is wrong: if practicing simple biblical principles becomes unimportant, the dictionary of institutionalized feminism has become the scripture for an irrelevant church. Not all battles are bad. This one should have been finished long ago. The Episcopal church should simply remove anyone attempting to sell the church into feminism and get on with life.

The unwillingness of Epicopalians to read the bible brought on the installation of the first feminist Bishop, who immediately opened the floodgates of hell by announcing that homosexuality is no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

The Episcopal Church is now an extension of the National Organization for Women. In taking this position, Katharine Jefferts Schori is preaching from the N.O.W. Times, which in 1988 declared, “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”

Mark Alexander, an Episcopalian brother of Danforth, operates the self-proclaimed Conservative Journal of Record. Alexander insists that father-absence was caused by “male abdication,” after admitting that divorce was caused by feminists. He should know better: David Blankenhorn’s theory about father-absence was thoroughly debunked long ago. More than half of all husbands are thrown out of their families, as Alexander states, “without any claim of abandonment, infidelity or abuse.” Perhaps he would also blame the holocaust on the Jewish people?

Danforth and Schori are effectively supporting the aggressive lesbian take-over of the institution of marriage and the Episcopal Church itself. Those who actually read the bible are supposed to sit on their hands quietly or be called “absolutist.” Alexander is supporting this take-over passively, by falsely declaring men’s interest in marriage to be so weak as to be meaningless, leaving it open to co-option by lesbian-feminists who now fully intend to remove men from marriage and family entirely.

A “rationalization” is the practice of inventing socially-acceptable excuses for socially-unacceptable behavior. These frail, often-emotional, relativist indulgences melt before lucid moral standards such as “Thou shalt not kill,” or “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” These are but two of the many behavioral yardsticks hated by radical feminists who feel it is reasonable to kill babies and terminate marriages and husbands at-will.

Twenty years ago, feminists realized that it was necessary to take over all major religions in order to eliminate pesky moral yardsticks. Only a handful of churches have not yet been devastated or severely compromised.

The plan backfired on feminists in the Catholic Church. Their idea: since gays could be ministers, feminists could sue the institution for what gays do inside the Church, and put it out of business. The Vatican is finally standing its ground, removing gays and speaking against feminism after finding out what gay feminist ministers do when given power. If the Episcopalian grassroots cannot find the moral resolve to clean house now, perhaps the lessons of the Catholic Church will change their minds quickly.

Feminists failed broaching the Muslim faith. Indeed, one of the reasons Muslim countries see western cultures as being threatening is due to the fact that all western cultures are radically feminist. We insist on exporting absolutist feminism via every possible channel, and then wonder why Muslims are ready for war against the evil West. Do not mistake me: I am not saying we deserved to be attacked. I am saying that it could easily have been avoided had we said “No” to radical feminism in the 1960’s.

We fear it is a rude insult to the American melting pot when American Muslim women wear a chador. It is not. It is a rejection of feminism. We should take this seriously, and clean our own house of the absolutist feminism that Muslims of both sexes so correctly reject.

When relativists drop the “A” bomb, it is always a ruse to crowbar the creation of immoral policy and law. In the absolutist-feminist playbook, “cooperation” means absolute submission to absolutist perspectives. Any disagreement with feminist mandates is “abusive.” They vociferously declare that conflict is always verboten unless it involves feminists waging war on morals, marriage or fatherhood.

There is no “middle ground”, as Danforth suggests. We are either a moral society or we are not. Feminists win simply by poking one hole in morality, from which Hell spews quickly.

V-Day luna-chicks entirely disregard the fact that women initiate slightly over half of all serious domestic violence. Their circus of emotional rants, demanding guilty-ridden reparations by post-Victorian feminist males, continues to successfully terrorize Congress into funding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As Dr. Steve Baskerville points out, VAWA is the most powerful weapon in the feminist arsenal, most often misused to destroy heterosexual marriage and fatherhood in a complete absence of fact.

Politicians and policy makers must avoid ideological feminist stumbling blocks at all costs. My recommendation: never get into arguments with feminists. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. You can’t get caught if you do not bite the emotional bait.

In public debate, we must calmly stand our ground and simply point out that sound moral and social principles are mainstream values that most Americans ascribe to in every respect. We can easily force entitled radicals to battle on our turf. The benefits of marriage far outweigh the tremendous social costs and damage caused by feminist policy. Radicality becomes self-evident if one is wise enough to quietly allow it to hang itself publicly. Feminists have little traction in the public sphere. They succeed only by making politicians think they do.

Now, it is my turn to drop the “A” bomb on liberal feminists, who “are the absolutists.” They absolutely cannot stand the healthy moral values of marriage, family, and fatherhood. They will say anything to scare or threaten politicians and religions into doing what they demand.

We have only one option: we must stand firmly against all aspects of institutional feminism, or heterosexual marriage and fatherhood will be replaced in both the secular and ecclesiastical worlds by entitled marriages between Murphy Browns under the insidious connivance of “equal rights for lesbian women.” Any politician, policy maker, or church leader who cannot rise to this necessary duty must necessarily be removed from positions of authority.

11-21-2006 06:24 PM

Re: How Feminist Absolutism Drives Moral Relativism

Great article! In here, the Violence Against Womens Act is mentioned which not by coincidence was championed in Oregon for passage dishonestly and under the radar from the public through a prominant lesbian legislator!

06-19-2007 04:05 AM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers