I'm a woman, but I'm not a feminist.

Not at all; not even one tiny bit.

I've got NO sympathy for the so-called "women's movement,"

When I say things like that to a lot of people, especially women, they look at me with a mixture of horror, embarrssment and disbelief. It's as if I'd said some dirty word in church or something. Saying I don't believe in feminism when I'm a woman, according to some "feminist thinkers," supposedly makes me a "gender traitor."

A gender traitor? Blimey! And I didn't even know men and women were at war! I thought we were both supposed to be part of the whole cosmic thing, the greater scheme of things and all that.

I had no idea we were supposed to be enemies!

Anyway, what exactly do feminists want? Let's take a brief overview of what they say they want. These are not in any particular order by the way.

1 Equality
2 Equal opportunity
3 An end to domestic violence
4 An end to rape
5 Affirmative action
6 Positive discrimination
7 Separate but equal treatment
8 Abortion on demand
9 Female empowerment
10Ban on pornography

There are others which some want and not all feminists agree on even some of the 10 I've quoted but that's the broad brush stroke of what they say they want.

Let's begin by pointing out some obvious contradictions and redundancies.

If a society is equal then obviously equal opportunity is part of that so point 2 is redundant. If a society is equal then points 5, 6 and 7 are in direct CONFLICT with what they claim they want. Point 9 also seems a bit iffy if you believe in equality,

Most people (including most MEN) would broadly agree with them about rape and domestic violence. There's two problem there though IMO.

The first is that the definition of both has been stretched so widely that they've lost any meaning they might have had once. There's a lunatic fringe of the feminists which is now calling for consensual sex between a man and a woman to be a criminal offence unless the guy is able to produce written consent to sex by the woman! Not just in general, either; a specific written consent to each and every act of sex. Otherwise the guy can be charged with rape!

How crazy is that? Maybe we should just get a lawyer standing in line in every bedroom with a written contract drawn up and the guy signs it every time he wants to have sex!

And it's "gender discrimination" in any case because there's no corresponding obligation on the woman to sign this paper stating that the man was a willing participant! Would that mean that a woman could now get away with rape but a man can't even have consensual sex with his own partner without drawing up a legal document first?

Utter madness!

And, of course, the likes of Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and others have argued that unless the woman directly initates and controls the act of sex then even consensual sex is rape!

So let's get this right; if the man initiates and controls the sex it's rape but if the woman does it isn't?

Yeah, right.

Funny how all that talk about equality and equal opportunities went out of the window, isn't it?

The whole idea of "separate but equal" treatment is a heap of lies. That's what the segregationists in the south used to argue they had in terms of the treatment of African-Americans and the Supreme Court rhrew it out as unconstitutional. Yet again and again I've seen that exact phrase used by feminists to justify a more privileged position in society for women.If

That equality thing again, right?

Funny how much it reminds me of "Animal Farm" where Orwell gets the main character to say "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others!"

The fact is that the feminist claims to equality are a lie. They don't want equal treaament; they want a privileged status for women and for the law and society to favour women more than men.

Well, ladies, that might be your gynocratic utopia but there's no way it's anything resembling either equality or equal opportunity!

The same thing goes for "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" programmes. If you appoint the person you genuinely feel is the best for the job regardless of gender, skin colour or whatever that's being non-discriminatory., If you have quota systems where you force employers or whatever to choose a less capable person simply because of their gender or skin colour or whatever that's just being racist or sexist and there's nothing "positive" about what you're doing. Once again, the feminist claim that they want equality is just a lie.

The rape question is more complex. I know my views on rape are unconventional to put it mildly so I'll just argue with feminism from the mainstream point of view.

Rape, according to the law, is a sexual act carried out against the wishes of the other person and without their consent. Men can rape women or other men and women can rape men or other women. The issue of consent is crucial in establishing whether or not a sexual act was an act of rape or a consensual encounter.

Now in normal criminal cases like if you're accused of stealing something (probably the nearest legal parallel to rape) the court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit the act of theft. There's a presumption of innocence, the need to produce hard evidence and (ideally) eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you did it.

In rape cases, all this is stood on its head. There's no requirement for eyewitness testimony (obviously that's often difficult so we can let that one go)' the burden of proof is shifted from the accuser to the defendant so instead of her having to prove that he did rape her, he is compelled to try and prove tha the didn't; there's a presumption of guilt; due process is routinely ignored or set aside; and no hard evidence against the defendant has to be produced. Routinely, innocent men are sentenced to prison for crimes they didn't commit, as DNA tests have subsequently shown. Out of the men in the US who've been CONVICTED of rape and served time in prison and then subsequently got DNA testing, 60% turned out to have been NOT guilty. In other words, they not only hadn't raped the woman; they couldn't have raped her. The only reason the man was sent to prison was because the woman lied about what had happened.

So, OK, the woman lied about being raped. What happens to her? 9 times out of 10, nothing at all. At worst she might get a slap on the wrist. Once in a blue moon one will get sent to prison for about 5 minutes but that's rare. Yet she's c learly guilty of perjury and reckless endangerment by her lying about what happened. So why should she get a free pass?

Then there's the question of "anonymity." The feminists claim that it's essential for the identity of the accuser, or as they habitually refer to her, the "rape victim," to be protected.

Fine, let's go with that. But what about the accused? Why doesn't he get the same right to anonymity? Why is it OK to splash his name and photo all over the media but not hers? What's sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.

That old "eqaulity" thing again, right?

Once again we see feminists demanding special privileges for women that they deny to men. They are quite happy to violate due process, set aside the presumption of innocence, and allow "evidence" in rape cases that would be thrown out of court in other types of criminal trial. Why? Do they really want equality? Or do they just hate men?

There's also the fact that in 45% of cases in Britain where the woman goes to the police and it's investigated, it's found out during the course of the enquiry that the woman is lying about being raped. That means that nearly half of the cases brought to the attention of the cops are phoney raps.On top of that in 53% of cases where she makes an accusation and then withdraws it, investigation shows that, once again, she was lying about being raped.

Now I'm no greatr mathematician but whatever way you look at those statistics they add up to the same thing. Most claims by women that they were raped are false and downright lies.

So why do people believe in this vast conspiracy of rapists that the feminists put about? Search me! I guess it's partly a genuine fear of crime, fear to the point of paranoia; partly because we've been brainwashed by lies; and partly just salacious interest. Whatever, the facts simply don't support the feminist claims on rape and nor do they provide any excuse for the feminist subversion of due process, the presumption of innocence and lowering the bar for evidence and testimony in "rape" trials.

Out of the cases that DO come to court, in 40% of them it's shown either at the trial or subesequently that, guess what, once again the woman was lying about what happened. No crime, except maybe domestic violence, is more often lied about than rape. Women use it as a weapon to intimidate a man they've fallen out with, as an excuse for their shame at the consensual sex they had, or even to cover up some other offence that they, not the man, committed.

On top of that even when an accused man can show beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not rape the woman he can still be convicted and sent to prison solely on the unsupported word of his accuser. That old equality again, right? Crime labs routinely knowingly falsify the results of DNA tests and other forensic items that are entered into evidence and lead to the conviction of wholly innocent men. Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Ma nhattan DA's office, says that 50% of the rape cases she dealt with were based on unfounded accusations and were entirely baseless. In other words, half of the claims just in the cases she dealt with were nothing more than malicious lies! Although they're reluctant to publicise the fact, the majority of cases investigated by the Innocence Project concern allegations of rape.

Even when the claims of rape are so clearly false, feminists still maintain their fantasies in violation of the truth. In one notorious case a student at a university in America eventually admitted that she'd lied about being raped by a male student (they hadn't even HAD sex!) and a "feminist thinker" commented, "well, maybe he didn't actually rape her, but he clearly violated her in some way." A VAssar assistant dean went even further, claiming that it was "good" for a man to be falsely accused of rape, since it forced him to think "well, if I didn't violate her, could I have done?"

Most rape accusations are lies and the same, sadly, is also true of "domestic violence." This is defined so loosely that almost anyone could be sent to prison for it. The U.S. Justice Department definition of "domestic violence" includes "extreme jealousy and possessiveness.," "name calling" and "constant criticizing." as acts of "domestic violence." On the basic of such fantastic claims, men in America are routinely jailed, often even without ever being brought to trial! .

Even worse, according to officially reported figures released by police, allegation of domesitc violence by women against men now stand s at a figure of 38%. Given the extreme reluctance of men to report abuse by their wives and girlfriends against them, senior police sources unofficially admit that the majority of domestic violence in Britain is now carried out agaist men by women. Yet where is the publicity for the cause of "batterd men?" Where are the shelters for thme to hide away from their abusers? #where is the rapid intervention by the police to arrest the woman before she kills or seriusly injures her man?

Well, where is it? Nowhere, of course. Under the posionous influence of feminism, men are slowly being turned into second class citizens.

What we hear instead is a relentless and dishonest chorus about violence by men against women when even the police admit that nowadays the majority of domestic violence cases are actually assaults by women upon men! As the innate chivalry of men, to say nothing of their social embarrasment at having to report their wife or girlfriend, makes them disproportiobately less likely to file a complaint, the police s7uspect that the true figures show that around 66% of actual domestic assaults are carried out by women against men, Yet neither the media nor government addresses or even discusses the problem in any way. Women habitually portray themselves as the victims and men are castigated as brutal abusers who are battering their partners almost non-stop.

Bad as the situation is in Britain, it is even worse in America. The law is stacked against the male defendant to such an extent that cases of domestic violence now resemble the "justice" system in countries like North Kore3a or Iran. One judge in New Jersey, for instance, told his fellow jurists, "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.”
Even the official court publications of New Jersey admit that due process is routinely ignored in domestic violence cases because "it perpetuates the cycle of power and control wherby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless." Look at the loaded language used as well - "perpetrator" and "victim" rather than "accused" and "defendant." The guilt is assumed simply because charges have been brought. The presumption of innocence, likd eue process, is chucked on the scrapheap. A New York "feminist" judge describes the removal of the presumption of innocence as forcing "batterrers and abusers take responsibility for their actions."

There are also Kafkaesque tribunals known as "integrated domestic violence courts" where the guilt of the defendant is automatically assumed and which have the power to seize property, including homes, even though the person accused has not been convicted or even charged with any offence. Nor is it necessary to allow them to be present at the "hearings" where such decisions are taken to defend himself , or represented by a lawyer at them. These "domestic violence courts" are deliberately set up to evade the constitutional rights of the citizen and even the existing criminal law with its guarantees of protection., The presumption is of guilt and not innocence, the burden of proof is done away with altogether, and it has become standard practice for "confessions" to be extorted from the accused by a variety of means.

Pennsylvania is in a class of its own when it comes to this issue. In that state, men are routinely arrested and held in custody until they sign a "confession" stating "I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man is then order to "descibe" his "violence," even if he insists that he did notr commit any. His "confession" also includes the words "I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.” If he does not sign these forms, he can be held indefinitely in prison, without any chafrge, until he does sign them.

So what we have is a situation where a man accused of domestic violence can be held in prison without charge, have his property and assets seized without trial, even if he insists on his innocence. If a man accuses his partner of the same offence, she will not be subjected to the same kind of treatment and is far less likely to be convicted if the case comes to court. And that's in spite of the fact that women are the aggressors in two-thirds of the cases!

And, of course, unlike the law in Britain, where the violence at least has to be physical, in the Stater you can be treated like this just on the basis of ""extreme jealousy and possessiveness.," "name calling" and "constant criticizing!."It's like the old days where a "nagging wife" could be subjected to the "scold's bridle" except that these days its' a "nagging husband!" .

That old feminist equality thing again, right? Yeah, right!

For all their gobby ranting about equality, feminists don't want it at all. They want to rule men in the same way the slaveowners ruled the slaves in the old days. They're gynocrats and not democrats. They compalin about patriarchy but want to institute a matriarchy.

The obvious incompatibility between affirmative action, positive discrimination and "separate but equal" claims with their boasted belief in equality is just total hypocrisy. They just want the hens to rool the roost.

Feminism is an essentially Nazi way of looking at the world. Feminists look on men in the same way the Nazis looked at the Jews and gypsies and they're every bit as ruthless, dishonest and indifferent to the sufferings of their victims. A lot of people don't know this but Nazi Germany was the first state where openly feminist women got positions of power. Guida Diehls, Lydia Gottschewski, Gertrude Scholtz-Klink wielded huge power, greater than any woman had had since the days of Catherine the Great or was to see again before Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher. Gottschweski, a loathsome racist and militarist, is listed on a feminist website as one of its "Women of Wisdoms" and coyly described as "a German political activits," though the site carefully avoids saying which ;party she was active on behalf of!

Feminism doesn't even respect women. It might hate and demonise men but its greatest contempt and hatred is reserved for what it calls, in a phrase reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan's "race traitors," "gender traitors." Women like me who are "just" mothers and wives are looked upon with total contempt, regarded as stupid, unambitious, lazy and as "perpetuating the patriarchal power structure."


Because these people are incapable of feeling love and compassion themselves, or tolerance for other points of view, or respect for other humans simply because we all share that rich humanity, they hate and demonise anyone who does.

The only "crime" of "gender traitor" me is the crime of love.

In the words of the poeet Pope, "is it, in heaven, a crime to love too well?"
Yes, Your Honour, I plead guilty to the crime of love.
As Luther said at his trial for heresy, "here I stand; I cannot do otherwise"