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
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?
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?
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
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
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.”
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
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
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"