Archive for the ‘PORNALYSIS MISSION STATEMENT AND PURPOSE’ Category

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Have you heard of the battle between Jan Kruska and Petra Luna? Call me late to the game, but then again, the effects of women’s violence didn’t affect me until recently. Their story is old news, but it fits my thesis. I bumped into it when I was researching cyber-bullying and slander.

Jan and Petra are both caught up in the resurgence of the sex-negative/ sex positive movement, although they might not know it yet. As far as I can tell, they are the working class version of the academic porn wars that are waged today across the blogosphere.  They are also part of the problem in allowing women’s dialogues to go unheard–or put another way–we need to listen closer to women’s dialogues.

This battle gives us a glimpse of the sort of violence that women wage against each other, against children, and the sexual nature of those battles.

Jan was convicted some years ago of having sex with a teen-aged boy, so she became an advocate for her own causesex-offender registration. Petra is a vigilante who has declared a sort of mission to combat Jan’s mission . She is a Men’s Rights advocate with an organization devoted to helping men escape relationship, and women’s violence. I am no fan of MRA’s in general,  but I am an ardent advocate for the prosecution of female pedophiles at every single opportunity.

I can smell them a mile away--I have the same magical powers sniffing out female pedophiles that gender fems have sniffing out rapists— I also believe in equality, and so, I believe that men should have resources devoted to stopping violence against men and boys. But not devoted to religious vigilantes like Petra.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Petra has threatened, bullied, and harassed Jan online . And here is Jan’s response to the harrassment.(be careful not to get your eye poked out by that wild 80’s up-do).

I am by default, solidly against bullying, and I will not be bullied either. Who did what first? Always them: I keep records.

Patada

That's NOT a hacky sack!

But still, some feminists, and some in the LGBT/TS communities are often surprisingly silent about such harassment of women by women, much less men–they are first and foremost sworn to keep secrets, apparently. I also suspect that being vocal or truthful on the wider issues jeopardizes their identity somehow…

You can watch for yourself, and call your own shots in the battle. It’s been going on forever. When the issue is the abuse of children by women, most of the allied pro-woman community are dead silent. This reveals the extent of some women’s self righteousness in harassing and labeling others, at the expense of truth, or justice, as well as where such dialogues are headed–the sliding scale–the filtering–of women’s truth to the wider audience, about women’s violence against each other, and children.

I suspect that at the root of such dialogues there are many secrets, one woman to the next, that have nothing to do with men or patriarchy, and these secrets shared between women are what create rapists and other ‘criminals.’

But no one wants to look at that yet–there’s just too much money to be made kicking straw-men in the balls all the time, and forming organizations and getting ‘funding’ by keeping that dialogue quiet right now.

Related articles

America Loves Men--dead men, that is.

Duane Buck couldn’t have a more tragically ironic name than “Buck” considering how white men and women used, capitalized upon, hunted, and exploited ‘black bucks’  and how some white women today still refer to black men  in some way that echoes as ‘big black bucks’ in attempts to re-capitalize upon that racist image.

America has long loved it’s men to death, and Duane Edward Buck is about to get some love, American style. In fact, being a lovable man requires that you are willing to die–and you are more lovable if you are dead.

BIG BLACK BUCK, an examination of black buck stereotype,by Donnie from 2003. “Mama’s little baby is the backbone of that order.”

The death penalty is no exception to the truism of dead men. Here is the pecking order of who gets to be loved to death by Americans, and especially as concerns the death penalty.

race chart 1

CLICK HERE FOR MORE STATISTICS

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION OF CLEMENCY FOR BUCK.

America also has a sliding scale of ‘privileges’ based on race, class, and gender’ that puts all men at the very top of the list when it comes to being loved to death. It is a male privilege to be more likely to face the death penalty.

Of all who do and will face death and or incarceration in America, only white females are a protected class who seldom if ever are suspects in crime, or violence. All other categories of people face threats to their lives and their health daily.

Most juries are overwhelmingly white, and white women are disproportionately represented in the jury pools.

White men fill death row in greater numbers, yet Ethnic men or black men,  are MORE likely to get the death penalty, and even more likely to get it if their victim is a white and female. However, men who are willing to die to uphold white female privilege get extra points, and extra nookie cookies for their efforts at upholding white female privilege, at least while they are alive.

Buck, like thousands of men before him, was “unfairly sentenced to death based on testimony that was racially tainted by psychologist Walter Quijano [a Latino], who repeatedly told juries that black or Hispanic defendants were more likely to commit future crimes.

“That he made a career of such testimony would ultimately earn him a denunciation by the American Psychiatric Association. His reputation was further sullied when his pronouncements turned out to be dead wrong,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

To get an idea of how bad or evil Quijano is, keep in mind that almost all definitions of ‘what is a crime/or a criminal,’ define purportedly male behavior, and stem from the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-4 categorizations.

Or, in other words, the APA , which was once headed by Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron who notoriously tortured mental patients, is not only a sexist organization, but one whose foundational basis and definitions of crime, behavior, and mental illness has at times broken all known ethical guidelines by experimenting on human beings like lab rats, torturing them, and testing drugs on them.

Which makes Buck look like he deserves a shot at life, and the system that convicted him pretty guilty. But it makes Quijano look like just another Adolf Eichmann, doing his job from within his own set of b dangerous, predatory  personal biases.

Related articles

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Have you heard of the Dear Woman campaign, which stems from the Manifesto for Conscious Men? The idiocy of a generation of middle class white people who are suffering from gynorhea after consorting with the feminist monolith, is palpable only when I watch this crap.

Here are some middle class, sensationalist gender panderers; the Oprafied, nutless mangina’s responsible, from Franc Hoggle’s site greylining.wordpress.com

  • Gay Hendricks, Oprah Winfrey regular and founder of the Hendricks Institute, who abandoned academic life for the goldmine of the self-help industry for the feeble minded. Also a pioneer in Radiance Breathing Meditation, which has earned him a series of honourable mentions at Quackwatch.

At first pass I was fully expecting the queen of man haters, John Stoltenberg2, to have been the captain of this ship, but he is not credited.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The campaign is a bunch of men apologizing for all men for the stuff that men do–even if they didn’t do it: “I may not have done bad things to you myself, many of the men who abused you may not be living; on behalf of my gender, I apologize for what religions created a thousand years ago have done to you….I apologize to you…” blahblahblah.

*puke* puke* puke* Franc Hoggle is still wiping up his dungeon floor after this vomit soaked male-apologist B.S.

The only thing more pathetic than this kind of sabotage of reality, and real human centered activism IS MAYBE A PICTURE OF FABIO ON THE COVER OF A ROMANCE NOVEL, LAYING NEXT TO A DILDO ON OPRAH’S QUEEN SIZED JACUZZI.

But fortunately, Will Ferrell is there to give us hope.

And the reply from fake guru Ardagh to Ferrell:

I can’t add anything other than what has already been said by others. Here is a good from someone responding to the video above:

“Oh yea, anger and resentment. Let me tell you what this really is about….dollar dollar bill y’all…The next step in the strategy of the “Dear Woman” campaign would most likely be to capture as many of the audience and convince them that through a modest contribution they would be absolved of all past transgressions as an authorized “Conscious man”. for a mere 19.95 + tax and shipping….gimme a break. posted by: chameleoncass”

Below is yet another reply from Ardagh and Hendricks, milking the Will Ferrell connection for all it is worth:

Comment: “thanks Will Ferrell for your ability to recognize the humor in this con.”

And here is the actual video–try not to laugh at the asinine whining of these idiots, and have an airplane bag ready for the barf afterwards.

“Based on the “Manifesto for Conscious Men,” a collectively-written document from a number of men who feel deep appreciation for the gifts of the feminine as a balance to those of the masculine. This document acknowledges many thousands of years of dominance of masculine power, and offers an apology for the suppression of women, in the spirit of a fresh start. The authors do not advocate the domination of men by women or feminine energy, but feel that a balance and equal respect for both energies will allow for a new wave of evolution on our planet.”

Cover of "I AND THOU (Scribner Classic)"

Cover of I AND THOU (Scribner Classic)

Ich-Du: I and it; I and Thou by Austrian philosopher Martin  “Mordechai” Buber, is a book about object relations. I think he was talking about objectification more profoundly than Freud, and more clearly and intuitively than any feminist, ever, with the possible exception of Julia Kristeva–who also ‘get’s it,” when she manages to extricate herself from the word mangler.

The major theme of Buber is that humans find meaning in relationships. As a religious person, he felt that all relations could be understood from an object, subject perspective, “I’ and “It”, whatever that it may be to the one defining or discerning the relation,  and that the final unknowable, infinitely incomprehensible relationship was one with G-d, or “I” and “Thou.”

His G-d was a patriarchal G-d, one that could easily be understood by anyone; his paradigm a simple paradigm: I understand what I can understand, and once named or understood, the I becomes an it. In I to thou, however, thou can never be understood fully, and thus never fully objectified.

The last several decades have us wondering about the ‘objectification of women’ due in large part to feminist theory. My personal illusion of their ‘objectives’ was once that I envisioned feminists as human rights advocates, and companions in a struggle for equality, rather than as cold blooded murderers, collaborators with International banksters, and imprisoners of male bodies.

I was wrong, but not their fault–my own, for I trusted their cause, blindly.

Like it or not, want it or not, we have all been ‘subjected’ to the feminist ‘object’ paradigm by women who “object” to what they see as a patriarchal society. Yet their objection is/was notably silent about kyriarchal relations, and the paradigm I was presented of patriarchy is inherently–deceptively flawed.

Or, in simple terms, by co-opting, and ‘naming’ patriarchs and patriarchal concepts, feminism renders patriarchy as an “it” rather than as a “thou”, while rendering the world in reverse.

In simpler terms, objectifying men.

And in this generation, the kyriarchs were marching on your perceptions before you even knew what hit your father–your patriarchal Saint Not-Present-Enough (so they tell you-ever-wonder-why?), dearest Dad. They were all sleeping with your mother while he was away. But  patriarchs like Martin Buber, und Sigmund had been busy not long before– busy defining object relations, rather than being merely subjected to them.

And if feminism got one thing right about waging brutality, it was in that co-option of the power of naming, and in thus ‘taming’ of what they felt ‘objectified them’ and rendered them as “it’s” instead of “thou’s”. And it gave them the basis to wage war as women. And no century, ever, has seen more war or death than the last one.

So, no matter how smarmy, mid-to-late-month funky, or how finally fragrant or chastened that paradigm is to you, it is a paradigm that you have been face to face with, whether you know it, wanted it, or not. Think “Oprah Winfrey,” and discussions about the privilege of excess fatness; or the View, and the letter V, on “V-Day”. They are the matriarchy TO the patriarchy, the other half of war and death–that other V-Day.

Men as subjects to objectified women; subjective reality versus objective reality. Objectified realities, subjecting subjects to objectification. Subjectively, I object…

Shit–even I am confused. Maybe I, too, schlepped[sic] with my mother too long??

It’s in your face one way or another, and not because you asked for it. It’s there because you have been subjected to it, beyond your powers to just “turn it off,” because it’s everywhere.

It is an object lesson gone wild.

Having the big V in your face is not necessarily a bad thing, if that’s what you go in for, and Oprah–even with her billions–is kind of-?- vagiriffic- except the part where she and they all conveniently left out any mention of kyriarchy, and consent–yours; for your child’s future or present. And all that before you even know what hit you.

Now there’s a paradigm that has some teeth–and not just the kind of tooth that craves fresh chomped testicle, either, because after all, they are using your kids in wars all over the world ( I don’t have stats, or facts and figures about Oprah’s money–if anyone has that I would kiss your belly button for them).

Kyriarchy suggests that all people have relative power–some women have more power than some men; some men with massive cash have less power than women with big…big…umm, ideas, for instance.

Throw out patriarchy! Throw out oppression! Throw out…morality( a construction of patriarchy…)?!

Big ideas like waging illegal war in Libya under the foreign policy of single mother raised Barak Obama, and his foreign policy wonk, Hillary Clinton–after all, the patriarchs do it too! Never mind higher ground, or silly morals. Kyriarchy demands that we get to the top of the pyramid, using whatever tools are required to get there–power is not centered at the top.

Jennifer Lopez, and her war against sperm donor Mark Anthony, for instance, is an object lesson in kyriarchy, as the two are divorcing.  Who couldn’t have predicted that preying mantis to mantis outcome? After all, any man worth his beans wouldn’t have knocked her up except for the money–she’s worth twice as much as he is, and her sexuality is inherently more marketable.

The paradigm of patriarchy does notapply, as she likely has more power in one phone call to her sugar daddy than Anthony could ever have in a Mexican disco.

A crippled person from any American suburb on television talking about the disabled has more power than a legless boy on a push scooter who sells Chicles’ in Juarez, Mexico,or Oaxaca for example.

A woman–a white housewife in the suburbs of America has more security than say a little Latino boy whose sole caregiver is a crack-head mom.

In kyriarchy, power is flexible and situational.

Some illicit channels of communication have more direct access or control over power than other, traditional, accepted forms of communication; think Gloria Steinem licking Henry Kissinger‘s balls in her posh town-home in New York, as she prepares for another CIA-feminism funded blitzkrieg of the airwaves to convince all the young girls that she is some sort of Che Guevara, rather than a CIA operative who has lived a posh life-with Henry Kissinger as a consort.

Matriarchy in bed with patriarchy is not feminism.It is kyriarchy.

Think male drug crime convict, or prisoner has less power to speak out than any white female at a drug addicts shelter who he once ‘dated’, or anyt creature with a vagina having more credibility in a court-room in a domestic violence hearing.

She, and object of pity, and achieved victim status–an addict, an understandable “it.” But the prisonewho once dated her? A double and unspeakable “it.” Worse than an it–in fact, an “other than it.” because ‘we don’t know what he is capable of’. And certainly not a thou.

I personally give the credit to Martin Buber in this dialogue, because he was the first who ever explained to me the importance of object relations.

And I think feminists have selfishly inserted their object reality into the reality of others. They are like big dicks, raping dialogues.

“I and Thou,” he told me.* You’re an “it” they told me.

I–conceivable self-object–product of the nearly inconceivable, but approachable all powerful subject. That, pendant only upon my disbelief, or the needle in my own hand at the ballocks.

But here below are some notes attempting to point out the shifting sands of the heirarchy of kyriarchy, messed up even by Mazlows standards of order, and certainly in the feminist paradigm, it seems they missed a few details, or just skipped to the front of the line when it comes to the rank order of objects.
1)non-objects, yet to be realized.
2)manifestation of object, percieved through abject  (as per Kristeva for instance) into recognition of physical object
3)gendered/classed/racialized/sexualized object
sex object: does ex come before the staus of sex? or for that metter, the violence inherent in sex? Violence, a pendulum from genetic material/entrapment of men to rape of women?
4)status object: status can be from multiple sources, and symbolized in multiple ways
5)ritual object: objects given meaning or ascribed meaning by the hoi polloi, those objects sacred, sometimes above indivdual objects or individual relations.
6) violence object: male bodies and tools used against life
music/art/object; status symbols or internal devices mad external? Or, are these objects
7) object object [first? reverse the order?]

8)?????

=====================================================

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Buber’s main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:
that of the “I” towards an “It”
, towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience;
and that of the “I” towards “Thou”, in which we move into existence in a relationship without bounds.

From 1910 to 1914, Buber studied myths and published editions of mythic texts. In 1916 he moved from Berlin to Heppenheim. During World War I he helped establish the Jewish National Commission in order to improve the condition of Eastern European Jews. During that period he became the editor of Der Jude (German for “The Jew“), a Jewish monthly (until 1924). In 1921 Buber began his close relationship with Franz Rosenzweig. In 1922 Buber and Rosenzweig co-operated in Rosenzweig’s House of Jewish Learning, known in Germany as Lehrhaus.[6]

In 1923 Buber wrote his famous essay on existence, Ich und Du (later translated into English as I and Thou). Though he edited the work later in his life, he refused to make substantial changes. In 1925 he began, in conjunction with Franz Rosenzweig, translating the Hebrew Bible into German. He himself called this translation Verdeutschung (“Germanification”), since it does not always use literary German language but attempts to find new dynamic (often newly invented) equivalent phrasing in order to respect the multivalent Hebrew original. Between 1926 and 1930 Buber co-edited the quarterly Die Kreatur (“The Creature”).[7]

End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

We know that there are definitional biases and gender discrepancies when it comes to recognizing,and diagnosing child abuse. But emerging research and cohort studies are lifting a twenty year embargo against discussing gender and race in re-examining both gender of perpetrators, and redefining ‘what is sexual abuse.’

For instance, it is common to examine girls for every range of possibility of sexual abuse, but no special procedures that differentiate sexual abuse of boys that was perpetrated by specifically women– like saliva analysis, or  bruising caused by objects, or a child’s exposure to other forms of female behavior that would qualify as sexual abuse.

And boys are less likely to be asked if women, girls, mothers, aunts, and/or female caretakers physically or sexually abused them.

It is also certain more often than not, that any boy who has been sexually abused by a female is less likely to self-report that fact, and by inference of all data, it is  more likely that any hospital visit will have a female caretaker present, which can intimidate self reporting of sexual and physical abuse.

It is well known that abuse victims cannot and will not expose their abuser if the abuser is standing next to them. And most abusers of children have primary custodial control of the child, meaning the child is wholly stifled at knowing how to express the abuse they have endured.

But some are asking another question: does race get in the way of boys reporting their sexual abuse at large, and specifically their sexual abuse by women? I think it does, and I am not alone–anymore..

“Child maltreatment is a significant problem within US society, and minority children have higher rates of substantiated maltreatment than do white children. However, it is unclear whether minority children are abused more frequently than whites or whether their cases are more likely to be reported. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there are racial differences in the evaluation and Child Protective Services (CPS) reporting of young children hospitalized for fractures.”

While it is likely that historic institutionalized racism is a factor that can explain higher diagnostic success of detecting abuse in black children, it is also a possibility that observer bias ( nurses, doctors, emergency room personell) gets in the way, because white women are seldom if ever suspects–ever–in crime.

Other minority groups have their own profile issues to contend with, but beyond the biased definitional basis for ‘what is abuse,’ beyond the stereotype of male, race is a factor.

It’s not necessarily that black people abuse their children at any higher rates than white people, but rather that suspects, and suspicions of child abuse perpetrated by white people are often downplayed because of racial profiling. Whites are always “less suspect”–and white women in particular–who are the primary caretakers of children–are almost never suspected of any crimes, much less child abuse.

Yet men of all races are constantly primary suspects. They even have a gendered epithet that applies to this profile: the boogieMAN.

I suspect that it’s time to re-visit the race and child abuse question, and redefine ‘what is a suspect,’ for the sake of the children, and the future.

Note to self: put this on the white female privilege checklist.


This critical paper by Susanne Dodillet and Petra Ostergren is a bedrock of critical analysis of the hypocrisy of gender feminist reality constructs, gate keeping, and selective truth telling, and an analysis of the sloppy science of sex-negative fauxminists. This and a host of other discrepancies in truth telling have sex positive feminists taking note of the drives of sex negative, gender feminist assaults against women’s rights.

Gender feminists are actively engaged in “marketing to women”, and women’s rights, while having a net effect of leveraging, and then actually “marketing women” or in the least, selling them to power and power structures, circumventing women’s rights, and choices and womens abilities to define themselves:
The study further emphasizes the discrepancy between gender and radical feminist interpretations of the data, which negates( renders negative) the reality that ACTUAL sex workers face. Academics, politicians, and social gatekeepers who make their living from talking about sex workers, or those claiming moral high ground by falsely claiming–and ironically paternalistically/ maternalistically*  claiming that they speak for all women do not accurately or honestly represent the anecdotal facts of the sex workers experiences or the views of society at large. Notice the prominence of a “marketing strategy” below:

Most notably, the research that gender feminists used to lobby for the law, and to circumscribe other women’s bodies was flawed, non-factual, sloppy, and typical of a trend in feminist literature, science, and statistical evidence creation.

Others have noted in the critique of the law that its foundation was marked by deception, and current work was looking at the typical and egregious gender feminist biases and-


Equity feminists and other social critics are not alone in noticing the “herding effect**” of gender feminist involvement in the rhetoric of choice, with a direct and linear goal of “controlling the sex supply***.”  Nor are women, sex workers, and ordinary observers alone in noticing that the net effect of such two-faced laws and the studies that are funded in their name is to benefit a few at the expense of many.

More insidiously, this particular crop of ‘feminists’ have a stated goal of harm reduction, but flagrantly cause harm, according to the Swedish social work model of harm reduction strategies in social work:

The Swedish Model of prostitution is a dismal failure because gender feminists seek to gain exclusive access to the courts, the laws, and women’s bodies by falsely, and harmfully manipulating data, selectively promoting sex for sale, and effectively, and detrimentally,  limiting sex workers rights and sexual choices.


Or, in other words, they sure are re a bunch of phoney dicks, chasing the skirts of women and children in Sweden.
*Microsoft spell checker recognizes paternalistically as a word, but DOES NOT recognize maternalistically as a word!  In the interests of fairness, spell checker also does not recognize the word “phoney”.

**Herding effect is when bulls, or cows cordon off a section of does/cows/ewes/females for selective breeding or dominance displays.

*** Sex Supply as defined by Donna Hughes, and others who seek to cordon off the herd.

Feminist suffrage parade in New York City, May...

Feminist Suffragettes parading in New York City. Wearing White was popular in the early part of the American century, with both feminists, and the Ku Klux Klan. Image via Wikipedia

Sweden isn’t just known for sex-negative feminism, and  false rape reporting anymore; they also persecute, and prosecute  legal sex workers.

Sweden, known for exports of  prudery, mackerel, lefsa, and now,  false feminism (fauxminism),  creates sex negative women like Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, who are only one or two pieces in a war against women and women’s sexual rights.

Swedish researchers Susanne Dodillet and Petra Östergren, point out in a recent study entitled The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Claimed Success and Documented Effects, that legislation that was designed to help women actually hurts them.

Anna Ardin is the woman who accused Julian Assange of rape. She is just one example of sex negative feminism in action.

As if Ardin and  Wilen’s false rape conspiracy againstJUlian Assange, and their collaboration with sexist, and police-state feminism weren’t enough, we now find that sex workers in Sweden are threatened by sex negative female leaders.

It seems that feminism(s)—are in the third wave of “attaining capital and harnessing the machinery of power” like all socialist communist movements, and feminism has come of age, repressing the rights, and criminalizing the behaviors of their own allies—the women in the trenches, who actually are the ‘product’ that is, in the Marxist paradigm ” directly for use.”

The problem is, all those gender feminists and radfems can’t seem to circumscribe women’s bodies enough to keep the sex supply in their own sweaty hands.[ here is a link to a very bitter and controlling Donna Hughes Sex Supply thesis]

Sofia Wilen scoping out her next victim,. This is the 'aha' moment when he realized it is THAT Sofia Wilen that he's been 'dating.'

.

In the case of Ardin and Wilen, and utilizing a gender feminist, lesbian prosecutor, they went to war against Wikileak’s and documents which demonstrated how the United States was deliberately killing journalists. But in their war against Assange, they also minimized the impact of the simple truth that being alive and ‘raped’ is better than being really, really dead—forever.

Have you ever noticed how the so-called feminists/fauxminists only seem to care about filing rape claims against men who are on the left, or progressive men? It seems predatory to me, and sort of disingenuous, considering the point at hand: egalitarian and truly shared power. Not that shared power has any place in feminist dialogue.

But you can read more about how women make war, enact laws, and violate other women’s rights and sexuality, and sexual choices over here.

Despite the gendered assumption that children are the legally assumed property of women ( like a car, a truck, a house or a dildo), the article points out the harm of such legislation against women, and the threat to women’s tendencies to pimp each other, and feministe.us points out that

“Most disturbingly, the strict pimping laws apply to people who live with sex workers (the good old ‘living off the earnings’ schtick) which may include partners and even sex workers’ children. There have been cases in Sweden already where sex workers have had their grownup children charged with pimping because they were living with them and not paying rent. Anti sex work feminists, this is your legislation that you claim does not harm us. This is the danger of treating sex workers like we are not part of our communities and families. It is not feminist to support legislation that punishes women by targeting their children.”

Sex negative feminism, and it’s angry, irrational, man hating proponents are a threat to all human beings, not least of which is that it inserts a female who is a dick (or uses a fake dick; a legal dick; or a phallus philosophy) in the place of a man who is a dick, but at least, a real one–which makes me wonder: What kind of dick do these women in power speak for?

Seems a bit regressive, and anti-woman, like other sex-supply competing philosophies, but in new clothing.

Certainly not the phallic power of women who own,  and control their OWN bodies—and maybe yours too.  And never mind the fact that these same women raise sons who get sucked into and die in internet-nationalist wars, while their daughters remain alive—after all, even Swedish, gender- lesbian prosecutors must protect their sex- supply.

My best edumecated guess is that this breed of second to third wave feminism speaks for, and panders for Internationalist bankster*-dicks, who are pumping hard at Sweden’s food supply, and uses Sweden to continue to supply rising quantities of food and  cheap vodka to the international market.

International banksters have no one definite gender, but always seem to interfere in local and national male-female relationships—collaborating with and using women who are big pussies, those women allied with a bunch of dicks, and too afraid to do the hard work of gender-unification, and re-start the revolution.

On the surface, the article seems to appeal to all people, in an almost egalitarian manner, despite the fact that it just a snapshot in time, from one locality. And of course, it is a selective example wherein not only do women appear to be greater in ‘victimhood’ but also it compares the existing notions and false presumption (women are victims of DV at greater rates than men) against the facts of DV ( Fiebert’s careful three decade study of DV on initiation and follow through of women’s violence directed at men.)

In brutally simple terms, homicide is a statistical outlier—an extreme that is almost not worth noting.

Now, the facts: in this one study of deaths caused by DV, men lose, clearly, in the common imagination of the layperson, because obviously, more women died in this example. The author then goes on to break down the examples and we find that—surprise!—the men who killed women were abusers, and the women who killed men were no doubt driven to it, by being egregiously abused, while many men also killed themselves ( hot topic in feminist rhetoric ‘men kill themselves to hurt women’—new lows in the debate, while other feminists take a pro-active stance acknowledging that men’s suicide rates are a serious topic…).

What is missing in this particular snapshot is that we have to imagine what could drive a man to murder—and we do not impute males with the same propensity to kill a mate with long term abuse suffered by those males. But enough about this snapshot- one of millions out there that attempt to circumvent the issue of aggression with extreme examples—where are the facts in practice as documented by Fiebert?

Here is what comes next, after the article, when the comments begin:

Notice how the women first ask for a particular male; then, bait the hook—as if men are prey– female two says “wait for it…” as if men are out there somewhere, just dying to hear such dismissive rhetoric—that rhetoric inscribed upon male bodies by women’s lifelong deliberate denial of male awareness of the female voice and it’s impending violence, such as Fiebert has had all along, but which seldom get attention because they are facts, not vitriol, or passive aggressive verbal violence directed at one particular sex.

This style of communication, by definition, is aggressive.

The question the author asks is itself a cloaked threat against men, asking not ‘what can we do about violence,’ but rather, implying that men are the cause of “their own” violence, and then aggressively attempting to provoke an equally aggressive reaction, while neatly overlooking the percentage of men killed by other men that women brought into their lives in the form of boyfriends, police powers, and social workers—a form of institutionalized violence that women do not face.

The example above IS an example of aggression by definition, and an example of the typical aggressive female to male gender-baiting that occurs all over America, every day; it is also an example of the third category of porn: academic porn; semi-informed, or semi interested perspectives about serious issues that masquerade as facts, while dismissing academic empirical evidence that contests the purportedly academic positions.

But what about this one snapshot example that actually examines aggression, and death caused by the dictionary definition of aggression? Not much of it. This study examines one example of homicide—and curiously minimizes the use by women of third parties to enable homicide of males, via boyfriends, and the police. It has virtually no intent other than to victimize males with statistical snapshots, and does nothing to address female aggression against males. It is one more form of gender warporn, and its net effect is to further violence.

The academic appeal is directed in the form that is dummied down and directed at those who do not have access to the entirety of a discussion( in this case the gender based, and separatist feminist based, deconstructionist and quasi-liberal, police infrastructure, and biased opinions about what constitute acts of aggression).

In other words, an early casualty of the debate about domestic violence was the simple facts that women commit many acts of violence in relationships, as Fieberts statistics clearly show.

Acts of aggression can be anything from the person at the grocery store parking their car with its bumper touching yours, to the guy on the bus who sits down without asking, and loudly blares his Ipod; to the person who insults you or demeans you on a daily basis, or the woman who reminds you how quickly the police or her other boyfriend will come if she calls them, no matter what she did to you.

Acts of aggression can also be women depending upon men to not speak up in a relationship when women verbally, sexually, or physically threaten them; or depend on other men to perpetuate the cycle of and by the time a man wakes up in such a situation, it is usually too late.

The best part about these academic websites that prostitute objectivity? They almost always seem to end their threads on the exact note they want, like orchestrated missives to half-wits. This post ended, predictably, with some woman upholding some man who died protecting the right of women to hide their violence behind violent men who protect ‘her’ children—and I don’t have the time to unpack that baggage right now. But last time I checked, we were not chimpanzees.

Men die more often when women use other men to fight battles that women start.

*Sage is a linguistic dictionary, based on WordNet http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ It is based on how English speakers actually use the language, and is NOT to be used to determine what the “correct” or “incorrect” use of the English language is, because political and social trends are fickle, financed, and flawed, whereas the democratic use of language, and common peoples understanding of that language, is democracy in action.

** SUMMARY:  The collection is entitled REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

===================================================

For anyone who is not an academic, ‘school educated person’, here is what I am saying above the non-arbitrary line above you.

Book smart people use the discussion about domestic violence to put more police in your neighborhoods, while keeping you out of their neighborhoods. Academics are people who have college degrees, and write stuff and try to get paid for what they write. What they write is funded-financed—by saying the right things to the government in order to get a paycheck from the government.

These people make a ton of money by talking about how women are abused, and by not talking about how men are abused. And they all hate Jerry Springer.

Remember Jerry Springer, and all those violent women? At least he showed us the truth about women who your man goes to when you are pregnant, because talking to each other about sex isn’t something we are taught to do, and prostitution isn’t legal in America.

Women who hit men, and children; and women who cheat, and then call the police to look like victims are all on Jerry Springer, but the book smart people hate him.

Remember all those women who had babies by a bunch of men? Do you ever wonder why your man doesn’t come home? And when he does do you want to just kill him? The girl on Springer is the one who used your man to get a piece of his paycheck, just like academics get government money. All of us get used by them when they don’t tell the truth.

Do you sometimes want to smack your woman upside her head because she spent two hours talking to the guy at the Waffle House? It’s probably because you don’t have anyone to talk to, because some people like you actually work for a living, and book smart people use words that could put you in jail, where they should be.

But simply put, many women make money by accusing men of crimes, and other women don’t talk about it. Lots of people beat each other up; but only men go to jail for it—because the people who write books about violence get money when they only talk about mens violence. And the cops and academics and social workers are all off fucking each other while your local main street is eaten up by Walmart.

They don’t give a shit about you, and they use the troubles that men and women have in relationships to make money.

So, if you need help in a violent situation, here is a number you can call 1-800-EAT-SHIT, because they are not here to help you.