Archive for the ‘Thirty years later’ Category

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


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.

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.

 

Forty years on, Laos reaps bitter harvest of the secret war

More than 100 countries will today sign a convention banning the use of cluster bombs. In Laos, the most bombed nation on earth, their lethal legacy is a part of daily life.

Part of a US bomber lies in a temple in Phanop village, Laos

Part of a US bomber lies in a temple in Phanop village, Laos. “We keep it here to remind the children of what happened,” the monk said. “If one day we badly need money we might sell it for the scrap value.” Photograph: Sean Sutton/Mines Advisory Group

The entrance to Craters restaurant is guarded by a phalanx of bombshells, each as big as a man. Opposite, the Dokkhoune hotel boasts an even finer warhead collection. For tourists who have not cottoned on, the Lao town of Phonsavanh lies at the heart of the most cluster-bombed province of the most bombed country on earth….” more here at the Guardian U

————————————————————————–

Children are STILL dying in Laos, because of Americas child warporn machine. In Laos, American soldiers routinely raped under-aged girls, while torturing and murdering their fathers and mothers, as well as in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Thailand, where the CIA still runs child prostitution.

Now, America just helps clean up after another kid gets splashed into bits against a wall by a UXO. Hillary Clinton even  has cleaning up the messes these little kids leave behind in her portfolio.