Legal Matters

What Posesses a Man to Vote for a Woman..

This has always been a rather interesting phenomena to me. What possible advantage is there for any male to vote for a female in order to have her installed into office. Why do men sacrifice their vote to implant a member of the opposite sex into office just so she can ensure that his needs and requirements are totally ignored and only female entitlement is guaranteed on a far greater scale than it is right now..

Why would one install someone in office who has repeatedly demonstrated that when push comes to shove, she will side with her own sex and ensure that only the wishes and entitlements are ensured for her own sex only..

Surely, as we have witnessed this sufficiently over the years, women do not give a stuff about men. Whenever there is a choice to be made, when legislation calls for equal treatment or to pander to their own sex, they automatically vote for their own. That action has been demonstrated over and over again and has been glaringly obvious for decades. There is no automatic switch in the female brain that makes that change or makes it even a consideration. Female office holders have always and with regularity, demonstrated that they do not give a damn about our sex and are there solely to benefit their own..

So why the stupidity, why the ignorance and why the denial. Most men have a good and reasonable understanding about politics and have some inkling about what the candidate stands for. Takes some effort in checking the credentials and past attitudes and behavior of those candidates. Why is it that that same methodology is not used on female candidates. What possible motive does one have to vote a female into office knowing full well or is even guaranteed that that female will bias her own at the expense of the male voter..

We have already seen and witnessed this so often as politician chase the vagina vote and just take the male vote for granted. Do you like being taken for granted and why can so many women automatically count on your vote when the outcome will be the standard ca-sera-sera(what ever will be)..

Nothing will or is going to change while we keep voting them into office without holding them to account for their anti-male behaviour. On top of that, have a good look at the actions of women generally and specifically. The majority of male haters, as 99.9% of feminists are women. The majority of the laws that have been introduced of the last few decades that violates men's rights have been produced by women. The entire sexual abuse/assault industry is run by women and they have also been involved in introducing laws that take away men's rights. It has been women who have joined together and ensured that only they are favoured and we have been tossed to the scrap heap and here you are voting them into office to keep repeating the same thing over and over..

You really do need to change your thinking paradigm in regards to female office holders and at least check to see whether or not it's an anti-male, pro-female candidate or not. It is the absolute least you could do..

Oh, you need a few examples -

Sarah(I am a feminist) Palin..US
Nancy (feminist) Pelosi..US
Hillary (feminist) Clinton..US
Harriet (feminist) Harman..EN
Lynne (feminist) Featherstone..EN
Julia (feminist) Gillard..AUS
Tanya (feminist) Plibersek..AUS

Just to mention a few and name me one single working effort or deed or legislation that any of these women have introduced that benefit or assist or helps men in any way, shape or form.

Just one..

Rideau Canal Museum and Wood Mill at night, Smith Falls, Ontario..

Link..
With the ever increasing amount of people wanting to be counted and be involved in fighting the good fight against the feminasties, their lying ways and total dishonesty, we have another new brother in arms, who is patiently going where some fear to tread..

Over the years we have witnessed the procedures that feminists follow and the methodology they use to spread their poison. It would appear that no one is safe from that, not even smaller cities and towns, all which are open slather. Any place regardless of size will eventually bare the brunt of those messengers of hate and evil. If we can reduce their hate message and interference, then we have at least achieved something and it does all help..

Here is one such site and it relates to Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada. Not that far from the border of the US.

I would like you to have a look at his site, support it by becoming a follower or leave a comment and lets see if we can help him fight the scourge that he has been fighting as well as we all have, for years..

I have been under attack by the local radicals for a while, the more join the more i can scare them.

More information..

EMC Smiths falls, objectivity out the door, promoters of feminist untruths, radicalism and parental alienation.

This is a local post, for Lanark county and Smiths falls Ontario. In response to the Smiths falls EMC's refusal to publish the truth.
I have daughters and a grand daughter, by no means is this about women, it is about the destructive ideals of radical feminism and their effort to destroy the family.
-The family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
-We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Robin Morgan
-Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
-Every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin

What families experience at the hand of the local woman's shelter and social programs under it's anti parent directors and the staff in the Lanark county area, is destroying the very fabric of family life, therefore the nation itself. I believe that exposing the untruth been spewed out by these people need to be told. I will not go after all shelters because it would not be right, this blog supports the original ideas of the woman's shelter promoted by Erin Pizzey.(Pizzey said that militant feminists hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonise all men, not only in Britain, but internationally).
I can only speak about local experiences and provide undeniable proof that the propaganda been imposed on the local population is nothing other than a response to this blog.
After been told that this blog is been closely scrutinized by the shelters directors, "some" of her supporters in the police, I am glad they read it and do not like what is been written. And nothing makes me happier. The truth hurts.

The local paper the Emc smiths falls, has been a propaganda tool for the local radical left wing feminist for a long time, refusing to publish local horror stories coming out of the social programs. The shelter, the local school, (St John in Perth), with Ontario works, open doors, connections, family services and all others have been increasing their funding by going after teens, specifically teen girls. We have a saying in Smiths falls, "in the spring go downtown and see how many children are pushing strollers". Welfare on demand seems to be the local governments idea of economic recovery, in turn, teen drug abuse, crime, are a big problem and downtown businesses are becoming an extinct thing of the past. There was a study performed by local officials about this problem and when parents tried to get involved they were turned away, so much for their study. Those responsible for the problem, are in charge of studying the problem, makes sense doesn't it?

IMPORTANT RELEASE FOR ALL MEN: PLEASE READ..



Here we have an explanation of what feminists, in this case radical feminists and the Gillard Government, have in mind for ALL AUSTRALIAN MEN and this is just an example of what is coming your way as well. This legislation is already in Place in Tasmania, AUSTRALIA and it will ensure that Men are jailed, without any opportunity to claim a fair trial, no opportunity to present any counter argument and will be taken to prison on any claim made by any female under any circumstances..

Fifty percent of all men in jail in Tasmania are there because of this draconian piece of legislation. They are served with a court order for one year to not go within 100 meters his own home or see his children and all his accounts, everything he owns will be confiscated and given to the person making the claim. No proof is necessary, no witnesses required, no doctors reports required, no evidence has to be submitted, only on the word of one individual will ensure this action to takes place..

This action will be enforced even when he is not guilty or if the female is the abuser. There is no comeback whatsoever. Even if the claimant retracted her accusation and informs the Police that she has lied, nothing will change..

This release identifies precisely how this new legislation is going to work and this will become LAW in AUSTRALIA within a very short period of time. Possibly over the next month or two if we do NOTHING. Ignore this at your own risk..

New Legislation Designed to Persecute Men and Deny his basic Human Rights.


If you are male and living in Australia, this is the probably the most important email you'll read this year.



This message is about the highly discriminatory National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Domestic Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2009-2021 (henceforth described as 'The Plan').


The Plan is long (200+ pages), so you might like to save it to your desktop and read it little by little, but it's essential that you do read it as it may affect your freedom. If you don't, you may well find yourself in jail one day - minus legal entry to your house, access to your children and any reputation you think you once had, all without doing a single thing wrong. Please share it with every other responsible men you know so they too will learn how their civil liberties are being dangerously undermined under the guise of reducing domestic violence against women.


The most important liberty that will be lost is the presumption of innocence (for men, not women) - one of the foundation stones of a civilised legal system. If the draconian legislation proposed by The Plan is passed through both Houses of Parliament and into Family Law, the legal system in Australia will no longer automatically protect men from false DV and rape accusations and the government will take control of the family. Adoption of The Plan will, essentially, legalise Apartheid and enforce it if necessary at the point of a gun.


Domestic violence and sexual assault are serious crimes, so any wise and just plan to properly identify and reduce them should be applauded. The Plan, however, is neither wise, just nor worthy of applause. It presumes women have no agency when under the influence of drugs or alcohol and that all men are violent offenders by default. Read the document and learn for yourself what could happen to both men and women if The Plan passes into law. Once you've read it, forward it to others with a copy of this message and get active. Write to your MP, raise awareness, talk to the press, raise some placards at your local shopping centre, take your protest to Canberra. Do whatever suits you, but please do something. If you do nothing, prepare to lose your civil liberties via the most draconian legislation since the anti-semitic Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Yes, it is that serious.


Here's a summary of what will happen if The Plan is endorsed by both Houses of Parliament:


1. The Australian Government will assume that women never lie about domestic violence or sexual assault, even when child custody is at stake and the temptation to lie is extreme.



2. The definitions of Domestic Violence will be broadened to include acts such as striking inanimate objects, making purchases without consulting a female partner, not listening to a female partner or even disciplining a dog. The same actions will not be considered DV if the actor is female (see item 3 below).


3. The legal redefinition of domestic violence will exclude male victims from that legal definition - i.e. men and boys who are assaulted by female relatives will not have legal rights as victims.


4. DV and Sexual assault cases will go to the front ...

Fraud in Australia’s plan to reduce violence against women..

The introduction of the "Violence against Women" programs has been something that feminists have dreamt up in order to introduce anti-male laws around the world. As usual, feminists and their enablers will use falsified information and any other method they can find in order to convince the law makers, if we can refer to them in that fashion, to change existing laws in order to discriminate against man and boy, while at the same time ensuring their own positions, paid for by taxpayers, are protected and guaranteed..
The hypocrisy that feminists have and continue to introduce is demonstrated once again by the author of this article. The researchers, professors and doctors are the radicals who produced the misandric material are the same women who attended the SCUM Manifesto Conference in Perth, Western Australia in 2011. Those same women who were scheming and planning about removing half of the earth's population, blowing up the Men's Sheds and throwing little male toddlers thru windows while they are closed should indicate their inhumane nature..
They are the "NEW" breed of fanatical feminists that control that hegemony and decide future policies and actions. They are also mostly lesbians, which does not come as any surprise considering their vitriol and malice towards all males..
Behind all this and included in their sullied actions and behaviour, we have the Gillard Government who have turned a blind eye to the recommendations these radicals want to introduce into parliament and make law. The Gillard Government demonstrates again what their intentions are for half of the Australian Population. More bigotry, discrimination and bias..

Fraud in Australia’s plan to reduce violence against women

The 2009 Australian project a ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′, was approved for implementation by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Plan, which is split into several parts, puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament.
The entire premise of the National Plan was underpinned by the belief in this statement:“While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know.”[27-pg1] But a quick examination of the statistics and data shows a much different picture to the rather sweeping indictment of Australian men the National Council paints.

Indeed, The Plan never addresses the topic of violence that women commit towards men or towards children, nor does it accurately state the facts as they are in Australia.
The Data and Statistics
The National Council’s plan is put forth as a direct response to several academic papers and various activists around Australia, which purport data and statistics that claim to show an epidemic of men’s violence against women. However, the National Council readily admits its data on actual incidences of domestic violence and sexual assault is poor, sporadic and in some cases inaccurate. Nevertheless, the council makes most of their recommendations based on the conclusions of several academic papers and studies, and rarely address any comprehensive analysis of their own. Indeed, The Plan never addresses the topic of violence that women commit towards men or towards children, nor does it accurately state the facts as they are in Australia.

“Data relating to violence against women and their children in Australia is poor. Data on services sought by, and provided to, victims is not readily available, and the way in which information is reported is generally inconsistent and does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of violence against women. Variations in data estimates across Australia are affected by differences in what is captured, counted and reported across States and Territories.
There are also personal and institutional barriers in decision making within and across systems that reduce the extent to which sexual assault and domestic and family violence is disclosed and reported. This affects the capacity of data to accurately reflect the real numbers of women and children who

...

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights..



When one reads something like this, you could be excused for thinking that it's not really true. How can this be in this day and age when everyone is so enlightened. Human rights is instituted, surely, in law. The bad old days of fascism and witch hunts have been relegated to history as a joke. We now have legal rights as human beings to go about our own business and to live a life free of tyranny and injustice, surely..

Apparently not. The forces at work in Canberra are not a force of consisting of a group of people who are looking to enhance our lives but to destroy it. Radical feminists have already demonstrated what their end goal is and now we are seeing those same people that we exposed on the RADFEM HUB, who are directly linked to the Australian Government, introducing laws that will not only create disharmony but bias and hate. The reality of all these recommended laws are indeed mind boggling and we have only just starting to poke and prod it's reality..

Those radical feminists will, if they are not stopped, introduce laws that are so archaic and debilitating as to make George Orwell's book "1984" appear be a normal everyday event. This is not tyranny as we have witnessed in the past, it's apartheid between the sexes in the very worst degree..

Wait until the facts are released as at the moment, if we were to introduce them, it would just be too much to take in. This is only the beginning..

January 6, 2012Paul Elam<small style="color: rgb(56, 56, 56); font: normal normal bold 0.71em/normal Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; ">FEMINIST GOVERNANCE</small>

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights

As chief cook and bottle washer at AVfM I have been in the dubious position of gathering information from across the globe on the negative impact of feminist governance.
Last year we addressed matters like the “Dear Colleague” letter, which effectively ended the right of due process for college men accused of any sort of sexual misconduct. We covered the unthinkable events in India, where men have been assaulted and even thrown from moving trains for daring to set foot in train car reserved for women; where politicians have suggested bounties be paid to women who beat their husbands in public. We exposed circumstances in Sweden, where school children are being indoctrinated into the virulent and hateful ideology of Valerie Solanas. Just last night we did a radio show as a follow up to Robert O’Hara’s investigative piece on the plan to coerce 28,000,000 African men into being circumcised. And of course there is the ongoing exposure of ideologues at Radfem Hub, a group of well-placed feminists who glorify murder, child abuse, eugenics and infanticide.
It appears now that 2011 was just a warm up for 2012.
Over the next several days you will find a series of articles on this website regarding an assault on human rights that will sweep the Australian continent. The scope of aplanned campaign by the Australian government (The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021) is so far reaching that presenting it without overwhelming readers has been a significant challenge for myself, Kyle Lovett and John the Other. The sheer volume of the content, as well as the staggering loss of civil rights that Australian men are about to suffer is formidable.
The amount and complexity of the material to come is sufficient that I felt it warranted to prepare you with this article, which in essence is written solely for the purpose of bracing you for the onslaught of information; to, if I may request your indulgence, tell you what you are about to be told.
These machinations have now reached the stage of action, and are about to be implemented. They involve, but are by no means limited, to the following:

• The systemic enabling and promotion of child abuse by mothers and other women.
• The Australian government suppression of research that implicates women as child abusers.
• The legal redefinition of domestic violence to include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.
• The legal redefinition of domestic violence to exclude male victims from that legal definition.
• Arresting and holding men in prison, without bail, on the accusation alone of domestic violence.
• Summarily evicting men from their homes while forcing them to maintain financial responsibility for those homes on nothing more than an accusation from their wives or girlfriends.
• Shifting the burden of proof on domestic violence from the

...

The Zeitgeist of Radical Feminists in AUS. Law

December 30, 2011
Kyle Lovett <small style="color: rgb(56, 56, 56); font: normal normal bold 0.71em/normal Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; ">FEMINISM, FEMINIST GOVERNANCE</small>

A path to Australian apartheid

(The first part of this series on Australia can be found here)
Tanya Plibersek, Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women in the Rudd Labor Government, wrote in 2002;

“At the weekend, the National Party voted against special measures to increase their number of women parliamentarians. The ALP and the Liberals, in contrast, want more women, but can’t agree on the best way to get them. This should be good news for the feminists who fought to make it happen, yet some – like the former federal MP Susan Ryan – ask whether it was worth it. After all, we haven’t defeated patriarchy. Yet.”[1]

Seven years later, Plibersek played a critical role in championing Australia’s new ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’. Plibersek, along side Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, put together a consortium of academics and domestic violence experts, to spearhead a team which would go on create the national report that became official policy. Since the early 2000′s, Plibersek never made it secret that she strongly supports feminist and even some radical feminist ideals. Indeed, in 2005, when Sheila Jeffreys came to Sydney to make a speech, it was Plibersek that introduced her with warm welcoming remarks.[2]

In April 1999, Plibersek gave an interview to Peter Lewis, during which she spoke about these ties of the Labor Party to the feminist community:

“I think that our historical relationships with groups outside the Labor Party like the peace movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the environment, the feminist movement. Our links with community feminist organisations have been about promoting grassroots activism around sexual assault services, domestic violence services; that sort of activism within the community and collective responsibility..”

She went on to weigh in about giving help to families with disabled children, but also clarified that she felt families are strictly women and children, and that any of their responsibilities should become the state’s responsibility;

“But it is also fair to say that the State owes a responsibility to those kids and their parents. We don’t want to return to a situation of voluntarism where individual parents may not have the skills or the patience or the time or the financial ability to look after their children in the ways that would benefit them the most. And I don’t know if it’s an ideal situation to necessarily throw the responsibility back on them. I don’t want to go back to a situation where families — and that means women — are being told its their responsibility all over again.”[3]

Plibersek’s special hand-picked legal advisor to the council was former Tasmanian Attorney-General Judith Jackson. Jackson, who labels herself as a “committed feminist,” has had a career filled with controversy. In the 2004 Tasmania Family Violence Act, [7] she was roundly criticized for her insistence that people accused of domestic violence not be granted bail before trial unless a series of nearly impossible steps were taken by the judge. When Jackson was criticized for attempting to bypass the Justice system, and for violating the human rights of men, she lashed out at her critics;

“How can anybody say that somebody should be let out on bail, so they can go back and re-offend and commit a crime again, and that’s what you’re saying and I find that disgusting.”[4]

But despite the fact that the data used as justification for the bill was based on very poor research, which according to many human rights advocates and several of her critics, never examined how often men were battered in similar circumstances, the bill was passed into law. The ramifications of the law went on to see hundreds of Tasmanian men spending weeks, many times months in prison before trial, for being accused of crimes like ‘economic’ or ‘emotional’ abuse. Ms. Jackson, when confronted about what the law was doing in practice, appeared quite amused and replied:

“We do have some of the best legislation in the world for protecting women and children,”[5]

The reality of the ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ is that it was promoted and shepherded through Australian government by Plibersek, a woman that admittedly was heavily biased towards a hardline feminist perspective ...

Feminism's Inheritance and Your Future..

Deluded Children..

I was somewhat flummoxed by a response from a comment on one of the men's forums, commenter was a female. She was of the opinion that the release of the 160Mb of information released by Agent Orange was, well, you know, not that bad..
To be honest, my first response was a potential conniption, but then I realised that I had been party to the original release by Agent Orange and that I had spent quite a few hours, days actually, reading what the public would and should not ever be exposed to . That additional information, if released would make it appear that it was managed contrivance of information and nobody would even accept the fact that (gosh), a group of women could congregate, plan and scheme the destruction of an entire sex. How would that be possible, as all women are are such cuddly, caring individuals, so we have been told, and would never ever harm a single hair on anyone's head..

Lies ofcourse, well rehearsed, manipulated propaganda and presented to the public, but still lies fed to the unwary..

They have obviously not read about that female charged with genocide this year (Google it) or all those women who have murdered their children and spouses, especially one that murdered five at one go. Did you read about that female who filleted her husband and fed him to the kids as a casserole (Go ahead, Google it, I don't make this stuff up). Female murderous intent and actions have been hidden from a gullible public, intentionally, who even when faced with the facts, just refuse to believe any of it. The main stream media has also pandered in that direction as they hide the wrongdoing by women to the back pages or tone down the seriousness of their crime and try to justify it or blame their partners as feminists are prone to do..

Sadly, anyone who prescribed to that preferred utopian opinion would require similar treatment to those lunatics, who wrote, laughed and planned all those nasty male hating options. Bear in mind too that radical feminists are the driving force behind the feminist hegemony. They are the policy makers and if you would like an example on how nasty, biased and sadistic it can get, have a look at Sweden and it's radical feminist introduced laws. To be sickened by the attitudes and articles that radical feminists have presented would indicate that there is still some humanity instilled in your cerebral cortex. But you will not find an ounce of that emotion or humanity in any radical feminist. Nothing exists except hatred, a toxicity that drives them to the edge of insanity in order to extract revenge for some imaginary or legitimate wrongs of the past. It is their only point of reference.

Those psychotic luminaries filter their wanton malice and hate down the feminist chain where their writings, articles and loathing are read by students in Women Studies/Gender Studies classes and groups. Their hate, loathing and malice filters through the feminist network to such a degree that everyone partaking in these subjects will be educated by that mentality. Have a look at the subjects and titles of the books recommended by Women's/Gender studies and ask yourself who have penned those books, who the authors are, and then check on the web for an explanation or resume of the author. I can guarantee that most of those books listed were written by radical feminists..

Those authors are not some benign thought provoking types, no, they are in it to ensure that all man and boy are maligned, denigrated and humiliated, promoted to third class citizenry, they are there to promote a much worse scenario which is why the "fun" delusional feminists have been caught out and do not argue any of the exposed radicalism as they are well aware of the fact that it is precisely what those radicals are stating and our claim is 100% correct, they cannot argue against any of it as the evidence is there for all to see..

Radfem Hub and other major sources for feminist news and commentary have remained curiously silent on the matter. There is no mention of the release either on Radfem, Jezebel, Feministe or Feministing as might have been expected considering the comments on Reddit. It is assumed, however that much attention has been paid amongst the feminist community to this story and its developments.(AVfM)

It makes a mockery of feminist's useful idiots like Marcotte and Valenti who wallow in the minutiae of feminism when in reality they are just skirting it's real intentions. They are both either too stupid to realise that or are smart enough to avoid any mention of it. I am going with "too ...

25.12.11

Feminism Will Destroy Everyone..

The Men's Movement has only ever and will only ever work for the good of society as greater minds and everyone involved in it over the centuries has determined it to be. The only problem with society is what radical feminists and feminists as a whole, determine those problems to be..

They are just delusional..

The entire problem with society is that feminism has been allowed to fester and infect society to try and destroy our normal existence and turn it into some loathing cauldron, which it is not. Radical feminism is the by product of marxism and their rampant hate for all is now coming to light. This is what they are teaching your children, they are teaching your children to hate everything and everyone..

Is this the world that you want to raise your children in ?

December 24, 2011Kyle Lovett<small style="color: rgb(56, 56, 56); font: normal normal bold 0.71em/normal Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; ">FEMINISM, SEXUAL POLITICS</small>

The destructive logic of radical feminism

I decided that before I got really deep into the long breadcrumb trail of radical feminists working towards changing laws and policies inside Australia, I wanted to take a moment to discuss radical and mainstream feminism at its base level. At the bottom of the page, I’ll list out several popular books by radical feminists that discuss what their ideology is all about. But I’ve noticed a lot of discussion here on AVFM and other sites questioning just what radical feminism is and if there is any difference to mainstream feminism. I thought it important to give at least my take on feminist and radical feminist theory, as I think it is important to understand what exactly these people are talking about, and what they are so motivated to accomplish.

And, please don’t take my word for it, if you have the stomach, I suggest that you read what this movement’s ideology is, and the very bizarre thought process behind it.

Before I address the condensed list of radical feminist bullet points, I think it is important to touch on leading rad-fem writers position on individual choice. The quick and dirty is that the overwhelming majority of radical feminists don’t believe women have true individual choice. Instead, they think that women who are uneducated on radical feminist theory have no agency over themselves or their actions. According to doctrine, the individual choices of a woman regarding her own body and sexual practices, and even her own actions in life, are a tool of oppression and the patriarchy. No, seriously, they really believe this.

Shelia Jeffreys in her book Beauty and Misogyny (2005 2nd ed) explains this concept in detail:

“I suggest that beauty practices are not about women’s individual choice or a “discursive space” for women’s creative expression but, as other radical feminist theorists have argued before me, a most important aspect of women’s oppression. The feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye has written incisively of what makes a theory feminist, and why it is not enough to rely on women’s individual assurances that a practice is OK with them and in their interests” (p2)

Radical feminist Denise Thompson, in her 2001 book “Radical Feminism Today” expands on this idea of the harm of individualism a bit more:

“The ideology of individualism depicts ‘humanity’ as a set of isolated selves […] Desires, needs, interests, beliefs, actions, feelings, attitudes and behaviours, are perceived as personal properties intrinsic to each individual […] If relations of domination and subordination are interpreted as nothing but properties of individuals, they cannot be seen as relations of ruling at all. They become simply a matter of preferences and choices engaged in by discrete individuals who have no responsibilities beyond their own immediate pleasures and satisfactions. In this libertarian discourse, politics vanishes. If only individuals exist, political critique can only be seen as personal insult or annihilation of the self, and disagreement becomes assertion of the self against threatening and hostile others. ‘Freedom’ is reduced to the absence of constraint, either on the part of the self or of others.”(p43-44)

In other words, Thompson is saying that she believes individualism and individual choices of women are part of the collective oppression of the patriarchy. In Janice Raymond’s 1995 book, “Women as wombs: reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom,” she takes it a step further; that a women’s body is the reproductive agent of the patriarchy.

“The assumption that any reproductive means should be a constitutionally protected

...

Another "women are not Violent" Example..



The lies that feminists tell always get exposed, one way or the other. It is akin to that saying "Sit on a river bank and watch the bodies of your enemies float by".
Feminist lies are those bodies and here we have an example on how much they lie about women not being violent..

This guys cannot even defend himself against this monster even if he had the guts to do it. He would be arrested and jailed. That they way it goes these days. Thanks to feminists like Harman and her male hating ilk..

If this does not convince you, then I suggest you just bugger off and live your ignorant life somewhere else..

As reality just does not do it for you..

<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid<img src=" http:="" antimisandry.com="" images="" smilies="" biggrin.png"="" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="3" width="520" height="266"><embed width="520" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ab2b-k_ZaEM&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></object>

December 21, 2011TDOM<small style="color: rgb(56, 56, 56); font: normal normal bold 0.71em/normal Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; ">FEMINISM, FEMINIST GOVERNANCE</small>

SCUM Manifested

The Hate-Filled Legacy of Valerie Solanas

Radical feminism can be traced more or less back to Valerie Solanas, author of theSCUM Manifesto. It was first published in 1967, though Solanas began drafting it in about 1959 or 60. In the Manifesto, Solanas calls on women to rise up against men who she sees as biologically inferior and responsible for all of the world’s problems. However, she doesn’t end there. She refers to the male as “a biological accident” and the Y-chromosome as being an incomplete X-chromosome, making the male an incomplete female. She further calls for men to be exterminated and to assist in eliminating themselves by eliminating each other.
There are those who have stated that this Manifesto is little more than a parody of “patriarchy” or a work of satire. They claim to view it as an anti-patriarchal statement, but state that the calls for the elimination of men should not be taken seriously. However, while the work may contain elements of parody and satire, these devices are used to emphasize the message, not to indicate that the author wasn’t serious. Solanas’ own history would indicate this as she shot pop artist Andy Warhol, art critic Mario Amaya, and attempted to shoot Warhol’s manager Fred Hughes on June 3, 1968, attempting to kill them. In 1977, she claimed that her views had not changed since the Manifesto was published, indicating that she believed what she had written.
Further evidence that the SCUM Manifesto was to be taken seriously is found in the reaction of feminist leaders and organizations to Solanas’ Manifesto and shooting of Andy Warhol. Ti-Grace Atkinson, radical feminist and president of the New York chapter of NOW, called Solanas “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights” and heralded her as “a ‘heroine’ of the women’s movement.” Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms Magazine, included excerpts in her book, Sisterhood is Powerful. Other feminist authors such as Amanda Third and Catherine Lord have credited her with creating radical feminism and have stated that the feminist movement would not have occurred if it hadn’t been for Valerie Solanas. There have also been several books, plays, and movies glorifying Solanas and her actions.
There are also those who would dispute the acronym that SCUM stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. While this is not spelled out within the document itself, It was stated on the cover of her self-published version in 1967. Later, Solanas would deny that she intended the acronym. Instead she stated that there was no such organization, nor would there ever be. SCUM was a state of mind. It was meant as a reference to empowered women who considered themselves fit to rule.
The legacy of the SCUM Manifesto has continued. It was published as late as 2004 (perhaps since then, though I don’t have a record of it) and has been translated into several languages. Currently there are organizations based on SCUM existing in Sweden (producing materials for high school students) and on the internet (RadfemHub) It has impacted society in many ways which will be outlined below.
In New York in 1967 at about the same time Solanas was publishing the SCUM Manifesto, Shulamith Firestone, Pam Allen, Carol Hanish, and Robin Morgan founded a group called New York Radical Women. This short-lived organization adopted a radical feminist ideology that emphasized the patriarchal oppression of women by men similar to that outlined in the SCUM Manifesto. They claimed that men exercised social dominance over women by creating social roles that divided privilege and power by gender. This group is often credited with the first bra burning at the 1968 Miss America Pageant. However, rather than burn them, they tossed bras and other artifacts of patriarchal oppression into a garbage can. Firestone would move on to found Redstockings and New York Radical Feminists while Morgan would become more involved in feminist activism and writing. Hanish would help found Redstockings and would later edit a journal called Meeting Ground in which she would publish an essay called The Personal is Political and is sometimes incorrectly credited with coining that phrase, although she undoubtedly helped popularize it.
In 1969, the radical feminist organization Redstockings published its Redstocking Manifesto. The influence of SCUM is unmistakable. It is considerably less violent, but no less hateful. It characterizes “all men” as oppressors of women. It characterizes individual male-female relationships as “class relationship(s)” and provides that all individual male-female conflicts are political, not personal and “can only be solved ...