Seems to me things are getting out of hand in Hereford, Feminazi's just expect me to say excuse me as they block my way to pay for my goods.They expect men to show manners when they blatantly bloke your path.
I was wondering if any person would like meet me in the town and i will show you first hand, what they do!!Surely somebody must be as pissed of as me, lets show these feminist's that not all men will put up with this crap!
DON'T BE NICE TO FEMINIST'S, THEY TAKE THE PISS!!!
The biggest red herring in the feminist arsenal today is to blame "deserting fathers" for the problem of the massive amount of single parent "families." This is a clever misdirection and it is a false lead.
It is a false lead because anyone who follows it will be looking in the wrong place for solutions. It is a clever misdirection because it steers everyone away from the real causes of single parenthood.
The idea that thousands upon thousands of men simply desert their families is deeply offensive to men and is one of the causes of the anger that is developing in men's groups around the world.
There is nothing simple about the reasons that men leave their partners and their kids. There are a huge number of explanations, so it is important to take the most common motives and look at them carefully while acknowledging at the same time, that a few men DO leave their partners and children for purely selfish reasons, but not focussing entirely on that small group. Let's take a look at one of the most common reasons that men have for leaving their "family."
Imagine a man that meets a girl and they have sex. As a result, she gets pregnant. Leaving aside the condom/pill/casual sex morality problem for the moment, let's deal with the reality of the pregnancy.
There is a very good chance that these two people hardly know each other. They may have met and had sex in the same night but never met one another before. Just as John Major M.P. David Blunket M.P. and John Prescott M.P. among many others (Some "leadership" huh?) risked with their sexual affairs, the man may suddenly find himself being told that he is about to become a father. He may also be a very young man and the chances are, he will be. While Major and Prescott were lucky enough to escape the pregnancy danger, Blunket was not and now knows how wrong things can go.
Let us stop there for a moment and look at the story so far. There is a great chance that he will be told by everyone, "You made little Susie pregnant." While this is true on a biological level, on a social level it is not true. Little Susie played her part also. She was not a rape victim and, presumably, she knew what she was about when she stripped off and got into bed with him. The two of them tangoed together. Just as dear old Edwina Curry knew what she was doing when she bonked John Major as a gift to the left wing. (Which, incidentally, is why no one takes Major seriously when he speaks his opinion on family morality. He blew it. Let's hope Cameron has learned from it and will not hesitate to fire anyone from his government that behaves the same way.) Therefore, from a social perspective there is a joint responsibility and it is NOT all the man's fault.
There is, of course, a moral dimension to this tragic tale. In the year 1955 b.f. (Before feminism) the chances of these two people having this illicit sex after their first meeting would have been massively reduced. By the mid nineteen sixties, those odds were getting better because the Church was being undermined by feminist interests, the ethos of the family itself was under attack by the same group and the pill was now available. It had been the influence of the Church in the UK and beyond which had sowed the seeds of sexual morality into the population and made sex before marriage a taboo. As a man brought up in the era in question, I know from personal experience how difficult it was to have sex in those days. Girls simply said, no! (Most girls, anyway). They said no in a variety of ingenious ways, learned from their mothers, but the message they put out was always the same. "I do not want to be shamed by getting pregnant outside of marriage." This was a social taboo that helped cement our society together and even though lusty young men and women were frustrated by it, they learned to control themselves and sexual offences were very rare as a result. In those days, women did not have the crazy idea, that Peter Hitchins of the Daily Mail thinks is a virtue, and dress like strippers in public because, I "'ave a right to dress anyway I like." (See Hitchins column in the Sunday Mail 17th August 2008) They understood that sexual provocation was dangerous and they also had a sense of personal decency. People like Hitchins may get their jolly's from watching sixteen year old girls flashing in the high street when drunk, but it is people like Hitchens and those girls who need the real discipline in our society. Today, unless a girl is wearing next to nothing, she feels almost Victorian when she goes out. Feminism has robbed them of their dignity and made them into sex objects. Exactly the opposite to what they claimed to hate but which was an inevitable consequence of their ideas.
If females liked you in those days, they embarked on a long and sexless courtship
By Denise Noe
We are approaching August 4, the anniversary of the day in 1892 when Andrew and Abby Borden of Fall River, Massachusetts were brutally murdered in their homes. The doubly slaying is a familiar part of popular culture as is the perception that the accused, Lizzie Borden, stepdaughter of Abby and daughter of Andrew, committed the slayings despite her acquittal.
The famous and macabre children’s rhyme has helped solidify that perception: “Lizzie Borden took an axe/Gave her mother forty whacks/When she saw when she had done/She gave her father forty-one.” People might know that the poem exaggerates the number of “whacks” and is misleading as to the precise relationship between Abby and Lizzie but accept the poem’s confidence in her guilt.
Indeed, a widespread perception is that Lizzie Borden was acquitted solely because of a combination of sexism and class bias. Juries were by law composed only of men when she was tried. Many people believe the twelve men of Lizzie Borden’s jury set free an obviously guilty murderer out of a misguided chivalry.
Feminist Ann Jones champions this view in Women Who Kill, claiming that the Borden jury ignored evidence in favor of “patriarchal” myths about upper-class women or “ladies.” According to this author, “Lizzie Borden owed her life largely to those tacit assumptions: ladies aren’t strong enough to swing a two-pound hatchet hard enough to break a brittle substance one-sixteenth of an inch thick. Ladies cry a lot. Ladies love to stay home all the time. Ladies are ceaselessly grateful to the men – father or husbands – who support them. Ladies never stand with their legs apart. Ladies cannot plan more than a few minutes ahead.”
In her zeal to pronounce Lizzie guilty and slam the men of her jury as fools for chivalry, Jones, like so many other commentators, distorts the facts of the case.
One of the most baffling of those facts is the failure of authorities to find the murder weapon. One of Lizzie’s attorneys, Andrew Jennings, pointed out the pivotal nature of this point in his opening statement, saying, “[The government must] produce the weapon which did the deed, and, having produced it, connect it in some way directly with the prisoner, or else they have got to account in some reasonable way for its disappearance.”
The government could not do any of those things. Several axes and hatchets were found on the Borden premises. All tested negative for human blood and human hair. The prosecution singled out the so-called “handleless hatchet” as probable murder weapon but their identification of it was shaky, saying only “it may well have been the weapon.”
It probably was not. The government’s suggestion that Lizzie had broken off most of the wood and then burned it up in the few minutes that would have been available to her between butchering her father and sending out the alarm was easily ridiculed by one of her attorneys, Governor George Robinson. An officer had found a rolled up and charred newspaper in the stove where the wood was supposedly sent to oblivion. Gov. Robinson asked, “Did you ever see such a funny fire in the world? A hard wood stick inside the newspaper, and the hard wood stick goes out beyond recall – and the newspaper that lives forever would stay there!”
Another problem ruling out the handleless hatchet is that a medical examiner found there was a deposit of gilt metal in one of Abby Borden’s wounds. The handleless hatchet was old.
The second major issue the government failed to adequately deal with was the lack of blood on Lizzie in the immediate aftermath of her father’s brutal slaying and the failure of officers to discover a bloodstained garment. Jones, like some other Lizzie-did-it advocates, distorts truth in order to make it seem that the men of the Borden jury obstinately ignored evidence to acquit Lizzie. She acknowledges that witnesses who saw her immediately after the discovery of the killings saw no blood on her but claims “all the medical experts agreed that the assailant need not have been spattered with blood.” In fact, medical opinion was divided and a doctor testified that the killer of Abby would have had to have been spattered over the lower body and the killer of Andrew on the upper body. Several witnesses saw Lizzie only minutes after Andrew’s murder. Not only was she spotless but her hair, up in a bun, was not disarranged.
It is true that Lizzie burned a dress only a few days after the slayings, saying it was “covered with paint.” Many have wryly concluded, “Yes, red paint.” However, police officers made a thorough search of the home in the immediate aftermath of the crimes, examining every garment in the home and finding none that were blood-spattered.
Lizzie’s story of why she happened to be away when her father was killed was that she went to the barn to look
By Denise Noe
Popular radio and commentator Dr. Laura Schlessinger, or just “Dr. Laura” as she prefers to be called, is well known for her blasting of feminism and championing of traditional morals and values. This has given her something of a reputation as pro-male. However, it seems that a disdain for men simmers just below the surface.
One of her most famous books is called The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. What is wrong with this title can easily be seen by imagining how appropriate the title of a book would be if it were The Proper Care and Feeding of Schnauzers or The Proper Care and Feeding of Parakeets. It can also be seen by imagining public reaction to a book entitled The Proper Care and Feeding of Wives. Such a book would be considered condescending and patronizing to women because it makes them sound like pets.
Dr. Laura repeatedly tells her presumably female audience that, “men are extremely simple creatures.” She seems oblivious to just how belittling this is to men. After all, we generally consider organisms to be more fully evolved depending on their complexity. A dog is a considerably more complicated creature than a shellfish. A monkey is more complex than a dog. A great age is more complicated than a monkey and we usually consider human beings the most complex creatures known to exist on this planet.
To proclaim men “simpler” than women is to proclaim them inferior. It also seems bizarre to pronounce as simple the sex that has given us the majority of our most esoteric philosophies and psychologies and produced so much that is extraordinary and subtle in the fields of art and literature.
It may be true that men’s and women’s minds often dwell on different facets of existence but that hardly makes one sex simpler than another.
Dr. Laura is a female supremacist.
Have nothing else to say besides what I said in the subject and my intro thread here.
Yesterday eveninig i looked out of my lounge window, as i'm looking out, a feminist neighbor gets out of the taxi and lets her kids out, she stares at me.I just ignored her" the taxi driver says are you ok, do you need me to keep an eye on him!
Well half an hour later she's stood by the corner of my building pretending as per usual to be phoning somebody up and basically slagging me off, she thinks that i'm a shit, she has been taken in by the gossip!
Well i'm going to be honest with you guys, i have a crimminal record for resisting arrest i was a handfull, im not proud off it, this was for a speeding conviction.
I know that if this neighbor got into a confrontation with me i would find it very difficult to control myself.She keeps on playing psychological games with me.
Unfortunately i'm surrounded by FEMINAZI'S and MANGINA'S, you could say i'm living in a gold fish bowl, with no where to turn.
So guys please can you give me any suggestions, i'm stressed!!
Ps, Had my central heating serviced by my housing association this morning, they sent two people to service my combi system, which i found a bit odd.So i phoned my Housing Association up only to find they have put a asbo on me, no reason given.This was done behind my back,
things are getting worse!
Updated 14th-August-2008 at 11:57 AM by genisis
Yesterday i got talking to a police officer, we talked about Hereford.I told him about what has been going on towards me, he said your not from Hereford are you" well that's part of your problem.He said that Herefordian women, especially the older women are very racist.On a daily basis he has seen these females refusing taxis from coloured people or even white people who don't come from Hereford, or don't display a Hereford Rank sign on their cars.I asked him why they carry on like that, he didn't know.
In the next few years Hereford is going to get a new shopping complex, this town centre will be quite big, but will people really want to shop here with the ATTITUDE that Herefordian women have towards them, will they change their attitude", i doubt it, i have lived here for over 25 years, these Herefordians do not like change!
Unfortunately Hereford men will not stand up to these FEMINISTS, they actually help them, i have told them what is happening, they say they will not put up with it, the next time i see them they have been feminized!
When i was in Fathers For Juistice i got a article published by one of the locall papers, i told them about the protest that was taking place in London, when it was published the locall paper had changed what i had said and wrote that F4J was trying to stop equal parenting!! This place is hell on earth, get me out of here".
On June 21, 1915, then Governor of Georgia John Slaton commuted the death sentence of one Leo Frank to life imprisonment. The Governor had been convinced by recently available evidence that there was a good chance Frank, a factory supervisor, was innocent of the crime for which he had been condemned, the murder of 13-year-old factory worker Mary Phagan. A painstaking examination of the evidence led Slaton to conclude that Frank had been the victim of an over-zealous prosecution coupled with a public hysteria that had a strong and odious undercurrent of anti-Semitism.
Two weeks after Slaton’s commutation, a lynch mob stormed the prison where Frank was kept, pulled him out, and hanged him.
Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, a gifted comedian of the silent film era, hosted a party on September 5, 1921. A young actress who attended that event, Virginia Rappe, died soon afterward of a ruptured bladder. Another attendee, Bambina Maude Delmont, a woman with an extensive criminal record that included extortion, bigamy, and fraud, accused Arbuckle of raping Virginia and so causing her death. The comedian was arrested and endured three trials. Newspapers played up the sensational story, blasting Arbuckle as a brutal sex fiend. His weight worked against him as he went in the public eye from a lovable fat man character to a kind of obese ogre.
The third jury to try him returned an acquittal. At its own initiative, the jury that found him not guilty also issued an apology in which it declared Arbuckle the victim of a great wrong.
These cases bear some striking parallels. The first is that men were publicly demonized for crimes of which they were innocent. A second is that personal characteristics of the men -- Frank’s ethnicity and religion, Arbuckle’s weight – fueled prejudice against them.
A third parallel is that these men became scapegoats for wrongs about which society as a whole was validly concerned. Those concerns were about the possible sexual exploitation of women in factories and in Hollywood. They were also about the children who might be born of such exploitation and were likely to be ill cared for or neglected.
That society as a whole urgently wanted to protect women and girls is a point to give one pause. Some people seem to see our social system as created by “beastly” men out to “use” women. The truth is that that vast majority of men have traditionally been sensitive to the special problems women experience because of pregnancy along with the female vulnerability to sexual violence that is embedded in the biological construction of men’s and women’s sexual organs. The desire of men as a group to protect women from the minority of vicious men can be seen in the harsh penalties for forcible rape and in the very existence of the statutory rape laws.
The Leo Frank and Roscoe Arbuckle cases were tragedies in which individual innocent men were caught up in a maelstrom of societal outrage and made scapegoats.
At this point the reader probably expects me to make a point about the alleged rape of a stripper by Duke University lacrosse players. But the point of the Frank and Arbuckle cases goes well beyond any current case and applies to all criminal cases. It is that we must never allow general societal concerns, no matter how well taken, to warp the course of justice for individuals.
A New Jersey judge recently confronted an issue that courts have been avoiding for years: are restraining orders constitutional? Accused criminals have "due process" and many other constitutional rights, but the feminists have persuaded many judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminals and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations.
These restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, yet they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.
Mr. and Mrs. Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the same household when they had a fight, and Mrs. Crespo asked for a restraining order. Mr. Crespo was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the restraining order, which banned him from his own house and thereby separated him from his kids.
Mr. Crespo made several good arguments that the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz rejected most of those arguments, but he cited a long line of cases holding that "clear and convincing evidence" is required in order to take away fundamental rights (such as a parent's right over the care and custody of his children).
The feminists are in an uproar about Judge Schultz's decision and would like the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse it. The feminists want courts to uphold a woman's right to kick a man out of his home based on a woman's unverified accusations.
Family courts are notorious for issuing restraining orders based on one woman's unsupported request. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him 'See ya' around.' "
People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order. Too often, the order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute.
Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to retain custody or even get to see his own children.
That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence (which doesn't have to be physical or proven) did not involve the children at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another case, U.S. v. Hayes, to decide whether an old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can bar a man from ever owning a gun. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not have guns, but misdemeanors are minor offenses that usually carry no jail time.
Under feminist pressure, most courts have interpreted federal law broadly to deprive millions of men of their gun rights. However, in the Hayes case, a 2-1 majority on the Fourth Circuit had the courage to stand up to the feminists and rule that Hayes had no fair warning that prosecutors would stretch the definition of domestic violence to include his minor offense.
Randy Edward Hayes had a dispute with his wife in 1994, pled guilty to misdemeanor battery, and served one year of probation. Ten years later, he was prosecuted for having a Winchester rifle in his West Virginia home.
Why are men with clean histories except for one domestic dispute punished like hardened criminals who mug strangers on the street?
The answer is that the feminist agenda calls for domestic-violence laws to punish husbands and fathers above and beyond what can be proven in court under due-process procedures.
When Senator Dianne Feinstein voted for the federal law prohibiting a man from owning a gun if he has a domestic violence conviction, she stated, "It is an unfortunate fact that many domestic violence offenders are never convicted of a felony. Outdated or ineffective laws often treat domestic violence as a lesser offense.... Plea bargains often result in misdemeanor convictions for what are really felony crimes."
In other words, Senator Feinstein wants to pretend a man is a felon even if he is not. That's the feminist anti-male agenda.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year in District of Columbia v. Heller that we all have a fundamental constitutional right to own and use a gun. We will soon see how serious the Court is in defending our Second Amendment right.
It's time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers by repudiating the feminist agenda that considers men guilty unless proven innocent.
By Denise Noe
A waitress my brother worked with frequently griped about her disgust with men and with the way she sees feminism as having altered men’s attitudes toward women for the worse. In the spirit of the old “chivalry is dead” lament, she complained that her daughter had, with great difficulty, brought a heavy and unwieldy piece of furniture into her (the daughter’s) house. Two able-bodied men had been close by and had failed to rush to the rescue and bring the thing in for her.
However, the daughter did not ask the men for their help. This reminds me of an incident that occurred (many moons ago!) when I was in high school. I have even less strength – quite a bit less – than the average female. I picked up a big, heavy typewriter and took it from one desk to another, an action difficult and painful for me. “Aww, you didn’t have to do that,” one of the boys said in a voice full of sympathy. “I would have carried it for you.”
Why didn’t I ask a guy for help? Was I making an “I am woman, hear me roar” statement? No. I just did not think to ask.
On other occasions I have asked men for help because of their greater strength. One time I was in an apartment complex laundry and one of the washing machines had its coin receiver stuck. The female apartment manager tried to pull it out several times and then I tried to pull it out. A man of about average build was around and I said, “Could you do this? It takes a man’s strength.” He did not respond with a lecture about how feminism has made it obsolete for men to help because of their strength. Instead, he immediately obliged, pulling on the coin receiver several times but to no avail. It was in fact simply stuck.
In general, I have found that even in this “post-feminist” era, men do not on principle refuse to aid women in heavy lifting and similar activities. However, men, like women, are not mind readers and may have their thoughts elsewhere when their help is needed. It is incumbent on an individual who needs help to ask for it. If we don’t, we shouldn’t blame anyone for our not getting it. We should also be realistic. Strength varies among men. The muscles on elderly men or chronically ill men have often withered. However, those men who are able to easily lift something will usually do so when asked. This is less a matter of chivalry than of decency and most men are decent.
Updated 8th-August-2008 at 02:19 AM by Denise Noe