Audre'y Eby could use your support: create justice and fight racism and misogyny by signing this petition

Below please see the Lakota People's Law Project's photo and the compelling justice story that goes with it. The text comes from their websites. Here is one:

https://www.facebook.com/LakotaPeoplesLawProject?hc_location=timeline

A Lakota mother is fighting to regain custody of her disabled sons, who were horribly abused by their white father and his girlfriend. The racism in the family court system works against Indigenous parents and grandparents, breaking up families and exposing Indigenous children to racism and abuse from caregivers. Please sign this petition and help these teens stay with their mother.

[Photo: The teenage sons of Iowa mom Audre'y Eby and a family friend. Eby is a Lakota woman fighting to regain custody of her disabled sons from her abusive ex-husband.]

A ‪#‎Sioux‬ mother in ‪#‎Iowa‬ has rescued her children from abuse, and now faces arrest! Her children are disabled and the Iowa Child Protection Services is aware of the abuse, but the children were still ordered to be placed back with the abuser. Read more here: http://lakota.cc/KKKtRA  

SIGN the petition here: http://lakota.cc/K42dqB

Now Showing in 3D: "Denial, Degradation, and Domination"

image is from here

The image above is a visual example of what denial and domination does to women and girls: it degrades them. It dehumanises them. It makes them into things to be taken apart; things which men do not desire to put back together. Men take apart women and girls in so many grim and common ways. All of those ways are terrible and many are horrifying. It is, especially, the horror and the political construction and maintenance of it that men, as a class, refuse to be responsible for.

I have been trying to assist a friend and her children who are prisoners of the husband-father. He controls all the money and other aspects of their lives, and his abilities to do this are backed by the country in which they live. Their country, like mine, is very patriarchal. The country is his, not hers. All social and economic and political systems, and many customs, are patriarchal, are male dominated, and value male dominance over women and children. This is how it is across the globe in most places. In his country, boys and men are valued, and girls and women are not.

If her story were told--it will not be told here--many men would blame her for the situation she is in. Truth told, many women would too. Maybe even more women than men, actually, because in my experience women are terrified of being trapped by a man, and don't want to ever admit it could happen to them, unless it has already happened. And even then, denial works wonders to allow us to pretend the oppressive and dehumanising conditions we live in aren't all that bad, aren't degrading, and don't constitute severe oppression. That men's domination and degradation of girls and women is not seen as oppression in most places is something I have encountered here recently.

I called an attorney about my friend who is held captive with their children. I couldn't speak directly to the lawyer, only her assistant who is male. I asked him if there might be some form of political asylum for her. He balked at that--political asylum??? Was I crazy? He said that's for conditions in which a group or individual is being terrorised politically. (Silly me: I view battery, trafficking, rape, gendered poverty, and other domestic and international violence that way, when men do it to women and girls.) I told him VAWA would not agree with him and he might wish to educate himself. Actually, I didn't suggest he might wish to educate himself. I knew that would only annoy him and that he was set in his beliefs about women not being able to be political prisoners of men, in the home. His views are typical of most men I know.

What I find generally is that men do not wish to believe that they can be and too often are terrorists of women and girls. The fathers who molest and rape their daughters deny it. The boyfriends who abuse and control their girlfriends deny it. The husbands who beat and terrorise their female spouses deny it. The men who rape women on dates or on the street or in their homes deny it. With all that denial, is it any wonder that the male assistant to the woman attorney responded as he did?

It is not a surprise to me. But it is infuriating. I despise his point of view. I despise men's ignorance and arrogance, men's willful refusal to get how men dominate and degrade women politically.

And I hope there is a special place in hell for the men who do terrorise women and girls. Because men put women and girls in a special kind of hell by degrading and dominating them in many ways including economically and sexually, including interpersonally and institutionally--all of them political.

This has been explained and expressed in painfully explicit detail for forty-plus years worldwide. From every area of study, from every area of the Earth. Why haven't men, en masse, been paying attention? Because men, collectively, home by home, region by region, continent by continent, don't care enough about women's and girls' liberation from men's denial, degradation, and domination.

Charlie Sheen is a drug addict and the equivalent of two and a half men who are male supremacist scumbags. And Charlie Sheen HAS BEEN FIRED, finally! Details here.

image is from here

March 1, 2011: Breaking news on Charlie Sheen: Brooke Mueller, his ex-wife, has files a restraining order against him.
For more, see:

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2011/03/01/2011-03-01_brooke_mueller_files_restraining_order_against_estranged_husband_charlie_sheen_t.html

This is a man CBS has been paying about two million dollars to every week he "works" at playing a shallow misogynist on TV. With a fraction of that money (or perhaps all of it) he has been scoring more drugs and exploiting and/or abusing more women in systems of prostitution. He claims to have no savings! No savings with two mill a week? That'd be a lot of drugs and a lot of renting of women as sexxx-things. And now he wants 3 million per episode. Prince Charming, he's not. As was astutely noted on SNL's Weekend Update, on May 14, 2005:

Tina Fey: This Monday marks the final episode of the sitcom “Everybody Loves Raymond.” Next season, CBS Monday will be anchored by the show “Everybody Has Mixed Feelings about Charlie Sheen.” [source: here]

But not because he's creepy, folks. Because he's one more man, a very rich one, who can pay to abuse women and not be charged with any crime.

If I hear any more about how victimised Charlie "the procuring prick" Sheen is, I'm going to... well, possibly write up another post about him. I've posted on this male supremacist racist abusive jerk before, *here* and *here*. But clearly three time's a charm, because now the arrogant, abusive, obnoxious actor is finally gone from the TV screens and hopefully will get his ass kicked to the curb just outside the border of Hollywood. Why am I hoping for this?

He's a chronically exploitive man who procures women (for sexxx) who have been raped and pimped. He sexually exploits and sometimes harms the women. He's a misogynist, racist jerk, along the lines of Mel Gibson. He may also be anti-Semitic, but certainly not as anti-Semitic as that son-of-a-HaShoah-denier, Mel. Both men are what they are because they choose to do what they do--they practice being that way. Over and over again. They aren't racist and misogynistic because of drugs and alcohol. Drugs and alcohol don't cause people to be white supremacists or male supremacists, just so you know. How can I know this?

There are other men who've been caught with drug and alcohol problems of some kind, such as David Cassidy. Anyone see David spouting off anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic terms when being arrested or caught in an embarrassing situation? Nope. How come the substances didn't do to him what they apparently do to oppressive and bigoted scumbags like Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson? Could it be because David Cassidy isn't a racist, anti-Semitic, battering misogynist and serial procurer of pimped women?

A typical quote by Charlie Sheen: "I hope you fucking die, b*tch." When will a man being an unrepentant misogynist be seen as reason enough to deny him any custodial parental rights to keep children in his home?

Just in: An all-new picture of Charlie Sheen and his new roommates, who include ex-wife Brooke Mueller, porn star Bree Olson and former nanny Natalie Kenly. The three women, who are pictured above in Sheen's home theater, are now living with the "Two and a Half Men" star, who is expected to return work on Monday after undergoing month-long rehab. Sheen and Mueller's twin sons Bob and Max, nearly two, are also living in the home and a source tells "The Insider" he would like to have an even fuller house. The source says the actor would also like his ex-wife Denise Richards and their two daughters, Sam, 6, and Lola, 5, to also live at his opulent Los Angeles home.[ Read full article on The Insider] [source for this blurb is *here*]

His dad Martin Sheen sees him as fully human, which Charlie is. But asking any of us to feel for the 45-year-old lad is a bit much, at this point. He's a big boy now. And even though too many men will be boys, this man has been a male supremacist for far too long.

I wonder if Martin has ever told him, "Charlie, using women as sex-things isn't cool and it's not okay. Renting, exploiting, and sexually abusing people is wrong and you ought to be put in jail for the way you mistreat women, particularly pimped women in systems of prostitution. You're also a racist, son. A racist misogynist. Now, when are you going to admit that with any degree of remorse or shame? And, when are you going to commit yourself to treating women--all women--with respect and regard for THEIR full humanity--the full humanity YOU demand everyone acknowledge you have?

He and Mel Gibson ought to take their millions and donate them to anti-trafficking and anti-battery organisations. They've sure got millions to spare.

What do you say, fellas? Care to transform yourselves into two men who don't fuck over women, beat women, harass women, terrorise women, and use and abuse women as sexxx-objects?

This just in: Two and a Half Men has been cancelled. Hurray!!! Now the producers CAN give the obscene amount of money that would have gone to C. Sheen to several international anti-trafficking organisations instead.

For the story on the cancellation of the show, see this, from the UK's Daily Record. You can link to the original by clicking on the title below.

Charlie Sheen rant results in hit show being cancelled as star goes off the rails

Feb 26 2011 Simon Boyle

TROUBLED Charlie Sheen's hit TV comedy was cancelled yesterday - after he unleashed a bizarre rant at the show's creator.

He branded producer Chuck Lorre a "stupid, stupid little man", then rounded on his critics, claiming: "I'm not perfect, but look what I'm dealing with - fools and trolls."

After the attack, TV chiefs cancelled production of his hit show Two And A Half Men.

But Sheen still refused to shut up.

In a letter to fans, he said of Lorre: "Clearly I have defeated this earthworm with my words - imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists."

The outburst could signal the end of his £1.2million per episode deal with CBS to star in the comedy, which made him the highest-paid actor on TV.

Sheen, 45, was hospitalised recently after a cocaine and booze party with porn stars.

Earlier this week, he jetted out to the Caribbean with his ex-wife Brooke Mueller, porn star Bree Olson and "nanny" and glamour model Natalie Kenly. Mueller has since returned to Los Angeles.

From the Bahamas, Sheen called a US radio show to insist he had kicked his drug and alcohol addictions, roaring: "I don't have time for these clowns and their judgment and stupidity.

"They lie down with their ugly wives in front of their ugly children, and then they look at me and say, 'I can't process it'.

"Well, stop trying, just sit back and enjoy the show.

"I'm gonna stay here with these two smokin' hotties and fly privately around the world. You know it might be lonely up here but I sure like the view."

Lorre quickly called a halt to the rest of the current series of Two And A Half Men.

That prompted Sheen to furiously pen an open letter to fans, stating: "I fire back once and this contaminated little maggot can't handle my power and can't handle the truth.

"I wish him nothing but pain in his silly travels, especially if they wind up in my octagon.

"I urge all my beautiful and loyal fans who embraced this show for almost a decade to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable w rong."

During his on-air rant to US chat host Alex Jones, Sheen claimed his own methods of beating his addictions were much more effective than the techniques offered by support group Alcoholics Anonymous.

He sniped: "The only thing I'm addicted to right now is winning. AA has a five per cent success rate, my success rate is 100 per cent.

"Their entire manifesto is built on complete and total surrender. They say 'Don't be special, be one of us'. Newsflash: I am special."

And in an odd blast, he went on to attack United States founding father and former president Thomas Jefferson.

Sheen claimed: "I'm not Thomas Jefferson, he was a p***y, but I dare anyone to debate me on things.

"Debate me on AA right now.

I had a disease, I cured it with my brain, with my mind. I can't use the word sober, cause that's a term from those people, but I have cleansed myself. I closed my eyes and in a nanosecond I cured myself from this ridiculous model of disease, addiction and obsession."

He defended his relationship with a string of porn stars and models, claiming he and his group of "goddesses" enjoyed "a marriage of the heart".

The outburst leaves his Two And A Half Men career hanging in the balance - and threatens his return to the hit film franchise Major League.

Reports have linked the star to the third film in the series, but Sheen insists producers have yet to sign him, adding: "If they want me in it, it's a smash, but if they don't it's a turd that launches like a tugboat."

After Sheen's rant, the movie boss behind the Major League franchise James Robinson warned: "I'm not going to risk putting Charlie in the movie if he continues messing up."

[Charlie Sheen] ON HIS CRITICS

I don't have time for these clowns.. They lie down with their ugly wives in front of their ugly children, and then they look at me and say, 'I can't process it.

[Charlie Sheen] ON HIS WOMEN

I'm gonna stay here with these two smokin' hotties and fly privately around the world. You know it might be lonely up here but I sure like the view

[Charlie Sheen] ON CHUCK LORRE

I've defeated this earthworm with my words. Imagine what I would have done with my firebreathing fists

Below is a time line of some of Charlie's abusive and/or illegal and/or notorious behavior. To the general public: How about caring more about the women and other people he fucks over than about him? Or, even, caring as much about them as so many do about him?

What follows is from TVGuide.com and may be linked back to by clicking on the title. Regarding that title: His behavior isn't "bad" so much as it is grotesquely and systematically white het male supremacist--whether or not he is of Latino heritage. His behavior is at times terroristic, abusive, threatening, criminal, illegal, and wrong. It's also obnoxious, selfish, self-absorbed, and not at all worthy of being reinforced with millions of dollars paid to him by men who want to profit off his abuses of other people. His behavior is disgraceful and ought not be condoned by anyone in Hollywood. At least he's no longer on the air in a weekly sitcom.

He and Mel Gibson need to call it quits with their careers and leave women and children alone for the rest of their lives. Maybe they--Charlie and Mel--can live together, hopefully without a boy (or girl) in the house, and hopefully they won't develop a reality show called "Two Racist-Misogynist Men".

Charlie Sheen: A Timeline of Bad Behavior

Feb 25, 2011 11:34 PM ET
by TV Guide News

Charlie Sheen

 

As Charlie Sheen continues his anti-Chuck Lorre and Two and a Half Men tirade, TVGuide.com takes a look back at more than 20 years of Sheen's bad behavior.
 
Charlie Sheen: The history of a promising acting career


January 1990: While in their home, Sheen accidentally shoots fiancée Kelly Preston in the arm. The relationship ends.
 
September 1990: Sheen completes drug rehab a month after checking himself in.


July 1995: Sheen testifies in the tax evasion trial of Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss, admitting he spent almost $53,000 on her prostitutes.
 
December 1996: Sheen is arrested for allegedly beating porn star girlfriend Brittany Ashland, who claimed he slammed her into the marble floor of his home and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
 
June 1997: Sheen pleads no-contest to the Ashland charges and is sentenced to a one-year suspended prison term and two years of probation.
 
May 1998: Sheen is hospitalized after a cocaine overdose. Father Martin Sheen turns him over to authorities for violating his probation. Sheen later checks himself into Promises rehab center.
 
March 2005: Denise Richards, Sheen's second wife, files for divorce while pregnant with the couple's second daughter. She says Sheen had been abusing drugs and alcohol.
 
Charlie Sheen: I'll go back to Men... without Chuck Lorre
 
March 2005: Porn star and escort Chloe Jones tells the National Enquirer Sheen was among her clients and had paid her $15,000 for oral sex. Sheen's agent disputes the claim.
 
April 2006: In order to obtain a restraining order, Richards signs a declaration stating that in the middle of an argument on Dec. 30, 2005, Charlie pushed and shoved her while she was holding their daughter Lola. According to the declaration, Charlie pointed his finger at her and screamed, "I hope you f---ing die, b----."
 
March, 2008: Jason Itzler claims he sent Ashley Dupre (the same Dupre who later had a relationship with Eliot Spitzer) and another girl to have a threesome with Sheen for $20,000. Sheen's reps deny the report.
 
December 2009: Sheen is arrested in Aspen, Colo., on domestic violence charges after an alleged altercation with third wife Brooke Mueller, the mother of his twins.
 
Two and a Half Men ends production for the season following Charlie Sheen's radio rant
 
February 2010: Sheen's Mercedes is stolen and found upside-down at the bottom of a cliff near Mulholland Drive. Police say they do not believe Sheen was in the car because he would have been injured in the accident.
 
February 2010: Sheen is charged with felony menacing and misdemeanor third-degree assault and criminal mischief in connection with the Aspen arrest. He pleads not guilty in March.
 
February 2010: Sheen announces he's voluntarily checking into rehab and takes time off from Two and a Half Men. In May, he signs a two-year deal that will pay him $1.8 million per episode.
 
August 2010: Sheen pleads guilty to the Aspen charges and is sentenced to 30 days in rehab, 30 days of probation and 36 hours of anger management.
 
October 2010: Sheen is reportedly removed from The Plaza Hotel in New York City after causing a disturbance, and allegedly doing $7,000 worth of damage to the room. Richards, who was also staying at the hotel, separately from Sheen, accompanies him to the hospital. His rep says Sheen had an "allergic reaction" to medicine.
 
November 2010: Capri Anderson, an adult film star who was with Sheen at The Plaza, sues him, claiming he choked her. Sheen countersues Anderson, claiming she tried to extort him. Sheen is not prosecuted for the incident at The Plaza Hotel.
 
January 2011: Sheen goes on a reported bender in Las Vegas — where he allegedly parties with a group of women that includes porn stars, strippers, and Michelle "Bombshell" McGee — but returns in time for work on Two and a Half Men.
 
What's next for Charlie Sheen?
 
January 2011: Sheen is rushed to the hospital for severe abdominal pains that a friend of Sheen says came from the actor laughing too hard at the TV. Shortly after, Sheen begins a rehabilitation program in his home. Two and a Half Men goes on production hiatus.
 
February 2011: Sheen begins a rant about Two and a Half Men creator and executive producer Chuck Lorre on The Dan Patrick Show, where he blames the producers for delaying the return of the show. Lorre responds with a vanity card reading, "If Charlie Sheen outlives me, I'm gonna be really pissed." Sheen's ensuing rants (challenging Lorre to a fight, and saying he owns him) and behavior force CBS and Warner Bros. TV to shut down production for the rest of the season. Sheen responds by saying he would return to the series for Season 9 if Lorre is not involved.

Feminist Resources: Protective Mothers Alliance: Working to Make Justice Real for Women and Children. Working to Hold Accountable Abuser Husband-Fathers and their Pro-Patriarchal Attorneys

image is from here

We must realise that courts are patriarchal spaces. Juries are people who, often enough, see the world through the lenses of patriarchs. Male supremacy is the law of most lands which means men rule and men are presumed to be truth-tellers unless proven otherwise. Male supremacist rule means women are perpetually seen as wh*res, b*tches, and unrepentant liars, unless or until, as a class, they can prove otherwise, to the satisfaction of men as a class.

In such a world, women who speak out against their husbands' or ex-husbands' abuses of them are targeted by the abusers' attorneys as unfit mothers because they endured abuse and because they are committing abuse--against the patriarchal perp-parent. They are painted in ugly portraits by misogynistic attorneys who make the case that such liars, such anti-man monsters should not be custodial parents. This is accomplished while the husbands, ex-husbands, and their attorneys lie through their terroristic teeth.

The few women who are able to get to a courtroom are encouraged to keep silent about men's private violence, his private predation, his private abuses, because it will reflect badly on HER and make her custody suit less likely to result any mother having sole or primary custody of her children. If courts see the mother as putting down the holy husband he gets full custody, including of children he emotionally, physically, and sexually assaults.

This is so common as to be normal. And it is a normal violation of any understanding of human rights. When men fight for "father's rights" or "men's rights" what they reveal is something they don't intend to reveal: they are not humane and they care not at all about human rights for oppressed people. They only care about preserving the rights patriarchal societies and its institutions give them, unjustly.

"Domestic violence" is not the problem. Patriarchal violence is. The social atrocity is men terrorising and abusing women and children globally. That some women might occasionally "strike back" doesn't mean "domestic violence goes both ways". And if there are women who yell at their husbands and hit them without leaving a bruise, that isn't "both ways" either, because most women learn that raising their voice to their husbands will result in them being beaten, raped, or killed. So the few women who do raise their voices to their terrorist husbands are doing so at great risk. What risk is there to husbands, globally, who raise their voices and their fists to their wives? Usually, none. There is usually no risk because it's a man's world where women have not "come a long way, baby".

image of U.S. 1970s print ad is from here

Ads like this one proliferated in the 1970s in the U.S. as a way of corporately co-opting the Women's Liberation Movement. Suddenly, "liberation" meant having access to "your own cigarette". (Cough.) Anyone who believes feminists of any color control advertising media are delusional. Women aren't in charge and never were. Men have ruled every economic, social, political, legal, medical, educational, and religious institution since those institutions, globally while not universally, since they came into existence. That some men think feminists have "gone too far" only means that for many men, the mere existence of feminist campaigns to end sexism and misogyny equals "going too far".

We must keep in mind that even within the G8 countries, there are some where homosexuality and transsexuality for men is allowed to exist, but lesbianism is not. Not that homosexuals and transsexuals have the same rights to be free of men's exploitation and abuse that heterosexual men have. But, at the very least, they get to exist. Did you know there are countries, industrialised, "developed" countries, where lesbianism isn't allowed and doesn't socially exist? Did you know there are countries which socially, tacitly permit men (who are heterosexually married to women) to have sex with other men on the side? Women who marry men cannot have sex with women at all, unless the husband demands it for his own entertainment. How "equal" does that sound to you? Did you know there are countries--developed, industrialised ones--where men's rape of women, if it happens inside a marriage, is not legally considered to be rape because it is her duty to fulfill his sexual needs, as he and the court and the government defines them?

We must keep in mind the conditions in which most women live: poverty, patriarchy, and predation. Men are at war against women, not with women. Men terrorise women and it is never called Terrorism by governments such as the U.S.'s. Why? What part of terrorism isn't happening to women by men? To those who answer "It isn't organised", I'll remind you that Men's Rights groups and Father's Rights groups are very well-organised indeed, and are usually run by white class-privileged men. They have influence in many countries. They are the gendered equivalent of White Rights and Aryan Rights groups--which are also all run by men, often men with less class privilege than the Men's Rights groups. This means, structurally and politically speaking, Men's Rights groups have more power than White Nationalist groups. Whether in the service of men who are white, or whites who are men, these organisations are well-networked and international. This means women of all colors are not free, baby.

All that follows is from Protective Mothers Alliance.

Please Listen to our latest BLOGTALKRADIO Show...click here

	Welcome to PROTECTIVE MOTHERS ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL  Protective Mothers Alliance International (PMA) is an international organization co founded/codirected by Lundy Bancroft and Janice Levinson. The PMA family consists of protective mother-driven advocates working together as a tight team for change. PMA is working toward bringing about dramatic reform in family court for protective mothers and their children. PMA advocates for change through education, legislation reform, enforcement of current legislation, community and media outreach and other strategies that may be effective and beneficial. PMA supports the efforts of protective mothers in keeping themselves and their children safe from the abuse of a former partner, and in empowering these mothers to become advocates for themselves and others. Among the many common family law practices we work to stop are: Custody of children granted to men who abuse women; those who abuse/have abused children; those who are perpetrators of sexual abuse towards children; and the granting of unsupervised contact with children to abusers with no requirement that they overcome their abusiveness. Other issues include: Labeling protective mothers as parental alienators and punishing them for their appropriate protective efforts; using biased tests, and misusing psychological tests to support abusers; forcing protective moms to spend excessive amounts of money on prolonged, unnecessary litigation, and much more. PMA administrators, chapter leaders and members are working together as a tight team to change harmful practices that eliminate, or restrict loving, biological mothers from the lives of their children.
	Disclaimer: A note to all protective mothers and advocates who are interested in solidarity, teamwork and joining Protective Mothers Alliance International with the goal of helping us stop family court abuse. PMA International is an advocacy organization. We do not get involved in personal cases and cannot give out legal advice, as we are not attorneys. However, we may be able to give some referrals and guidance because of our personal experiences with family court. Due to the sensitive nature of the work that we do, PMA has a professional security team and a small group of attorney's who protect our organization and our protective mothers. Protective mothers and advocates interested in joining PMA or receiving some referrals and/or guidance from our staff, must undergo a screening process. Anyone who desires to join our many groups on facebook and other venues must also undergo a screening process. This is for the protection of our organization, children, mothers and advocates. For more information on this screening process and how you can help join us in our fight to stop family court abuse, please email us at lb.jlpma@gmail.com. Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

http://protectivemothersalliance.org/index.html

Who's Your Psychopath? (I mean "Husband", or "Daddy".)

image is from a very chilling blog about a horrid abuser of a woman by her father, here

I'm not sure about using a term like "psychopath aggressors" (see below) when being aggressive is normally encouraged among men, and when being dangerous isn't all that unusual. "Psychopath" generally means someone who significantly deviates from the norm. Given that the norm for men is to be oppressive, controlling, and abusive to women, how can being an abusive husband or father be called "psychopathic"? The terms of mental illness are used in courts and classrooms, in media and by the military, to not name what's really going on. This is to say, the problem, socially, isn't that some men are mentally ill. It's that they've been socialised to be men and feel entitled to exercise power they have structurally, positionally, in many social hierarchies that aren't at all "psychological". And, some men are, clinically speaking, psychopaths. But who gets clinically diagnosed? Very few people. Among the population of people who have access to mental health care, or whatever it's erroneously called, more women than men are likely to seek out support with mental health issues, not getting to speak with anyone who will validate that the personal-social roots of being aggressed against by men, of being terrorised by men, or of having post-traumatic stress due to invasions and violations by men, are normal while atrocious. Which means more women than men will be diagnosed with mental illness. With all that said, please read on. I don't have an online link to it as it is an offline document.

THE TACTICS AND PLOYS OF PSYCHOPATH AGGRESSORS IN THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM

 

In the twenty years I have been advising parents, children, and their legal advisers in several hundred cases in Family Law matters, I have often been asked, “Why is it that children are so often ordered to have contact with, and even into the custody of, parents who have abused them and have perpetrated violence against their partners.”

 

The answer to this question is not simple and involves an examination of the requirements of Family Laws which stress the importance of children having both parents in their lives after parental separation, the dynamics of legal processes, and the often very clear gender biases of the principals involved in judicial processes.

 

But one of the most outstanding and consistent features of proceedings involving the care of children post-separation are the conduct and behaviours which can be identified as clearly fitting the definitions of psychopathy/sociopathy.

 

The major personality traits of the psychopath are supremacy and narcissism. The afflicted individual must be in complete control of their environment and all persons who are a part of that environment or can serve the psychopaths purposes in maintaining control.

 

The psychopath is capable of using both physical aggression and passive aggression with cunning and guile, to achieve their goals of exerting control. Examples of such contrary behaviours are the aggressive violence against an intimate partner, with the frequent inherent abuse of children, and to groom friends, relatives, and professionals into believing they are harmless and indeed a very stable and friendly person. If thwarted in attaining these goals however, the passive can quickly turn into the aggressive.

 

In furtherance of these traits, the major tactics and ploys of the psychopath are:

1. Denial of wrongdoings in the face of clear evidence;

2. Refusal to take responsibility for behaviours and actions;

3. Minimise the incident and consequences;

4. Blame others;

5. Misrepresent, fabricate, embellish, and distort information and evidence;

6. Minimise all information and evidence regarding wrongdoing;

7. Claim victim status alleging the victim was the aggressor;

8. Project their own actions and behaviour onto the victim; e.g. she abuses/neglects the children/ she is an alcoholic or drug abuser. This is based on the belief by the psychopath that attack is the best form of defence.

 

The `Grooming’ of friends, relatives, and professionals is very clear in many cases and in particular how some psychiatrists, psychologists, Family Evaluators/Reporters have been hoodwinked by such tactics and ploys by the psychopathic individual. Their reports of course favouring the psychopath have very considerable influence on the Courts and their determinations. Very often clear evidence of intimate partner violence such as convictions, Domestic Violence Orders, Apprehended Violence Orders and Restraining orders against the psychopathic aggressor and medical evidence of injuries suffered by the adult and child victims are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant by such professionals.

 

Such professionals now refer to such cases as `High Conflict’ cases when it is clear that they are situations of a violent Aggressor/Tormentor/Persecutor and their victims. It is easy to see how the cases in Austria and America where young girls were imprisoned for many years by controlling individuals and regularly abused in several ways were undetected, when the aggressors /persecutors / tormentors were able to convince their family members, relatives, and associates that they were reasonable, normal people. The same often occurs in other cases of violence and murder where neighbours report that the accused murderer is a `nice and friendly neighbour’. They do not recognise the Jekyll and Hyde aspects of the psychopath’s ploys and tactics and those they have effectively groomed in their beliefs.

 

The `High Conflict’ which usually occurs in such cases is most commonly engendered by the respective lawyers, conditioned by operating in an adversarial process and arena, and whose own major goal is to `win’, whatever may be the justness and fairness of the result.

It is not difficult to see therefore how the psychopath is able to readily gain the sympathy and support of some of the professionals engaged in the Family Law system and for them to abandon and forfeit their professional objectivity and impartiality in such circumstances. In `Blaming others’ the psychopath will allege the former partner is mentally ill and in some cases the former partner may be suffering a Complex Post Traumatic Disorder after suffering years of physical, mental, and sexual abuse and violence. This is often misinterpreted and misdiagnoses a Borderline Personality Disorder or similar psychiatric term. In effect it is a classic `Blame the victim’ scenario.

 

The groomed professionals then enable the psychopath to achieve their primary objective which is to maintain power and control over their victims, their former partner and children. It is an act of vengeance and spite but mostly it is to maintain the power and control and feelings of supremacism and narcissism. “I am faultless and flawless and in control of my whole environment” are the unvoiced cravings of the psychopath, and “I can continue to inflict my tortures on my victims with impunity” are the psychopaths continuing behaviours.

 

The Family Law and their Shared Parenting provisions and its administration by the Family Courts have become ready enablers for the psychopath.

Charles Pragnell

Independent Advocate for Children and Families

18/02/2010.

In the Melinda Stratton vs. Ken Thompson child abuse case, guess which one is in jail? Here's a clue: not him.

Australian mother imprisoned

The story behind the Australian mother in your Amsterdam  prison. 

Her young son convinces her that he is being sexually molested by his father. 

She turned to the Family Court to protect him. 

As research has shown in Australia mothers who do this are at high risk of being labelled as mad or bad and the children can be handed to those accused of abusing them.

Melinda Stratton is so convinced of the need to protect her son that, with signs that the Family Court will most probably hand her son to the man he says is abusing him, she abandons her house, car, relatives and career and flees overseas.

The father is allowed by the court to publicise (using all forms of international media) that the mother is mentally ill and dangerous.

The mother is located in Europe and, despite not being convicted of any crime, is imprisoned indefinitely while her 6 year-old child is snatched from her and placed in state care, allegedly having been allowed to visit her for one hour in over a month. The father also prevents her family any contact with the boy.

While, thanks to media coverage, the father has gained universal sympathy, all Australians should be concerned and ask: 

If, as Ken Thompson states, this woman is mentally ill, why is she in jail,  not in psychiatric care?

And if, as he maintains, she has committed no crime, why is she a prisoner “awaiting extradition”?

Thirdly, why is the father still allowed to promote his version of events why the mother is gagged by S121 of the Family Law Act?

And finally, what is happening to this child clearly constitutes child abuse by Australian authorities and is in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Sincerely,

Concerned citizens of Australia

All that is above was sent to me. But I am certain of this: her story can be multiplied by a million, and yet men think they don't get justice in courtrooms across the globe. Why? Because they don't recognise injustice against women and children as injustice. "Injustice" and "unfairness" in the patriarchal mind, means "men not treated the way any given man demands to be treated." I'll add that if you're a woman who is not white, who is poor, who is battered, your chances of being helped by courtrooms virtually disappears--because you're so much less likely to ever get inside one.

And, if you're white and a woman and charge a man with crimes he commits that society doesn't want to deal with, you won't likely be believed either. But feminist groups are working to ensure that courtrooms are less patriarchal and misogynistic. Meanwhile, FR groups complain and complain about things like "She broke my computer and the courts didn't punish her enough!!!" When women's bones and wills are broken my men, there's no injustice done. Inside patriarchal societies which means most on Earth, only his experience of reality matters. He speaks Truth. She speaks distortions. So he says.

For more, please see below, which is from *here*.

What About Melinda Stratton's side of the Story?

The news articles are flying in supporting a potential sexual abuser and claiming that Melinda Stratton is mentally ill. Mental illness is the only pathetic explanation as to why a business women would run away from everything that is familiar to her and Andrew. If there was a criminal background, it would be featured, but no Melinda Stratton has nothing but the opinion of a court ordered psych.

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, "Oh...Um...yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser". 

 

Note the word most. The exclusion is the community of REAL mothers and children who have been through this and know what Melinda has gone through. Lets face it, experts get paid for their opinion at the end of the day and I am sure some are willing to alter some to get a nice big payout at the end of the day. I place my bets on experience.

In Australia, we now have grown up children who have been forced by court order to stay with an abusive parent. No law is going to stop them from speaking out in the end as Australian jurisdiction only reaches so far.

Anderson Cooper, John Walsh, and Dr. Phil Call Out Amazon.com for Selling Books That Teach Men How to Molest Children and Get Away With It

Below is an article from CNN about this issue. The link to it on CNN is *here*. Some discussion of this subject by me appears below the article.

(CNN) -- "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct" was pulled from Amazon.com, a spokesman confirmed Thursday, after thousands of users posted angry comments and threats to boycott the site.

The self-published e-book was available on the site for download until late Wednesday for $4.79.

Company spokesman Drew Herdener would not comment on the controversy or respond to questions about the company's guidelines for digital publication.

On Wednesday, Amazon defended selling the book in response to a report published on BusinessInsider.com.

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

Before it disappeared from the site Wednesday night, the listing had more than 2,000 user comments. The vast majority of them condemned the book's stated content, as well as Amazon's decision to make it available.

"It is ILLEGAL to molest children, and for Amazon to promote such is insane. I'm an abuse survivor, and am OUTRAGED Amazon would choose to promote this nonsense. I will not be purchasing anything from your website until this is removed," one user wrote in a comment that summed up the feelings of many others.

In its product description, the book's author described it as "my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian [sic] rules for these adults to follow."

"I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter [sic] sentences should they ever be caught," he said.

Author Phillip R. Greaves II told CNN that he published "The Pedophile's Guide" to address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.

"True pedophiles love children and would never hurt them," the Pueblo, Colorado, man said in a phone interview Wednesday night.

Greaves, 47, told CNN that he has not had sexual contact with a child as an adult, but did when he was a teenager. He also said he "was introduced to oral sex when I was 7" by an older female, but did not provide specifics.

A small contingent of Amazon.com users defended the author's right to free speech, and a discussion on the site titled "Why Amazon is Right" delved into the constitutional implications of the controversy. Others floated the possibility that the e-book was a hoax or a law enforcement trap for pedophiles.

"While I think 99.9 percent of us object to pedophilia (even though I think this particular book was a publicity stunt/joke), I think we can all agree that we don't want someone else censoring a subject matter that we may be interested in. Religion, atheism, homosexuality, etc. are some subjects that spring to mind ... and they have been censored in the past until we realized that it's best to let all information in (even if we don't like some of it), rather than allow some authority or individual decide what we can and can't know about based on their own opinions or motivations," one user wrote.

In its form as a written piece, "The Pedophile's Guide" is protected under the First Amendment right to free speech, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.

Child pornography is illegal as images. But text, which can be considered "works of advocacy," has won protection in the courts under the First Amendment, Toobin said.

"There is an argument that some works of advocacy are incitement, but the courts have been very, very narrow in interpreting that as a crime," Toobin said.

"I think this one is well safe under the protection of the First Amendment."

*          *          *

What we can note is that only WHM, with the exception of Anderson Cooper, who is gay, are empowered by media to speak about this issue. The time has ended when feminists who work to stop men's sexual violence against children and women are allowed to speak on major media. No feminist perspectives are allowed on rape, battery, incest, child molestation, trafficking, sexual slavery, pornography, or prostitution, unless the perspective is liberal and individualistic--in which case the liberal feminist is promoting prostitution and pornography and other sysstems and conditions that make rape inevitable.

We also must note that father's rights groups are working very hard to maintain their right to abuse children, by winning custody battles in courts that won't allow testimony about the father being an abuser in the home. This is an outrage--children are being taken from caring women and handed over the the men who are incesting them. This is a global problem and is egregiously happening in Australia, the UK, and across North America, where Father's Rights groups--many with wealthy WHM lawyers working for them and with them, are winning case after case against the best interests and safety of children.

Also, we should be clear that it is women doing most of the work to stop child molestation, not men. That the media promotes two or three well-known WHM as THE spokespeople, the "experts" on this issue, denies what is so obviously the case: the female victims themselves are the experts, and many feminists know this experience personally. Why aren't these women allowed to speak out on these issues? This media from CNN only makes the White Het Male Hero/Moral Person myth stronger, while invisibilising women who are working with no acknowledgement, within the U.S. and globally, that they are doing this extremely dangerous work in the trenches where the abusers prey on children and women.

What you also need to know is that there has been an activist diligently exposing networks and individuals promoting or protecting child molesters abusing children. Her name is Nikki Craft. She has spent the last 35 years speaking out against men's sexual violence against women and children, with nothing much to show for it except her websites. Imagine working for 35 years with no pay, only getting hateful comments from people who want to preserve the right of men to molest children and rape women. That's been Nikki's life. Goddess Bless Her. Below are some of her websites where she carefully documents this atrocity. And please click on the link coming right up in this sentence to a page all about Nikki Craft's activism. Please take a moment to write to her, at the email address *here* on her website, to thank her for all her very difficult and  thankless work she has done over these many. many years, calling out crimes way before the media was.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/index.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/WilcoxDuncanCross.html 

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/FifteenMinutesofFame.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Wanner.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Tampico.html

Myanmar Feminist Politician and Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, Released from House Arrest, After Seven and a Half Years!!! Hurray!!!!!

May she remain safe and free.

What follows is an article about her struggles and political challenges ahead, from The Washington Post. Please click on the title below to link back.

Suu Kyi says she could work with regime

By Steve Finch

Monday, November 15, 2010

Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi holds flowers before speaking to supporters. She was released from house arrest Saturday. (Photo credit to Soe Zeya Tun)



RANGOON, BURMA - Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi promised Sunday to seek political compromise with the Burmese regime that has detained her for 15 of the past 21 years.

In her first speech since being released from house arrest Saturday, surrounded by thousands of cheering supporters at her party's ramshackle headquarters in Rangoon, the Nobel laureate called for dialogue with the ruling generals. She hinted that her long-held stance backing Western economic sanctions against the regime could be eased should the Burmese people desire it, something she had not previously suggested.

"I've always believed in compromise - I don't like the idea that people think we are not for compromise," she said at a crowded news conference at her National League for Democracy headquarters.

Suu Kyi called on the world to help Burma move toward democracy after last week's landslide election victory for the regime and a political divide that analysts say could be wider than ever. Although Suu Kyi scored a resounding election victory 20 years ago, the military has prevented her from leading a process toward a democratic government and she remains sidelined by the regime.

Suu Kyi refused to single out parties and groups she would or would not work with, instead choosing a tone of reconciliation, particularly with the military.

"If there weren't any differences, there would be no need for reconciliation," she said Sunday, behind a wall of journalists and supporters inside the NLD office. "All of those groups and parties in Burma who truly believe in democracy, I would like to help."

She would not be specific about her or her party's political plans.

"My next political move? But we are moving all the time," she said. "How soon I am able to achieve democracy depends entirely on how much support the people will give us."

Sunday's turnout for Suu Kyi's appearance was evidence that her status as an icon has not diminished. Crowds began gathering well before the rally's midday start, and there was little security presence from the often heavy-handed junta. Many of those in attendance said they had heard on banned radio stations about Suu Kyi's release and planned rally.

Buddhist monks also were out in force, apparently no longer afraid after their last major display of political dissent in Burma in September 2007: anti-government protests known as the "Saffron Revolution." The monks looked out from the monastery across the street from where Suu Kyi was speaking, and all around Burmese watched from rooftops, doorways and perched in trees to get a better vantage point. Because of the tightly packed crowds, few could see or hear her, but they knew she was there.

"I wanted to talk to her," said Daw Ama, 83, who has witnessed Burma's 48 years of military dictatorship.

Suu Kyi called on Burmese to work together to "lighten the hardships of the people" and mentioned the more than 2,200 political prisoners who continue to occupy the country's jails.

There is no indication of whether her release could be followed by more, or of the junta's response to this weekend's events, said Jared Genser, Suu Kyi's Washington-based international legal counsel.

"I have seen no evidence to suggest that the junta has any interest in engaging in dialogue, compromising, let alone release any other political prisoners," he said in reference to the military government's opaque decision-making process.

Although Suu Kyi talked Sunday of reconciliation and engagement with the military, the regime thus far has not even mentioned her publicly, let alone indicated a desire to engage in dialogue.

It is also unclear how the United States and Europe will react to last week's election and Suu Kyi's release. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton gave little indication of how the United States would proceed on Burma in separate statements welcoming the end of Suu Kyi's detention Saturday.

"Now is the time for the U.S. government to both increase pressure on and engagement with the regime," Genser said.


Finch is a special correspondent.

"Domestic Violence Awareness Month" ought to be renamed "Heterosexual Husbands and Boyfriends Beating The Shit Out of Women and Their Children Awareness Millennium"

image is from here

It is Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the U.S. and here is a website devoted to publicising that.

1. Domestic Violence is, it seems to me, the violence done by the U.S. government and corporations and individual oppressors to the oppressed who live within the U.S. and its "territories". Or to it's "territories" and the land and the air and the water. Poverty, for example, is a form of Domestic Violence. So is institutionalised racism, heterosexism, and misogyny.

2. Domestic violence is distinguished from Off-shore Violence. And in looking at the latter what we may note is how warfare is part of each: warfare against women by men who seek patriarchal/male supremacist control of women and girls, and also to regulate and restrict the behavior of boys so that they grow up to be "good patriarchs", meaning mass murders, serial rapists, and batterers of anyone in punching range.

3. Domestic Violence was the name chosen when discussions about the many ways men dominate women through intimate violence because too specific for contemplation, let alone resistance work and activism to stop men's violence against women. It is the generic term for something that isn't at all generic or ungendered. Yes, we need to acknowledge that there is such a thing as battery in lesbian and gay relationships. And of course there are many ways adults in families do violence to children. But the most common form of gendered-sexual violence in families is fathers and father figures incesting/raping/molesting their own daughters or girls they are supposed to be parenting, not preying on.

4. Why doesn't the Anti-Woman Revengelical Fundamentalist Christian White Right [Wrong) acknowledge that their unwritten and unspoken moral code is this: "The Family That Preys Against Female Family Members, Stays Together Due to Stockholm Syndrome and other effects of Dominance and Control"? And realise that feminism is only anti-family if your idea of family includes men dominating women, heterosexism, and violence against women and children, including sexual violence?

5. Why doesn't the Anti-Woman Libertarian Liberal "Left" acknowledge that their unwritten and unspoken code is this: men should have as much freedom of access and rights to violate girls and women as men desire to have, to do whatever it is men wish to do to girls and women that men learn from predatory men and pornographers and pimps. What is are the liberals and libertarians doing to stop incest and rape? Not a whole helluva lot. Why is that? Because rape and incest aren't worth stopping? Or because liberal men believe that in a liberal society incest and rape are part of the price paid for "freedom"? Too fucking high a price, I say.

6. Why isn't homophobic and anti-girl bullying and battery understood as part of Domestic Violence? How many girls and boys have to take their own lives before conservatives and liberals wake up to the fact that children hurting, degrading, humiliating, and terrorising other children isn't socially good or socially necessary. Clearly anti-bullying and anti-battery policies and education programs could be in place in every school system. Sure, there'd have to be less military massacres going on non-domestically, to liberate funds to pay school systems to implement such policies and programs. But the problem with that would be what? Less profit in Dick Cheney's, Donald Rumsfeld's, and David Petraeus's pockets? Those "poor" men will just have to get along with the millions they already have acquired through mass rape and mass murder of "foreign" people of color.

7. Why isn't the violence boys do to girls in school systems and outside school systems discussed? I sporadically hear about is anti-gay bullying, usually by boys against boys, or anti-girl bullying, usually by girls against girls. I'm not suggesting each isn't a serious social problem--both are, as is anti-lesbian violence against girls, which I hear little to nothing at all about. But we also need to focus on the problem of boys sexually harassing, stalking, physically and sexually violating girls, throughout grade school and on into adulthood. And anti-lesbian violence among children too.

8. There's a simple way to end married het men battering women in their home. It is to remove forever from the home any man who is found to have beaten up a woman in the home. And to prevent him from ever having contact with his female spouse or his children, as beating up a child's mother is or ought to be grounds for losing all rights to ever see your child or your spouse again. Sound harsh? To the men who think that's too harsh: Try not beating up women and avoid the harsh consequence. Any man that terrorises or systematically dominates and controls a woman in their home has no right to raise their children, to have custody of them, or to visit them. Sound harsh? To them men who think that's too harsh: systematically demonstrate regard and respecting for women and children; don't terrorising or ridicule anyone; don't dominate and bully anyone; and don't demean and controlling anyone systematically. Try being non-abusive, compassionate, and caring, not vengeful and vindictive and then, guess what? You get to raise your own children! See how easy that can be? It's all, quite literally, in your hands, fellas.

9. As for the men who declare the "equal" problem of women beating men, show me the thousands of x-rays of those men's broken bones, please. Show me the thousands of photos of their badly battered faces. Show me the shelters. Because it's not that class-privileged men aren't economically posititioned to purchase and set up "safe homes" for men abused by women. No. Straight men can do that if need be, what with all those allegedly advanced construction skills (to compliment all the destruction skills). The reality is that there is no need. Meanwhile, men down-play the violence men do to women and up-play the violence women do to men. (Yes, women can and do hurt men (and women) in a variety of ways. I've seen women who have been abused and neglected by men lash out in frustration and pain and say hurtful things to men, sometimes even to their faces. What I haven't ever seen or heard about is this: a woman abuse a man who was never been abused by a man. Not once. I accept that it is often the case that men who batter women witnessed men beating up women somewhere earlier in their lives. But not that they witnessed women beating up men earlier in their lives. So no matter how you look at it, the source problem here is men's violence against women, not women's against men.

10. Funny (not ha-ha funny, and not ta-ta funny) how the major media might mention something about Breast Cancer Awareness Month--never enough, while generally ignoring Heterosexual Husbands and Boyfriends Beating The Shit Out of Women and Their Children Awareness Month. I know queer battery happens too; I'm gay. But I'm all for naming what the endemic problem is that's part of an overall systemic reality of men subordinating women, which is men battering (and raping) women, intimately. And anyone beaten, even in lesbian and gay relationships, is called misogynistic names, which tells you a whole lot about the gendered foundations of domestic violence. The problem is not, as too many abusive het men proclaim the problem to be: "spouses hitting each other". I raised the issue in a recent post: why it is that anti-abortionists don't seem to give a shit that men beat up pregnant women causing untold miscarriages? I mean even if they only care about unborn female foetuses and don't give a damn about out-of-the-womb girls and women, you'd think they'd be overtly anti-battery and anti-rape (including anti-incest): two reasons for unwanted pregnancy and unwanted loss of pregnancy. Two main methods of terrorising and dominating women through force and violation. How about Pernicious and Predatory Patriarchal Privileges Awareness Month? Let's see the morning shows and evening news deal with that issue honestly in town hall meetings.

The Double Standard of What Gender-specific Quotes Mean and Represent: The Endless Parade of Anti-Feminist Quotes Continues

image of Dwaine Tinsley: cartoonist (creator of "Chester the Molester" published in Hustler magazine for years), good friend of Larry Flynt, and incest perpetrator of his daughter, is from here

From this blog website: http://heartlessriot.com/post/990641874/misandry-is-not-feminism. My reply to it follows.

Misandry is not feminism!

This (content warning) disturbs me a little as a believer that all people should have equal rights and not seek domination over another sex, ethnic background (I refuse the term “race”), or orientation. To me and many others; this is what feminism is about.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
- Robin Morgan: civil rights, antiwar and radical feminist activist, writer, poet, and editor of Ms. Magazine

Nothing has ever been accomplished anywhere with hate. In fact I think that “man hating” pushes women and man further away from the ultimate goal of equality because it then places the sexes at “war” with each other as well as reinforcing the misconceptions about females.

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.”
- Sheila Jeffreys: professor, political activist and author

This is plain BS. People are supposed to enjoy sex and having an orgasm isn’t making you a slave to the patriarchal system. Not having one is because that means your man only cares about his pleasure rather than yours as well. This lady is backwards and this statement is utterly ridiculous. To me it seems that she is stating you cannot be a feminist and enjoy sex or to be a feminist you must be a lesbian.

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
- Valerie Solanas (1936-1988): Author of the SCUM Manifesto, attempted murderer of Andy Warhol

This is what I call role reversal and it isn’t okay. Just because females have been treated as the proverbial slab of meat does not make it okay to treat men the same way. This comment is sickening…

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
- Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005): writer, antipornography activist

Physical abuse or assault is never okay no matter what sex it is EVER. I don’t think I need to say any more than that.

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.”
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902): social activist, abolitionist, women’s suffrage movement leader

Again, this is just pitting the sexes together in a power struggle which is self defeating to the movement as a whole.

The bottom line is that these women weren’t feminists and women who think like this are not feminists. Just like misogyny; misandry is dangerous to the concept of equality and attitudes like this should be refused by the feminist movement.

Julian Real's reply:

Feminism isn't "misandry" and those tired old quotes don't make it so. They are trotted across the internet more often than the "important" news of which female celebrity was caught in the paparazzi's photographs not wearing any make-up. You're really misleading people here with this post, and it's sad to see--again.

Feminism has always been anti-rape (against anyone), against violence (against anyone), and for equality and dignity and human rights, for raising boys to be humane, for raising girls with self-esteem and confidence.

The people who most promote the hatred of men are MEN, not women. Haven't you noticed that? It is men, after all, not women, who start and maintain wars, right?

The people who do hate women most dangerously are men, and too many of them demonstrate it in ugly and lethal ways, as we all got to witness when recently hearing Mel Gibson be verbally threatening and insulting and degrading to Oksana Gregorieva, or with Phil Spector's murder of Lana Clarkson. We have story after story of male serial rapists and serial killers in the news, which also seems like a storyline prime-time programs like CSI, NCIS, and Law and Order cannot do without. How many more times do we have to see a young, thin, white woman appearing to be dead, bloody, wrapped in plastic, to "entertain" mass U.S. audiences? Those shows, every week, don't show bloody, naked, young pale men in plastic, do they? Who writes those story lines: women or men?

Lies are spread about feminists being "man-haters" by reproducing  five or seven or a dozen quotes, as you do above, as if we couldn't do precisely the same thing with just quotes that have left the lips of male actors, or that were composed by "great" male novelists, essayists, or playwrights. Shall we conclude then, that those men's quotes are representative of how most or all male actors, novelists, essayists, and playwrights feel about women? Why do men's rights activists regularly, online, promote this the double standard:

A few hateful comments by men towards or about women are indicative that some men are bitter about women because sometime in their lives a woman probably hurt them very badly; but a few quotes by some feminists, often from works of fiction or as noted in statements that have been made up completely (evidence linked to below), mean that feminists who disrespect or disregard men in some way are speaking the one truth that all feminists believe--or that even the feminist being quoted believes?

Is that fair? Is what you do above fair to feminism?

Why the very selective quoting? You could promote feminism with the quotes listed below. Feminists were and still are trying to achieve: an end of male violence against women and an end to rape. Feminists work to achieve equal rights, including equal pay for the same work done by men, and feminists note that "housework" is hard work.

See this for more on how your blog post dovetails with what anti-feminist men's rights activists spread across the web:


http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/08/catharine-mackinnon-is-not-proponent-of.html


http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/06/those-mratrolls-and-their-list-of.html

Why don't you put up the quotes below, by radical feminists? I'd recommend that you at least balance out the post you have above by also posting these (not just in a comment by me) to show how even more feminists, including the one's selectively (like Dworkin's and Morgan's) or quoted out of context (like Stanton's) by you above, really feel about men's humanity.

"The strongest lesson I can teach my son is the same lesson I teach my daughter: how to be who he wishes to be for himself." -- radical feminist Audre Lorde

"People can find eroticism in relations with people whom they respect and whom they see as equals." -- radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon

"In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men -- but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily." -- radical feminist Robin Morgan

"[A] legitimate revolution must be led by, made by those who have been most oppressed: black, brown, yellow, red, and white women —- with men relating to that the best they can." -- radical feminist Robin Morgan

One of the most spuriously quoted lines by Marilyn French is one from her novel, The Women's Room. It reads, "all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws and their codes."

What is next was quoted from her in 2007 and is NOT from her fictional characters:

"Most men are on our side. They like their lives better than their fathers' lives. They like being involved with their children. They like having a better relationship with their women." -- radical feminist Marilyn French

"I believe that all human beings are equal. I believe that no one has the right to authority over anyone else." -- radical feminist Marilyn French

"For me, forgiveness and compassion are always linked: how do we hold people accountable for wrongdoing and yet at the same time remain in touch with their humanity enough to believe in their capacity to be transformed?" -- radical feminist bell hooks

"No one deserves brutality because of what they are, there condition of birth." -- radical feminist Andrea Dworkin

"Truth is harder to bear than ignorance, and so ignorance is valued more--also because the status quo depends on it; but love depends on self-knowledge and self-knowledge depends on being able to bear the truth." -- radical feminist Andrea Dworkin

"Love is a combination of care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect and trust." -- radical feminist bell hooks (Communion: The Female Search for Love)

"As all advocates of feminist politics know most people do not understand sexism or if they do they think it is not a problem. Masses of people think that feminism is always and only about women seeking to be equal to men. And a huge majority of these folks think feminism is anti-male. Their misunderstanding of feminist politics reflects the reality that most folks learn about feminism from patriarchal mass media." -- radical feminist bell hooks

Why do you quote Dworkin from a work of fiction? Does a misogynistic quote by Norman Mailer or Ernest Hemingway mean all male novelists hate women? And, noted above here, there are plenty of quotes you could cite by Dworkin that demonstrate she believed in the humanity of men. She was no man-hater, which is obvious if you read her work carefully and know anything at all about her life.

The Stanton quote was obviously written in response to the predominant and prevailing view that white men are superior to all women, of any ethnicity.

Let's visit a few of the quotes by men, throughout history. Because given what follows, you ought to conclude what you do about "feminists": that a few carefully chosen misogynistic quotes from men who say hateful things about women are representative of how men feel, generally, as a group. Is there or isn't there a double standard about what quotes mean when compiled in curiously biased ways?

Below are just a tiny sampling demonstrating that men's institutionalised hatred of women is centuries old and exists across many societies. These are men, who, unlike anyone you cited above, occupied positions of significant political leadership and social influence with actual power to control institutions and societies that radical feminists, as yet, have never had.

Jack Holland details the ways in which both the Greeks and Hesiod viewed the figure of Pandora.

 ‘The Greek phrase used to describe her, kalon kakon, means ‘the beautiful evil’.’

In Hesiod’s words...
 ‘From her comes all the race of womankind
 The deadly female race and tribe of wives
 Who live with mortal men and do them harm.’

Tertullion, one of the founding fathers of the Catholic Church, famously harangued the archetypal feminine thus...
‘And do you know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway, it was you who first violated the forbidden tree and broke God’s law. You coaxed your way around man whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: man!’

 ‘Woman is a stupid vessel over whom man must always hold power, for the man is higher and better than she is.’   Martin Luther, Protestant Reformationist. (NOT Martin Luther King!)

 ‘A man with a hundred tongues who lived for a century would still not be able to complete the task of describing the vices and defects of a woman.’  Mahabharata, Hindu.

Georg Hegel, wrote in his ‘Philosophy of Right’...
 ‘Women are certainly capable of learning, but they are not made for the higher forms of science, such as philosophy...Women acquire learning – we know not how – almost as if by breathing ideas, more by living really than by actually taking hold of knowledge.’

Friedrich Nietzsche said that...
‘When a woman inclines to learning, there is usually something wrong with her sex apparatus.’

And it lurches into the twentieth century with the words of Otto Weininger on the absolute nothingness of women...

‘Women have no existence and no essence, they are not, they are nothing, Mankind occurs as male or female, as something or nothing...the meaning of woman is to be meaningless. She represents negation, the opposite pole from the Godhead, the other possibility of humanity....A woman cannot grasp that one must act from principle; as she has no continuity she does not experience the necessity for logical support of her mental processes...she may be regarded as ‘logically insane’.    From ‘Sex and Character’, 1906.

Dr. Max Baff, Professor of Psychology, in 1910:
‘All women are fundamentally savage, and the suffragist movement is simply an outbreak of emotional insanity.’

‘Women who say no do not always mean no. It is not just a question of saying no, it is a question of how she says it, how she shows and makes it clear. If she doesn’t want it she only has to keep her legs shut and she would not get it without force.’  Judge David Wild, 1982.

And here's another bit of "brilliance" by Martin Luther:
‘Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women ought to stay at home; the way they were created indicates this, for they have broad hips and a wide fundament to sit upon, keep house and bed and raise children.’

‘The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of senses and hands...’  Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man.

I haven't even tapped the vast body of "great" literature, exposing all the quotes from those famous misogynists Norman Mailer and Ernest Hemingway. I haven't even shown images of woman-hating mass produced by pimps like Larry Flynt of Hustler, who thought monthly cartoons created by a convicted incest perpetrator of his daughter, Dwaine Tinsley, and good friend of Larry's, about how funny it was to be a child molester. I've shown no images by Bob Guccione of Penthouse, such as his "classic" photographs, in his magazine, of East Asian women wrapped in white sheets appearing to have been dropped off a cliff onto rocks, as if dead--in a pornography magazine for men's entertainment (according to men and the fact that they said they enjoy the images). I haven't begun to quote what all those men have to say about women and especially feminists that is disgustingly pro-rape and virulently woman-hating.

So will you correct the perception you leave readers with above about what feminists generally believe, and please also clearly indicate what men, historically, have done to subordinate women, that far too many men still do?