by Connie Chastain*
Over the years that I've been online, I've encountered all types and levels of feminists. There are earnest feminists, like I wrote about last time; I've had the most experience with them. There are the fanatical Dworkin wannabees; haven't had much personal dealings with these folks, though their writings are easily accessible online.
There are the ditzy-broad types, the squealy, over-grown girls who conceptualize feminism as just another part of the popular culture that's "in" -- like texting or Mad Men. These are women who have no inkling of the horrific damage feminism has done to western culture, male-female relationships, and the family, nor the danger it poses for the future. I am completely at a loss about how to deal with these girls.
But the most frustrating type of feminist I've ever encountered are male. They're not just dedicated feminists; they're also hard-core misandrists, and they're some of the most rigid, close-minded folks I've ever encountered. They are the fundamentalist extremists of the gender politics world. The required beliefs and attitudes are engraved in granite with them. Women are totally inmocent and never lie about rape, never falsely accuse. Men, enforcers and beneficiaries of patriarchy, are apt to rape and abuse without thought or conscience. We're steeped in a culture of rape; it's what men use to keep women in a state of fear; to keep her under his thumb, or his heel. Because for men, oppression of women is what it's all about.
On the rare occasions when women to do slip up and lie, steal, abuse their kids, cheat on their husbands or shoot somebody -- they aren't doing it because they're bad, the way men are. They're ill. Or they're disadvantaged. Or they've been pushed, usually by some man, to the point of desperation.
Most of these misandric fellows I've encountered are old enough to remember the second-wave days when bra-burning feminists marched arm in arm across the landscape with tie-dyed war protesters, dope smokers, campus in-sitters and sexual revolutionaries. They've got not just rape culture but the whole oppressed-women repertoire down pat. And it is absolutely pointless to reason with them.
They fluently spout the statistic that women make seventy-nine cents for every dollar a man makes, but go stone cold deaf when it's explained to them that women do seventy percent of the work men do. They decry the glass ceiling in the boardroom, but don't seem at all concerned that feminists leaders aren't jumping up and down to Title Nine mining, construction and logging, the most dangerous jobs in the job market, held almost exclusively by men. And they have no appreciation for the fact that ninety-three percent of workplace fatalities occur to men. So much for equality.
In the past, these fellows tell me, women attempted to break into some of these all-male bastions, but were met with such harassment -- peepholes drilled in restroom walls, for example -- that they gave up. Women are strong and capable; they can mine or timberjack, do anything a man can do. But they're too delicate to stick a wad of Bubble Yum over a peephole? Please.
Well, if working is such a trauma, why do feminists discourage women from homemaking? Because, these guys will tell you, stay-at-home wife-and-mothering -- cleaning, cooking, laundry -- is drudgery.
"Really?" I asked once. "Punching microwave buttons is drudgery?"
"Cleaning toilets is drudgery."
I'm astounded, and I wonder how dirty a male misandrist's toilet has to get before he cleans it. I mean, my gosh, a squirt of The Works, a swish of the brush, flush, you're all done. A career woman living alone would have to clean her own toilet unless she's rich enough to hire a maid. But when there's a husband and kid in the household, it suddenly becomes drudgery?
For women, marriage is slavery, these guys think. They're bought into the whole cockamamie, Betty Friedan, suburban concentration camp meme.To my way of thinking, in a traditional marriage, it's more likely for the man to be enslaved to a job to provide for a family. Of course, I don't think most men see it that way. Most of the men I've know see it as a responsibility, a facet of their masculine role and a way of demonstrating their love for their family.
Thus, if a man goes out to work -- sometimes to risk his life in a deadly profession -- in order to provide for his family, I don't think he's asking too much for his wife to keep the house clean, to take care of the kids, and share intimacy with him.
As long as she's asked, the male misandrist says. It's when it's expected, demanded, that it becomes slavery for women.
I'm not making this up. This is how hard core male misandric feminists think. Which is purely ridiculous, when you consider it. Certain expectations are in place as soon as the preacher says, "You may kiss the bride," that render most day-to-day "asking" unnecessary.
Do these misandrists really think a wife has to wake up every morning and ask, "Honey, would you mind going to work today and making money so we can buy something to eat?" And the husband has to ask, "Sure thing, babe. Would you mind cooking us some breakfast?" And if these things are not asked, the clinking sound you hear are leg-irons magically clamping around her ankles?
Where do these bizarre ideas come from? Traditional marriage is not slavery. A wife expecting a husband to take care of the family is not slavery; a husband expecting a wife to take care of the house and kids and share a sexual relationship with him is not slavery. Marriage where both husband and wife work outside the home and share housekeeping chores and child-rearing is not slavery, either.
Conversing with one of these fellows is sometimes like talking to two people at once. Women are slaves when they need them to be; strong when they need them to be. Women are timid, easily offended little violets when they need them to be, and brilliant and capable when they need them to be. It all depends on what case the misandric feminist male is trying to make. There's something about women and oppression they just can't shake loose from.
The best way to describe my encounters with these dudes is teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling (my own, yes). The only bright side of my experience with them is that there doesn't seem to be very many of them. The intellect and temperament of the majority of men, thank goodness, will not accomodate such nonsense.
*Connie is a member of the FRS team. Her weekly essays appear every Friday. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
This is a masterful, beautifully written essay. It should be posted on everyone's bulletin board. (Sorry it was late being posted -- my fault!)
Wow I deal with some of silly old men at my work, they are fools.
"To my way of thinking, in a traditional marriage, it's more likely for the man to be enslaved to a job to provide for a family."
Something for which I feel rather guilty, because I want to be the at-home mother when my husband and I are ready for kids.
He threw me a real curve-ball last night when he said "I'll probably never retire...".
(The Age Pension in AU is not available for those under 67 as of 2023)
Sorry to swerve off topic with this, but it's "big":
Dear Friends and Supporters
From: Jesse Friedman Add to Contacts
To:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends and Supporters:
On Monday morning I received a phone call from my attorney who attempted to explain that something beyond any of our expectations had been delivered from the Second Circuit Court of appeals. Our appeal motion was dismissed as being "untimely". However, after their legal ruling on that matter, The Court explained, " While the law may require us to deny relief in this case, it does not compel us to do so without voicing some concern regarding the process by which the petitioner's conviction was obtained."
The Court then goes on for 11 pages outlining the extent of what they characterized as "extraordinarily suspect" evidence against me, and that, "The record here suggests a reasonable likelihood that Jesse Friedman was wrongfully convicted." (And yes, I am tearing up while trying to re-type these words proclaimed by the second highest court in the land.)
"Petitioner has come forward with substantial evidence that flawed interviewing techniques were used to produce a flood of allegations, which the then-District Attorney of Nassau County wrung into over two hundred claims of child sexual abuse against petitioner. Petitioner never had an opportunity to explore how the evidence against him was obtained. On the contrary, the police, prosecutors, and the judge did everything they could to coerce a guilty plea and avoid a trial."
It is virtually impossible for me to quote highlights from their Decision because the entire document is a "highlight" and needs to be read in order to be fully appreciated.
They concluded by strongly recommending that the current District Attorney in Nassau County initiate a reinvestigation of the underlying case. On Tuesday afternoon it was announced that she will form a committee of experts to commence a thorough and fair review of the entire record.
The D.A.'s full statement is below, and the The Court's Decision is available at my website.
When I know more, I'll announce more, for such a turn of events is monumental and unprecedented.
Jesse (and a joyful Elisabeth)
Statement from the Nassau county District Attorney Katleen Rice: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in affirming the conviction of Jesse Friedman has at the same time expressed concerns regarding his guilty plea. In its decision, the Court has asked me to conduct a complete review of the underlying case against Mr. Friedman. I have assembled a committee of seasoned prosecutors from my office to begin this process. The investigation will, necessarily, involve examination of the work of a prior district attorney's administration and of former Nassau County law-enforcement personnel. Because of this unique set of circumstances, and, in an effort to ensure the transparency and impartiality of the investigative process, I have chosen to impanel a team of recognized law-enforcement, legal and social science experts to work alongside my prosecutors throughout this investigation. Once I have completed the expert selection process, the names of those enlis
ted will be made public. I have already ordered that all the records and files from this conviction be delivered to my investigative team and I expect to waste no time in starting this necessary process. A prosecutor's job is not to obtain convictions, but to obtain justice. I cannot predict whether or not our investigation will corroborate the criminal case brought against Mr. Friedman more than two decades ago. What I can guarantee is that my investigation will be thorough and it will be fair."
A young man that needs our support, please watch:
Sex Offender Protests Outside Courthouse
I AM NOT A SEX OFFENDER TAKE ME OFF THE REGISTRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btYJZm3RRfE#normal
23 August 2010
BA changes child seating policy following court case
Mirko Fischer had fought for the change British Airways has changed its longstanding policy of banning lone male travellers from sitting next to unaccompanied children on its flights.
The airline had been sued by traveller Mirko Fischer who said the policy was discriminatory - something BA denied.
The case was settled and BA agreed to a review. Unaccompanied children will now be seated in a special area on planes.
Mirko Fischer said that he was delighted and added: "It is a victory for common sense."
Mr Fischer took the airline to court earlier this year in a bid to overturn the policy as he felt it contravened the Sex Discrimination Act.
He said he felt staff had treated him as if he was a potential "child molester" and humiliated him in front of other flyers.
I wouldn't judge these men too harshly. I grew up in a home where my mother was literally pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. She was peniless and powerless, no car, no independence and no microwave oven.
The 'good old days' weren't all that good for women without means.
I was recently discussing with my daughter how babies were once transported in cars in the days before carseats and seat belts.
Did mothers just place the baby on the seat or floorboards to drive around, or have them on their laps behind the wheel?
I couldn't remember my mother doing that.
I asked an older woman who answered immediately: women didn't drive cars.
There was one car in the family, Dad did all the driving while Mom held the baby, or older children held the little ones.
My Dad certainly DID work very hard at a dangerous job to support our family, God rest his soul.
He also took the car out in the evening to drink at his favorite bar with his friends while Mom, who'd been home alone all day with the kids, spent the evening home alone with the kids.
We were a lower income family, and outside watching soap operas all day and keeping house, there wasn't much of a life for my Mom.
Maybe that's where the 'drudgery' comes from.
Being a stay at home Mom I had to fight and sacrifice for the right to do so. Like my mother, I had no car, no money and not much of a life outside my kids - but it was something I wanted and believed in passionately, not something imposed on me. My husband worked many hours of overtime. The unspoken pressure was always on for me to stop being "lazy" and put my kids in daycare to help him out.
I wouldn't judge those old guys too harshly. Those days no longer exist, but they certainly did not that long ago.
Anon at 5:01, this blog did a massive report on and analysis of that case just after it was handed down.
'Conversing with one of these fellows is sometimes like talking to two people at once. Women are slaves when they need them to be; strong when they need them to be. Women are timid, easily offended little violets when they need them to be, and brilliant and capable when they need them to be. It all depends on what case the misandric feminist male is trying to make."
Both female and male feminists are the real and true oppressors of women. Not only in their own way do they keep women in states of fear but, they keep women in constant states of dillusion, fantasy, fear of the "bad males", misguided sense of life/purpose/gift and, confusion.
Keeping women in such states is not only unatural but also true oppression, slavery and, state of deprivity.
They are the robbers of women's natural freedom(s).
Anonymous said...
I wouldn't judge these men too harshly. I grew up in a home where my mother was literally pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. She was peniless and powerless, no car, no independence and no microwave oven.
The 'good old days' weren't all that good for women without means.
I was recently discussing with my daughter how babies were once transported in cars in the days before carseats and seat belts.
Did mothers just place the baby on the seat or floorboards to drive around, or have them on their laps behind the wheel?
I couldn't remember my mother doing that.
I asked an older woman who answered immediately: women didn't drive cars.
There was one car in the family, Dad did all the driving while Mom held the baby, or older children held the little ones.
My Dad certainly DID work very hard at a dangerous job to support our family, God rest his soul.
He also took the car out in the evening to drink at his favorite bar with his friends while Mom, who'd been home alone all day with the kids, spent the evening home alone with the kids.
We were a lower income family, and outside watching soap operas all day and keeping house, there wasn't much of a life for my Mom.
Maybe that's where the 'drudgery' comes from.
Being a stay at home Mom I had to fight and sacrifice for the right to do so. Like my mother, I had no car, no money and not much of a life outside my kids - but it was something I wanted and believed in passionately, not something imposed on me. My husband worked many hours of overtime. The unspoken pressure was always on for me to stop being "lazy" and put my kids in daycare to help him out.
I wouldn't judge those old guys too harshly. Those days no longer exist, but they certainly did not that long ago.
Aug 28, 2010 6:05:00 AM
Those days were not so good for men either. For many men these days it is, as it was then, a constant struggle to keep a roof over their family's heads and food in their mouths. Men are still under the same type of demands and pressures these days as they were then.
"But when there's a husband and kid in the household, it suddenly becomes drudgery?"
Feminism has done an outstanding job of creating an incredibly unhealthy power dynamic within the married/cohabitating household. A small group of angry and bitter women have spread a social expectation that housework is a form political and personal oppression.
When a woman lives alone, cleaning the toilet is just an unpleasant chore. But when there's a man in the house, scrubbing out a toilet is transformed into an act of oppression where that man is wielding some form of patriarchal privilege.
The classic feminist line - "the personal is the political" - is not only an exercise in faulty logic, it's a poisonous idea that has taken root in western women.
Executive Summary Prosecutorial misconduct remains a largely underdeveloped research issue in large part because of the challenges of defining what constitutes misconduct, but also because some misconduct never comes to light. For example, it is impossible to know the extent to which prosecutors engage in misconduct, especially if it involves suppressing potentially exculpatory evidence that never gets disclosed at trial.
DNA exoneration cases offer a unique perspective on this issue, given that we know the clients in these cases were convicted of crimes they did not commit. As such, while courts differentiate between harmless and harmful error, we know now that what was deemed as harmless error in these appeals may have contributed to the wrongful convictions.
Results from this study indicate that of the 65 DNA exoneration cases involving documented appeals and/or civil suits addressing prosecutorial misconduct, 31 (48%) resulted in court findings of error, with 18% of findings leading to reversals (harmful error). It is difficult to place these court error rates in perspective—first, because these rates are based solely on documented appeals, providing an incomplete picture of the total number of appeals in these cases and their outcomes.
Second, these cases are unrepresentative of the larger offender population, making up those who were mainly convicted in the 1980s, for violent crimes, sentenced to long prison terms, and dispersed throughout the nation. While a few studies have looked at outcomes in appeals alleging prosecutorial misconduct, most have been limited to specific regions or to a subset of conviction types1.
While not a perfect comparison, there has been one large, nationwide study, by the Center of Public Integrity on prosecutorial misconduct which found that among all 11,452 documented appeals alleging some type of prosecutorial misconduct between 1970 and 2002, 2,012 appeals led to reversals or remanded indictments, indicating harmful error—a rate of 17.6%. This is nearly identical to the rate of harmful error findings in the DNA exoneration cases of 18%. This may suggest that innocent persons raising claims of misconduct on appeal are not much more likely to find relief than presumed guilty persons raising similar claims—a suggestion that raises questions about the ability of the appellate process to correct wrongful convictions2. In fact, an earlier study of the first 200 DNA exonerees found that reversal rates for the DNA exoneree cases were the same when compared to a matched sample of criminal cases with similar characteristics, where innocence had not been established3.
Methodology In order to locate appeals involving prosecutorial misconduct claims, WestLaw was accessed to conduct searches using specific search terms such as prosecutorial misconduct, Brady, Batson and improper argument. Additionally, searches were done using client name to find any cases involving civil suits with claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Several additional cases were uncovered when examining a study done by the Center for Public Integrity on prosecutorial misconduct.
Claims of Misconduct Based on the sources described above, the figure below presents the percentage of cases involving allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, where court findings were available. One‐quarter (65/255) of DNA exoneration cases involved documented appeals and/or civil suits alleging prosecutorial misconduct4. Most of these allegations were brought up on appeal, however, three cases involved civil suits5.
Outcomes of Appeals/Suits Raising Prosecutorial Misconduct
Overall, about half (48%)6 of appeals and suits alleging prosecutorial misconduct resulted in court findings of error (harmless or harmful)—such findings include both intentional and negligent acts of the prosecutors. When looking at outcomes separately for harmless and harmful findings, 18% of appeals/suits resulted in findings of harmful error—leading to convictions being reversed7. Nearly one‐third (29%) of appeals/suits resulted in court findings of harmless error—the court acknowledged that the prosecutor made an error, but that the error was not enough to have changed the outcome of the original trial. In the other cases (52%), courts dismissed the claims either by rejecting the misconduct claim(s) outright or waiving/not responding to the claim(s).
48%18%29%
Specific Types of Misconduct: Allegations and Court Findings
Allegations. Just over two‐thirds of appeal and civil suit cases involved claims of prosecutorial misconduct relating to improper arguments and questioning by the prosecutor during the trial. Examples of such arguments included making questionable/mistaken inferences regarding forensic evidence introduced at trial and making inflammatory/improper remarks in closing arguments such as “you should have seen the evidence we kept out.”
More than one‐third (38%) of misconduct allegations involved Brady violations by the prosecutors – withholding potentially exculpatory evidence such as knowledge of alternative suspects and forensic science evidence that may have weakened the prosecution’s case. Eight percent of cases involved Batson claims—alleging that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to dismiss a juror, based solely on his/her race. Other less frequently recorded misconduct allegations were included in an ‘other’ category. Some of these issues included claims of eliciting perjured testimony, malicious prosecution, destruction of evidence, fabrication of evidence, and improper use of jailhouse snitches.
Over one‐third (37%) of these misconduct cases involved multiple claims of prosecutorial misconduct—most frequently a combination of a Brady violation and an improper argument/questioning claim.
Court Findings. When examining court findings specific to these various types of allegations, 56% of improper argument claims and 28% of Brady violation claims resulted in court findings of error (harmless or harmful). While the overall error rate (including both harmful and harmless error) for improper arguments was nearly twice that of Brady violations, the harmful error rate was actually greatest for Brady violation allegations—approximately one‐quarter of Brady violation allegations resulted in overturned convictions, compared to nine percent of improper argument allegations. Therefore, when courts confirmed Brady violations, they were more likely to deem the misconduct harmful, leading to reversals, than when considering improper arguments, which were more likely to be considered harmless error.
Interestingly, all five of the Batson violation allegations were rejected by the courts, while one of the three perjury allegations resulted in a reversal. Here, the prosecutor allowed the perjured testimony of the state's key witness to stand uncorrected – she stated that she received no deal from the prosecutor for testifying against the defendant, which was false. Three of the 17 other, less frequently reported types of misconduct, revealed court findings of error. These cases involved a prosecutor’s belligerent behavior toward court, defense counsel and witnesses (harmless); destruction of evidence (harmless); and state’s refusal to test DNA before trial when defendant could not afford to on own (harmful).
according to Dr. warren Farrel in his bestseller, "The myth of male power", men and womens life spans were around equal in 1920, as the division of labor was about equal. Now men are dying on average around 6.5 years earlier that their women counterparts, and an earlier life span is the most academically accepted sign of "Oppression" in the world. (Accept in the construction of the Gender / Raunch professorial perverts of the united states)
The new Gender feminists are not attacking all males, just the hetero-sexual ones.
But the most frustrating type of feminist I've ever encountered are male. They're not just dedicated feminists; they're also hard-core misandrists, and they're some of the most rigid, close-minded folks I've ever encountered. They are the fundamentalist extremists of the gender politics world.
They have be. Male feminists face a host of antagonism from female feminists. Not only do many feminists think that men cannot be feminists, but they also think that men calling themselves feminists are just posers attempting to subvert feminism given within. These men are constantly told to "check their privilege" or get accused of "mansplaining" things. They must walk a tightrope between proving their credibility and knowing their place. The easiest way around this is by becoming the most extreme. In this way they are less likely to say or do something that angers feminists. Some of them are definitely close-minded, but most are too afraid to say anything critical about feminists or feminism and so they just repeat the rhetoric to play safe.
"The new Gender feminists are not attacking all males, just the hetero-sexual ones."
That isn't true. There are a massive number of cases of men falsely accused of molesting boys.
Toysoldier @ 11:58:
So, you've been following the Hugo/factcheckme discussion, I take it?
I think I saw a comment of yours over there.
I hate the Uncle Tom manginas more than I'll ever hate the feminists.
They're scum!
They have be. Male feminists face a host of antagonism from female feminists.
***
Naw. Most of them are just assholes who score points with women by dissing men. They don't mean it; they just want to get in their pants.
Gender-Feminism 101
If it isn't feminization of foods via Bisphenol A, the castrated educational/legal system, or the hate-filled righteous wimmin with scissors running yet after another testorerone poisoned XY subject.
Wimmin, men and real women are waking up, your pathetic attempts to pervert the many, many, many great men, women and families is crumbling down faster than you can sharpen your scissors.
Save a feminist - hug a boy.
Toysoldier - "Not only do many feminists think that men cannot be feminists, but they also think that men calling themselves feminists are just posers attempting to subvert feminism given within."
I've personally encountered a few "men" who seemed to be simply trying to get laid by posing as feminists. They were otherwise rather low sexual-marketplace value males, who seemed to be operating under the pathetic hope that by impressing some gender-feminist with their own male self-hatred that they might get what might be termed "sympathy sex".
Social Worker: I saw that thread Hugo's blog, but I only skimmed it. I did find it interesting that even as Hugo fended off an attack he made sure to defer to factcheckme and also cite his feminist credentials. The feminists taking his side were far less restrained in their responses.
Slwerner: Some men may call themselves feminists to get sex, but I think most of the men who call themselves feminists do so because they did not, could not, or would not fit in with any existing group of males.
Interesting, I am getting aquainted with a new co worker whom I suspect is turning out to be a feminist.
He's dropped several "men are evil" type comments into the conversation herer and there, which I ignored.
Yesterday he said it much more boldly than usual "Men do such evil things".
I'm older by ten years, we disagree on just about everything workwise, so this comment was not meant to impress.
I think he really meant.
I countered with "Women do some pretty evil things to men too. Surely you've noticed that by now."
I have sons, I told him. My sons aren't evil. Women lie about pregnancy, women make false rape accusations. Women take men's children away from them.
I told him I'd rather be raped than have someone take my child from me forever.
His eyes kinda bugged out, and he didn't repy with any argument. As the conversation progressed I learned he was from a broken home, his father divorced his foreign born mother and kept her from her children. He tried to be a single Dad and failed miserably, became abusive and lost to alcohol.
No wonder he has a bad attitude toward his own gender.
None of us know what paths others have taken in life. Not all are 'manginas' or trying to get laid.
Some really believe it.
Post a Comment