Some of the guys who are doing this are just your average, everyday run of the mill sexual predators. But most of them are not:
Usually, they aren't the kind of guys who would force themselves on someone for sex. They seem to be the kind of guys you'd see at happy hour with their buddies, the kind of frat-boy mentality that thinks it's fun to get a girl drunk and have their way.Pop feminists would like us to believe that all men are rapists, sexual predators, etc., and that there's nothing abnormal about these guys, they're just (shudder) men. Everybody knows men are violent, vulgar, voracious victimizers of women, innocent and pure.
Right. According to the definition of rape employed in the Koss Campus Rape survey for Ms magazine, I've been raped 4 times during the past ten years. By women. The pop-feminists intentionally use definitions that are so broad, so general and vague that they blur almost to meaninglessness as a means to promulgate the notion women are under siege, and male brutishness is solely to blame. Even the smallest generalization about women is called sexist. Why does the mainstream media embrace without question such sweeping generalizations about men?
Perhaps it's because the reported number of rapes has increased. When women are violent, however, none dare suggest it has anything to do with the vulgar nature of women. Rather, all but a few scramble to find some external cause to explain their crimes away.
Regardless of their gender, individuals ought to be held responsible for their crimes. Man or woman, it shouldn't matter. In the larger scheme of things, however, it is worthwhile to know what external factors figure into the formula of criminal behavior so that we can prevent others from falling into a life of crime. So we should sweep the sexist stereotypes aside to ask, what has changed during the past few decades to cause a dramatic increase in rape? Better reporting, according to femigogues who see rape in virtually every coupling of the heterosexual kind. But, for the moment, let’s set aside the twin issues of vague definitions and "historical under reporting," and ask, what else might it be?
In the pop-feminist bestseller, Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller may provide the answer: the cost to men of getting or being married.
Whether in terms of premarital status (female expectations) or post-divorce "maintenance" and child-support (agency violence and economic support), when the "price" of marriage rises to the point where a significant number of men can no longer afford it, the incidence of rape increases, too:
There had been two famous mass outbreaks of rape in Gusiiland, once in 1937 and once in 1950. Robert LeVine, an anthropologist from Northwestern University, investigated and discovered that in both years the price of a bride had soared beyond the reach of Gusii young men. -- Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller, p 196In these examples, marriageable men couldn't afford to get married. Sex was still available. Men could still buy an hour or two with a prostitute. So, it wasn't sexual release they were looking for, but a wife. In the classic pop-feminist sense of the word, their acts of rape weren't crimes of sexual passion, but of power and domination. Or, more accurately, of powerlessness and disenfranchisement. The men Brownmiller wrote about were raping as an expression of their alienation and despair.
Could the same thing be happening here, now? Maybe. This is further suggested by the fact that poor men are far more likely to rape than middle-class and successful men:
Surveys of the socioeconomic status of rapists in the United States indicate that the vast majority of offenders come from lower socioeconomic classes and are unemployed or unskilled laborers with only an elementary-school education or less. Cross-cultural studies from Denmark and Australia also confirm that unskilled, unemployed, and poorly educated males -- those who lose out in sexual competition -- are more often rapists than other men.As more men -- particularly those of lower socioeconomic status -- feel disenfranchised and marginalized, and perceive that their chances for having a wife and family are decreasing daily, will more of them resort to rape as a "masculine protest"? As a means of backlashing against a system that is increasingly dominated by the extreme feminist ideologues? Will Rohypnol provide such men with a gold mine of opportunities to protest their feeling of emasculation?The data suggest that rich men rarely rape, and that rapist and victim most often live in the same neighborhood (82 percent). According to one study, a female living in the inner city stands a one-in-seventy-seven chance of being raped in her life-time. In more affluent areas the risk becomes one in two thousand, and in a rich neighborhood she stands a one-in-ten-thousand chance of being raped. -- Sexual Strategies: How Females Choose Their Mates, by Mary Batten, pp 125 - 126
I don't know. What is certain, however, is that the New Rage women will oppose every theory, every suggestion of cause which does not put all the blame, shame and responsibility squarely and solely on men. As with all fanatics, only the devil is the source of all ill, and in their paradigm, though the divine may be feminine, the devil is and will always be masculine to the core.
They are more likely than men to have become anxious about the economy and distrustful of the government -- two of the key characteristics of the disaffected voted in recent years, according to a new poll commissioned by The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. Nearly half of all women think the economy is getting worse, while three-quarters believe the government cannot be trusted to do the right thing most of the time.Yes, women are incensed, but not the way men are. No, their anger is morally superior to men’s, for theirs is altruistic: "they seem less concerned with their own plight than they are with the economic prospects for their children and their neighbors, including the poor."
How can this be? Does this apparent altruism arise out of some finer female sensibility? Or could it be because more men than women have suffered economically and socially during the past several years?
Unlike the "angry men," many of the women have not suffered financially from the widespread restructuring that has swept through the economy, costing many blue- collar workers their jobs and driving down the wages of male workers with high school educations.Many women, on the other hand, have had a very different experience:
Many of the women, by contrast, report that their careers and family finances are in better shape than they have been in years.And they wonder why a male backlash is inevitable. But is it, really? So long as such conditions persist, what do you think?
Susan Faludi made a name for herself and a pile of loot off her book, Backlash, promoting this very view, blaming all men for the acts of primarily the rich or powerful few. The protests of the proponents of equalitarianism that her indictments of all men for the acts of the few are misplaced have for the most part fallen on deaf ears.
Until now.
A small article buried in the Seattle Times quietly admits that the legal profession ranks high in sexual discrimination.
Yet barriers to women persist and "discrimination continues to permeate the structures, practices and attitudes of the legal profession," an American Bar Association panel concluded in a report being released today.However, all is not as biased as the panel would have us believe. Law school professors, they complain, bait them and belittle their performance. The way they do with male students -- it’s part of the training for the inherently adversarial adjudication process.Women lawyers, on average, still are paid less than men for similar legal jobs, get fewer promotions, suffer from harassment and encounter hostility to their family needs, the panel said.
There is much about our legal institutions to criticize, some sexist, some not; calling all of them sexist trivializes the real issues and serves only those individuals who profit from seeing sexism behind every obstacle any woman encounters. No one appreciates that less than the women who stand on their own two feet and succeed on their own merits.
In an article titled Pediatricians may be the first to see the warning signs of domestic violence, Sally Macdonald makes the following one-sided report regarding domestic violence:
Okay, one at a time:
- In 16 percent of all families, Mom is battered now and then; in 3.4 percent she’s beaten regularly.
- More than 3.3 million children a year witness parental warfare.
- In up to 60 percent of homes where a parent is battered, children also are battered.
- Children who grow up in violent families are more likely to be aggressive with other children and to grow up to become batterers or victims themselves.
Domestic violence is a social problem, not the men-dominating-women gender issue misandristic ideologues would have us believe. Ignoring female abusers ignores half the problem and, therefore, half the solution. It also provides a devil for the bigots to attack from their bully pulpit at The Seattle Times.
- Antimale advocates know but ignore that all studies surveying the behaviors of both women and men generally find either that women and men initiate domestic violence at the same level, or that women initiate at a slightly higher rate. Rather than treat the entire problem, their ideology dictates ignoring half the problem. Until they acknowledge and address the violence women do, the problem will remain.
- Given how the antimale ideologues ignore women’s violence, 3.3 million is probably low.
- During the past 10 years more than 60 percent of child batterers are women.
- The same people who complain about how abusive fathers create domineering sons and submissive daughters ignore the growing number of recent studies that indicate boys raised in single-parent (fatherless) homes are especially prone to aggressive and abusive behaviors.
Essentially, it's about how women are beginning to sue men who (knowingly or not) infect them with an STD. The complaint is that women who have sex with men who do not tell them of the malady cannot give their informed consent to have sex, and are, therefore, victims who can sue for financial damages.
One woman who found out her lover had infected her herpes turned to lawyer Roderick Bushnell of San Francisco. He filed suit in Superior Court, and to his surprise the defendant settled.
The slam-dunk victory made Bushnell, an employment lawyer more familiar with workplace issues such as sexual harassment and discrimination, believe he'd unearthed a possible Mother Lode of new litigation for the '90s: personal-injury lawsuits arising from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) - the AIDS virus and diseases federal data show are transmitted more frequently: herpes, chlamydia, papilloma virus, gonorrhea and syphilis.Can’t you just hear lawyers everywhere rubbing their hands together in anticipation of more ill-gotten legal tender? Oh, boy!
Bushnell predicts "STD litigation will become common as women extend their demand for equitable treatment to new areas of daily life."
"But wait," whispers the quiet but persistent voice of reason, "could there be a fly crawling around in this acrimonious ointment, just waiting to bug greedy barristers and the antimale maggots who are gleeful over the prospect of gouging men for more money and misery?"
Informed consent is a good idea, and men who have an STD and don’t tell their partners about it are louses of the lowest sort. But let's pause just long enough to consider a few facts...fer instance, when a heterosexual guy gets an STD, who's he getting if from? A woman. Where's her liability in all of this?
That would explain why men are executed at a far higher rate per offense than women:
Prosecutors are far less likely to seek the death penalty for women murderers than for men, even when the crime legally calls for it, a researcher said yesterday.How can this be?
"It appears to be a clear case of gender discrimination. Men can and should argue that the system discriminates against them," Leigh Buchanan Bienen, of the Northwestern University School of Law, said at the national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Meanwhile, contrary to victim feminist dogma, victimization of women by men has been on the decline:
Another researcher at the meeting, Richard Rosenfield of the University of Missouri - St. Louis, said the number of women killed in domestic violence declined 30 percent from 1968 to 1993. In St. Louis and Chicago, two cities he studied, only 8 percent of all murders, involved domestic partners. In 1970, the rate was 15 percent.Perhaps the time has come to extend affirmative action to death row. The time for gender blind penalties, like gender blind rewards, is long past due.
The latest of these jokes came when Hartman, who asked for $300,000, agreed to settle for $2,001. A cheap way out for the government agency, some might say, but Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel May said Hartman's allegations were baseless. Minimizing costs might have had something to do with the settlement, but if Hartman was wrong, why else might they go for a cheap throw?
In 1991, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association had complained that the seminars were too intense, too intrusive and were being expanded beyond the test program without the union's input.In other words, female employees were using the exercise as an excuse to degrade their male coworkers, as if degrading someone would actually make them sensitive to the degradation of others. (Were that the case, military boot camps would be turning out poets instead of soldiers.)In one exercise, women formed a gantlet and men walked through one at a time, while women made suggestive comments and - in at least one session - touched the men below the waist, participants said.
The truth is that after decades of exposure to feminatic hate mongering, the women participating in this program revealed that they had become everything pop- feminists claim to hate in men. Who would benefit from covering that up?
Barad is the executive who "engineered the resurgence of" the popularity of the Barbie doll, and feminist organizations are not thrilled.
Maureen Gallegos, state chairwoman of the National Organization for Women, praised Microsoft for its 'long overdue' appointment but said it was unfortunate that Barad (whom Gallegos does not know) based Mattel's comeback on Barbie 'and not a teaching toy for young women.'Typical. No matter what men do to please the mavens of misandry, it's never enough.
If a man thinks he's a father and acts like a father, does that make him a father even if he's unrelated to the child in a biological sense?Somebody's getting screwed.Pennsylvania law says yes. So do the laws of most other states.
An Orlando man who is a "legal stranger" to the child he fathered can't interfere in her adoption by another family, the state Supreme Court said Thursday.The closer you look, the more it seems like these "patriarchal, women-oppressing, male-dominated" courts are a worse deal for men than women.The ruling stemmed from the legal struggles of Nelson Rivera-Berrios, who was trying to restore parental rights he said he lost before he knew he had a daughter.
When a study reveals that blacks get stiffer jail terms than whites, well, that's different. That's racism:
But the most commonly offered explanation is a subconscious cultural bias by a largely white criminal justice system. ...I agree. White guys are not better than black guys. And women (of any race) are not better than men, either."The only other explanation has got to be that white guys are better than black guys," Sumter Camp (assistant federal defender in Nashville) says, "and that's just wrong."