Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - SIAM

Just wondering why police don't punish prostitutes for breaking the law, but punish drug dealers for breaking the law? 

I'm for legalising prostitution by the way, but as it stands it seems only the customers of prostitutes are charged with breaking the law, but prostitutes aren't.

Compare with drugs: drug dealers face heavier punishments than the people they supply. 

There seems to be an inconsistency here.

Defendants in rape cases are to be granted anonymity in an unexpected move that women's groups immediately branded an insult.

A crackdown on cut-price alcohol was the second surprise commitment from David Cameron and Nick Clegg in a 34-page programme for government published yesterday.

This is from the new Conservative-Liberal government in the UK.  They've done some good moves already, and this one is great news.

Now why the hell would women's groups NOT support this, if they want equality? Innocent until proven guilty.  Why do they want an innocent (until proven guilty) man's reputation dragged through the mud? What benefit is there to name the innocent until proven guilty? Bad comment:-

The proposal provoked anger among campaigners. Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said that the decision was an insult and a backlash against the rising number of rape reports. "More attention needs to be paid to the 94 per cent of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false," she said. "If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying. False rape allegations are extremely rare but receive disproportionate publicity."

Great comment:-

I do not quite understand what the naming of defendants achieves. If it is a 'name and shame' idea, or in other words, a form of punishment. Surely that is not justice, as legally there is no decision of guilt until the judge decides. If there is some other reason why disclosing the defendant's identity is before guilt is pronounced, then please do enlighten me, as I genuinely can't think of one.

The watchword for the new government seems to be : personal responsibility. 

Let's hope there aren't enough lemmings in the UK to vote Labour back in, in 5 years time.
Main / UK Democracy Is A Fucking Joke
May 10, 2010, 04:52 PM
The swearing isn't gratuitous - it really has to be said like this:-

UK democracy is a fucking joke.

No other intensifier would do.

It looks like Labour will get in power again, even though they came SECOND in the election.  Yes, that's how democracy works in the UK.  

And Gordon Brown stands down.  And who will be running for leader for Labour? Well who gives a fuck.  Could well be we have Harriet Harman as our great leader, even though the Tories won the election.  Great isn't it? But it doesn't really matter who the leader of Labour (i.e. leader of the UK) will be as Labour will just continue to erode the country down to dust.   The only people who vote Labour are those sucking on its tit - welfare leeches or the millions working in the public sector.

The UK is heading the same way as Greece minus the bailout, as there will be nobody to bail the UK out.  The UK's debt is unmanageable - unbailoutable, and the public sector is horribly bloated, and will only get more so.  That public sector bubble will burst when the debts are called in - expect anarchy.
Feminism is not about solving problems.  It's about creating and maintaining myths.  Feminism's energies are spent throwing spotlights onto supposed problems that only women face, but such energies never truly even attempt to redress those problems.  Why?


1. the problems don't really exist in the severity (or even outright!) feminism claims they do (wage gap, rape, domestic violence);

2. feminism's life support depends on these problems.  Solving the very problems, or let's be honest - admitting the problems are not as big as feminism sells them as - would be the death of feminism.  And the death of feminism would mean billions in government funding washed away, salaried jobs, the power transfer from chivalrous men (government) to women would be cut off.

So feminism will report without fail, year in year out, that western women are in real danger of rape, of being ripped off at work because they have a vagina and their boss hates that fact and pays them less because of that fact, and that only women are in danger of living with a violent partner.   And the general public will believe it.
As we all (or should) know, feminism is but one bullyboy of a controlling government.  There are many others.  The "anti-terrorist" laws give a lot more control to the government over our freedoms, as does high taxation and heavy reliance on welfare to buy for millions of voters (looking at you, UK).  Of couse, mentioning this to certain types of people - you get the old "tin-foil hat" pejorative comment back.  Meanwhile they get on with their heavily taxed (or alternatively fully state-supported life...). 

So it's funny when feminists can't see the bigger picture and ridicule and condascend to those who prefer a more traditional lifestyle - stay at home mums, division of labour in the home etc.  A simpler life is better for everyone.  One person can work for the family instead of 2.  Less divorce.  Well-rounded kids brought up in stabler families.  And this all creates a more cohesive society as society relies on stable families as the main component parts.  We actually used to have a lot more time in the past to do things like hobbies and simply spend time with the family.  Not true for millions of men and women today.

Look at business as an analogy.

When you look at a failing company, it's usually because they have too many cooks, too much bureaucracy - they're simply too complicated and this complexity prevents them from being productive. The left hand doesn't know what the right's doing (or care what the right's doing - see feminism) - just so long as they get their little piece of the pie.

A successful company uses the KISS (Keep It Simply Stupid) principle.  They have a solid base from which to grow from - looking after ALL employees (not just some), and using division of labour to maximise the time of each employee.  They wouldn't expect employees to perform two jobs less adequately than doing one job very well.

My main point is that a society that is made complicated by government control and interference is doomed to failure.  Feminists will only see their myopic "gains" with more legislation made against men, but won't see the bigger picture of how THEY are controlled by the govermnent by being forced into the labour market, being heavily taxed, and of course, being under the same control as men when it comes to more and more controlling legislation.

A traditional society can still utilise the latest technology (of course) and be "modern" - but it's wise enough to know that the family works best with a division of labour, and without heavy government interference.  It makes me wonder what so-called "progressives" want - do they want society totally broken, or are they just desperately confused individuals who are in denial?
Young mothers are turning their backs on high-powered careers to raise their children, a study has found.

Their mothers, or even grandmothers, lived through a time when women fought for full-time work and better pay.

But today's generation is returning to the traditional values of home and family - and looking to men to be the breadwinners.
I would vote "yes".  It's obvious men's rights is sorely needing to be represented in government, law, and the media.  We can all agree with that.  But I can see things are basically cleaving into two distinct groups: MRAs and feminists, and never the twain shall meet. 

What got me thinking about this is the way many so-called "moderate" feminists are saying they support men's rights too, and that men have problems that need addressing.  Time and again, when you push them on this, you can see this is very very often just paying lip service to sound moderate, and they start coming out with the usual feminist spiel about patriarchy and oppression.  So a proper new movement that deals with men and women calls out a lot of feminists as being just selfish and living in a comfort zone, while - get this - actually says what it does on the tin: fighting for equality for men and women together. 

On the other hand, the MRM (Men's Rights Movement) is, I feel, festering.  It's made big gains thanks solely (and absolutely ONLY) to the internet.  However, I am sensing by its exclusive nature (life feminism) it's limited in its appeal.  You'll never win over 90%+ of women.  You won't win over chivalrous men (who are aplenty).  You will gain the scorn of feminists who will caricaturise MRAs as lonely, small-dicked misogynists (yeah, yeah, yeah). 

What about a movement that tackles both men's and women's issues? I know MRAs will say "wtf? women's issues? They have none."  Hear me out.  By framing each issue as belonging to both men and women, it's bullet-proof from criticism (unless you want to show your bias).  I know MRAs are basically trying for absolute equality anyway, but framing that under "MRM" turns a lot of people off.  Simply this: frame the same arguments MRAs make for true equality, but under a movement that is for all people, not just men.  I think such a movement is far more likely to win over women and even chivalrous men.  After all, isn't equality what people want? If it isn't, and they are just pretending, such a new movement would show up such people as hypocrites if they decide to attack it.

Just throwing the idea out there. 
This one caught my attention:-

A woman who made a false rape allegation that led to an innocent man being arrested has been jailed.

Rosanne England, 21, cut and then tore her underwear and scratched her own face before telling police a masked stranger had entered her house.

Derek Cummings, 59, who had never met England, was arrested because he fitted the description and had no alibi.

England, of Holbury near Southampton, admitted perverting the course of justice and was jailed for 18 months.

Good to see she was jailed (though not for 8 years which is what he would have expected).....but look here:-

Mr Cummings said he still had trouble from people close to where he lives in Fawley, Hampshire, who wrongly believe "there is no smoke without fire" and he cannot go into certain pubs.

"My family has been through hell," he said.

So let's see:-

  • Accuser admits it was a false accusation

  • Forensic team find evidence the rape scene was orchestrated

  • The accused and accuser had never ever met each other, he just fit the description

But no smoke without fire, eh?  :icon_cyclops_ani: :rolle:

A businessman is suing British Airways over a policy that bans male passengers from sitting next to children they don't know  -  even if the child's parents are on the same flight.

Mirko Fischer has accused the airline of branding all men as potential sex offenders and says innocent travellers are being publicly humiliated.

Read more:

323 comments from readers - 98% supporting the man suing BA. 

My comment: in the first half of the 20th century, feminists fought for equality.  In the 21st century it's men's rights activists fighting for equality.
Main / Thomas the Tank Engine "Demeans Women"
Dec 09, 2009, 08:35 PM

She said: 'We tend to think of children's TV shows as neutral and safe, but they still carry messages.

'Eventually these children will attain full political citizenship, and the opinions and world outlook they develop now, partially influencedby shows like Thomas, are part of that process.'


I'd hate to be the child of this woman - I feel sorry for her 3 year old daughter who will no doubt grow up miserable.

Next up : Tom and Jerry for animal cruelty.

Eventually all shows will be like Teletubbies - a load of multi-coloured androgens mumbling nonsense.

But no, it's not equality - it's indoctrination and lessons in demonising men:-

The action plan - called Violence Against Women and Girls - has been drawn up by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, Schools Secretary Ed Balls and Commons leader Harriet Harman. It is intended to be in place by 2011.


And 5 year olds?! Get 'em while they're young eh? It's a feminist recruiting ground I guess.

What's interesting is they include "Girls" here.  So even small 5 year old boys are now told they don't count! .  How sick is that? Hey Harriet, maybe if I say small boys can be physically abused by their fathers, you'd include them in the victim profile, right? Ah but no, that penis they have between their legs, mark of the devil - you just can't abide it. Of course, mothers, aunts, female teachers, friends of family are never violent to small boys, right?

Harman read 1984 and wondered : "why ONLY two minutes of hate?"

OK this article is just full of anecdotes but I believe this is happening more and more: households no longer have clear "divisions of labour" so one parent can go from breadwinner to "stay at home" while the other swaps roles in the other direction.  End result: more stress in the marriage - role reversals, envy etc.

It also seems like women now realise the world of work is bloody stressful especially when you have a family to feed.  I guess the feminist stereotype of work being about men smoking cigars and enjoying benefits of an old boy network aren't actually true, and that work is typically unglamourous, boring and stressful.  Who'd a thought?

The Women and Equality Minister was told she must no longer use a single figure to describe the complex differences in the earnings of men and women.

Instead she will have to give three measures - among them one which shows that far from earning less than men, women in part-time jobs are actually paid more on average than their male counterparts.

The ruling from the Office for National Statistics is the culmination of a running row between Labour's deputy leader and Whitehall watchdogs, who called her use of figures on the gender pay gap 'misleading'.

Actually they should go further and simply compare like-for-like jobs.  A female doctor gets paid more than a male nurse for example, is that discrimination?  :icon_cyclops_ani:

Anyway good to see more and more backlash against feminism.  Must be lonely being a feminist these days.

Oh, and notice her title : The Women and Equality Minister.    You have to laugh - imagine a White Man and Equality Minister.  That would be seen as sexist and racist.  But Women and Equality Minister is fine.   Actually isn't it racist that she's got white skin and in such a position to deem what is equal? We should dig out that blind, disabled black lesbian again, but I hear she's busy with engagements.

David Cameron provoked a furious row with Tory backbenchers and grassroots members yesterday after reversing his party's opposition to all-women shortlists in a bid to boost the number of female Conservative MPs.

Basically he's making it easier for women to become Tory MPs by shutting out 50%+ of the other candidates (men).  The best person for the job? How can you say that when you preliminary screen candidates based on whether they've got a penis or a vagina.  So genitals matter yet again.  Ah the age of equality, eh?

This is like saying because Brazil and Italy win the Soccer World Cup a lot, we should bar them from entering the competition and let others win it.  

One anecdote, two facts:-

The anecdote:-

....she had just been told that a woman she had placed with a top FTSE company had taken a year's maternity leave, come back, begged for a promotion (telling the HR department threateningly that she didn't want to be ruled out just because she had a small child), got the promotion and two months into her new job announced she was pregnant again and would be taking another year off. The HR department boss was unhappy but could do nothing. The woman was within her legal rights.

Fact #1:-
There are 5m small businesses in the UK employing about 12m workers, so what they think matters.

Fact #2:-
there are now 172,925 female undergraduates and only 141,643 male ones.

(assuming The Times are right of course!).

So it seems to me that the UK is heading for a brickwall when it comes to maternity leave. 

Other interesting law/regulation:-

- if you don't give a woman a job because she is pregnant she can sue you. 

WTF?! I mean, that is supposed to have no bearing on the employer's future plans? "Oh it's irrelevant that she's 3 months pregnant and may take 12 months off, strike that from the record."

She says the costs of taking on temporary staff through an agency while a woman is off on maternity leave are prohibitive (sometimes doubling the rate paid per hour), but if she gives a new person a contract, this brings its own problems: "If they are good you have to send them packing when the mother comes back; and when women do come back they can ask to work flexibly and that's a nightmare as I need full-time. I'm not a child hater, the law has gone too far."

Main / Megan Fox and her "fiery temper"
Sep 16, 2009, 05:39 PM

My temper is ridiculously bad,' the 23-year-old told Rolling Stone magazine.

'I've had to say to Brian, "You have to go and stop talking to me, because I'm going to kill you. I'm going to stab you with something, please leave".

Fox, who was recently branded 'dumb as a rock' by crew members from Transformers, said that she has such a fierce temper she could never own a gun as she could turn it on her on-again, off-again boyfriend.

'I'd never own a gun for that reason. I wouldn't shoot to kill. But I would shoot him in the leg, for sure,' she said.

Takeaway point: women have such a feeling of entitlement these days, they can openly admit (even boast) ALL the signs of a dangerous and domestically violent person.   

A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: 'This was an oversight. We have now taken the necessary steps to amend and update this document, which will be posted on our website shortly.'

But friends of Lady Thatcher accused Miss Harman, an ardent feminist, of rewriting history to suit her own agenda.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries said: 'It is sour grapes I'm afraid, and fairly indicative of the type of politics that characterises old Labour.'

Shows how discriminatory she is....even to other women (when it suits her agenda).
He has had no kind of contact with his son in almost 9 years. Yes he does pay child support but not on his own. It had to be court order because he didn't want to pay. He also owes about $2700.00 in back support. Can I revok his rights as a father. My son will be 11 years old in Decamber and he has come to me and told me he doesn't want to even have his last name let alone see him. What can I do. Please help.

Yeah I'm sure HER side of the story is a mirror of the truth  :pino:

Check out the "best answer"  :tard:

If she is denying visitation and PASing her son, she should be denied her rights.
Main / Japanese Women "still not equal"
Aug 23, 2009, 04:46 AM
Japanese women 'still not equal'

A United Nations panel has urged Japan to take stronger measures to eliminate gender inequality.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women said the country's efforts were "insufficient".

It pointed to unequal laws on marriage, the treatment of women in the labour market and the low representation of women on elected bodies.

This one's quite funny, because in my 3 years experience when I lived in Japan, women who don't want to live the life of the salaryman, anyway, and this is the big glaring difference between men and women - guys work 40 years of drudgery (that kind of equality women would not want) : and even young men don't want to live the life of the salaryman.  My evidence is the widescale rejection of traditional male roles by young men. My evidence is the number of young men who are becoming reclusive - otherwise known as hikikomori, and's just damn obvious when you're over there.  The salaryman life is miserably tedious and life-sapping.  But it keeps the J-economy going as it requires complete and utter dedication to the job.

And now we have the good 'ol United Nations saying essentially that women also need to join in with this purgatory - in the name of equality  :laughing6:

Breadwinning in Japan is an act of complete and utter sacrifice.

It's not just the job - it's also the fact you're away from your kids - giving your wife ample opportunity to kidnap if divorce arises.  I know that sounds paranoid, but Japan has zero non-custodial parental rights; it's literally the one who has custody at the time.  So many mothers just take their child(ren) to her elderly parents, and the father is bamboozled.  

In my experience of working in Japan (in Japanese office with 99% Japanese nationals), the women who worked there were young and unmarried.  As soon as they married they let the husband ride the last train home every night from work.

Now the United Nations wants women to be breadwinner as much as men? That's great news for Japanese dads, and men in general.  Keep up the good work UN  :sunny:

And I tell you this: Japanese women wouldn't want this type of equality.  Ironically, it is men who'd love the equal choice to NOT be breadwinner.  

Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships.

The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls.

They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

Sorry for all the Harriet Harman stories, just that she's acting Prime Minister for the UK this week - now we know exactly what kind of misandry to expect if Gordon Brown dies suddenly or steps down from his leadership.

Actually, good on the Daily Mail for making big headlines out of all her nonsense. 

A big thank you to Harman (Har-person?) for promoting the MRA cause by being so radically feminist and waking up a lof of those who didn't have an opinion either way.  Now they do.