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 - Sir Percy

Main / The Last Post
Jun 18, 2006, 09:09 PM
This is the Steed.

I have carried my good friend Sir Percy from the field. He went down not as he would have liked, with his friends with sword in hand against the enemy. He was brought down by a spear, in the back, as he defended Truth against liars and knaves.

To Sir Percy, Truth was paramount.

I have taken him to the Monks.

He would have liked his poem to be shared and read over his tomb.

Words in Passing

We were not ready.
We did not see from where the blows came.

She was.
The Blue Pencil, poised,

The first was Fair, our childhood's most cherished friend:
Resolver of squabbles, distributor, sharer,
Fair cared for all:
a string of rubies around her doomed, pale and lovely neck.
It was so sad.
They said it was consumption.
All used up, in tatters, shrouded,
she just faded away.

Next to go was that sturdy, quarrelsome Equality, which surprised us all
as he was so in demand, they said,
by all,
especially some;
aye, and relied upon.
For so many years a staunch friend and fighter.

His burial dressage, a white cheesecloth, yoked neck.
Naked beneath,
his scarred skin a testament.
Burned Beyond Recognition.

Truth tried hard.
Was Tried.
Derided, Derrida-ed,
denied existence;
Perjured, Falsely accused,
she struggled
as she was garrotted.

Died hard.

Soon after that, Justice
suicided off a nearby cliff.
Now Lover's Leap, a place then
from which many a loving couple had gazed out,
seeking the broader vista.

Now has Disabled Access.

Was it in despair?
Perhaps sympathy with the others.

No-one saw her silent fall.
Was she pushed?
Who could gain?
Her handmaids will argue for a time and time,
billing innocence by the hour.

The old, wise man, Honour, lost his marbles, they said.
He languished as the village idiot for a while,
The butt of jokes and calumnies.

His body was found in a ditch one day.

They left it there.

The loss of these good companions all
has been followed now
by Liberty and Freedom,
two noble and leathery old soldiers.

They put on their dress uniforms, immaculate,
faced each other squarely and
blew each other's brains out.
Such fine shots, both.

They left a note. Signed together as written together.
They could no longer support the malignancy of the vile regime,
the note said.
They felt duty-bound to remove themselves
from further abuse,
the note said.

They took Duty with them.

An altar was discovered in the woods
On which the charred bones of hermaphrodite Trust
Were found,
Sacrificed to Narcissus
Who had been elevated to the Pantheon.
Tears flowed down Olympus' stony sides.

Even God cries.

The book closed.

After, there was Laughter, Music, Whine.
High pitched.
So much fun.
The departed were only words
After all.

Oppressive words.
Now dead.
Like Fathers.
Dead, white males.

What, three were maids?
'So? Whatever', said the wenches.

No one noticed Love fall to her knees.
Her calls for help were drowned by song.
Trampled to death under dancing feet.
The last to succumb.


The Impostor was on the scene quickly.
Ready, Definite.
By Order.
She said.

The Princess of Lies rides
over barren lands.
Long hair down her back.
Across her breast,
Over her steed's flank.
Hooves on skulls.

The children gabble and cry.
No words
their pain.

They were

We will not see his like again. The last Knight.

A member of this board made a false allegation against me.

Angrily I challenged it and him.

Like a Family Court Judge, Dr E closed the topic letting the false allegation stand and no right of reply given. Twice he did this.

Personal attacks of name calling I can treat as funny. I even put smilies after the names I was called when I listed them.  To me they are not personal attacks at all. Call me what ever you like. Asshat, pompous, turd, whatever. I will happily trade such minor insults. But to deliberately misrepresent me, claim I hold a position directely opposite to the one I clearly state, is a personal attack. More it is intellectually indefensible and dishonest.

For the Moderator of this board to act as he has done, shut down the discussion leaving no right of reply, is a failure of justice. The family Court comes to SYG.

I will not pst on this board again until I have an apolgy and retraction from Both Brian and Dr E.
Main / I call out BRIAN.
Jun 17, 2006, 06:50 AM
You take every opportunity to bash the war on terror and those fighting it Sir Percy. Well I am gooing to call you on it every time I see you do it so get used to it.

For the record, I am a staunch supporter of waging war on terrorists. I fully support our troops and yours and everyone elses engaged in this war. Perhaps you can ask Steve Beene. He and I have exchanged a few pms and I would be sure that he will back me up that I have always given him and his colleagues my total confidence and praise.

I do not 'bash' the war. I do not 'bash' those fighting it. I do not 'take every opportunity' to 'bash' either the war or the troops fighting it.

I defy you to call me out whenever you see me do it. Were you in my presence I would call you outside and give you the thrashing you deserve for the calumny.

Like many others who have experience of war here, I can recognise deficiencies in the conduct of operations. I can critique the matters as can anyone else. The American, Australian and British Generals do so regularly, calling for more and better resources and plans. They recognise that things could go a lot better and I agree with them. Seeking better means is a duty.

I am as heartfelt for the 2500 tropps that have been killed and the tens of thousands more that have been wounded. I praise them. I empathise with them. These men are my brothers.

For you, Brian, to say that this means that I 'bash', then you are a fool. More than that, you are a damned liar.

An unreserved apology is required.

And please, tell us, are you the same Brian who did his best to wreck the iFem board with his appaling claims and mendacities and lies ? I notice that you are a recent arrival here.

Now, if this post topic means that Dr E will ban me - he closed down the topic from which the quote was taken without affording a right to reply to the calumny -  then perhaps I should not be here.
Women are vastly more capable than men, we are constantly told by the women, the media, the BBC. Women live longer than men do. Men cannot possibly catch up. The life experience needed to develop the average capacity of the average woman would, for a man, require several life times. Womyn's Studies show how this comes about.

Its 'Previous lives'.

Most women, particularly in the Western World have lived before and most of them in exceedingly senior roles and positions. So many have been famous and even infamous Princesses, Queens, Empresses. Pharinas that it is hardly surprising that the few such prior era women were all so completely powerful and memorable. Each must at times have had several thousand  other women occupying the same body / mind simultaneously.

Of course, with so many jostling for prominence all at once they, the person at the time, must have been completely off the planet - as indeed, some were.  

The daily life, loves, sexual conquests and  deaths of Princesses, Warrior-Priestesses and Empresses etc of alien worlds and fairy realms are quite commonly 'remembered, vividly' by modern women.

If men, other than Buddhists have lived before, they are remarkably reticent about it or simply forgetful.
Main / What is your daughter reading?
Jun 13, 2006, 05:27 AM
I was looking for an article that appeared in my local paper today. By the same writer as below. The subject was Dads as Heros. It was an encouraging article. Unfortunately my local paper is a scurrillous rag that not only has little good to say about men most of the time but won't even put two thirds of its contents on its web-site. Thank goodness many might say. But it didn't put the Dads as Heros one in either. So I looked up the writer and found this instead.

It got me thinking. I wonder what other countries' 'girl's mags' focus on. What crap is being fed to the 10 - 12 y/os in your neck of the woods. It seems to me that the emphasis on sex, directed at such young children is fraught with danger. Their experimentation is unlikely to bring them much pleasure or managable experience, physically or emotionally. Bad experience brings bad esteem issues, guilt, inadequacies. These get projected onto the boys. Blame. The typical today's young female response. The start of anti-male attitudes.

OK. Many here may not be father's of daughters. But some are. Some here have sons who will be dating. These girls are tomorrows women.

What is your daughter reading?

What is your daughter reading?
August 10, 2004
The emphasis in Australian magazines aimed at teenage girls is on sex, writes Christopher Bantick.

For many parents, seeing their daughter curled up with Dolly or some other teenage magazine seems innocent enough. But perhaps parents should take a look inside these glossies to see what is on offer.

The emphasis in most magazines directed at teenage girls is on sex. Articles in the August editions of the four market leaders - Cosmopolitan, Girlfriend, Dolly and Cleo - advise how to do it, get it and have more of it.
Magazines for girls are aimed at the 12 to 18-year-olds. But the readership is often far younger. Children on the cusp of adolescence regularly read up, not down. Parenting expert Michael Grose has described this shrinking childhood as "adolescent creep".

Dolly declares that its core readership is 16-year-olds; Girlfriend's is 13 to 14-year-olds. Cleo and Cosmopolitan aim for the 16 to 20-year-olds. But the readership of such magazines by those between 10 and 14-years-old is growing - something that the American Psychological Association has warned is dangerous.

In February, the APA attacked American advertisers for pitching to and exploiting the under-14 market, saying these readers "inherently lack the cognitive capability to effectively recognise and defend against commercial persuasion".

A casual thumb through the August editions of Australia's top four girl glossies is revealing.

Girlfriend advises in a response to a correspondent who is asking about a boyfriend insistent on having sex: "I am sure he really does care for you. It's pity you don't believe him coz maybe he really does love you. Negotiating sex is so much easier with your clothes on."
A casual thumb through the August editions of Australia's top four girl glossies is revealing.

Dolly, in a lead story titled "Losing Your Virginity" offers 11 helpful ideas based on real-life accounts. These range from "It's Totally Nerve-Racking" to "It's Messy" and "You Might Bleed".

Both Cleo and Cosmopolitan are in an altogether different league. Both have sealed sections. Cleo this month teases: "Bizarro sex habits that will freak you out"; Cosmo, not to be outdone, offers: "Cosmo's Sex-Fantasy Decoder", where girls can explore their fantasies of being a "Sex Slave" or perhaps a "Naughty Nymph-O".

But besides the heavy emphasis on sex - and problematic sex at that - teenage girls' magazines capitalise on adolescent insecurity. Cosmo offers, "Your Erotic Thoughts Explained" and tips on "Surviving a Sex Drought". Dolly examines, "Bad Boys: Good Fun or Heartbreak?" Girlfriend asks, "Do You Really Want a Boyfriend?" Meanwhile Cleo explores "Ex Sex. Would you? Should you? Will it work?"
Still, as much as girl teenage magazines might be questioned in their emphasis on sex, they may still fulfil a need. In so far as sex education is taught at school, research has shown that this largely fails.

Teenage girl magazines are seen by their market as sources to trust. This is worrying. The information can lead girls to doubt themselves if they are not sexual beings at a young age.

A British study published last month found that teenage girls benefit from being taught about sex and contraception by their peers. The source of the information is largely through magazines. Thirty-five per cent of girls taught by their peers are less likely to have sex before 16, compared with 41 per cent if taught by their teachers.

Another British study, by the girl teenage magazine Sugar and published last month, found that 78 per cent of the 500 13 to 18-year-olds surveyed said that sex tutoring from teen magazines offered "information they were unable to get at school".

Apart from the heavy stress on sex in teenage girl magazines, there is also an unwavering reinforcement that self-esteem and identity is inexorably linked to having a boyfriend.

This dependence on male attitudes to women should be strongly challenged by magazine editors. But instead, they are complicit in presenting girls as dependent on boys for approval and success.
Cleo covergirl Jessica Simpson declares: "I've played dumb all my life. Guys love it." Cosmopolitan, in a section called "Man Manual", tells "What Guys Want in a Girlfriend". What they want includes: "Fill his car with petrol", "Be ready when he rings the bell" and, at the video store, "suggest you rent Bad Boys II instead of Chicago".

The problem with teenage girl magazines is that they give highly suspect information, they create misconceptions about sexuality, they reinforce stereotypes about male and female behaviour and they show craven irresponsibility in their disregard for the emotional maturity of their readers.
Do you know what your daughters are reading?

Christopher Bantick is a Melbourne writer.
Main / The Effects of Kryptonite on Gonads.
Jun 12, 2006, 12:40 AM,20867,19439354-2703,00.html

The Man of Steel too soft for studio executives
John Harlow, Los Angeles
June 12, 2006

AS a Boeing 777 breaks up in midair, a caped figure flies to the rescue through spewing flame and scything debris. Superman is back in a blur of special effects in the most expensive film Hollywood has produced.
But studio executives fear that Superman Returns, which cost more than $US200 million ($267million) to make, may prove less than heroic at the box office and spell doom for the traditionally extravagant mid-year blockbuster.

Concerns have been mounting that the latest Superman, played by Brandon Routh, an unknown from Iowa, may not be "macho" enough for a key group of ticket-buyers: teenage boys.

The Advocate, an influential gay magazine, proclaimed Routh's Superman a homosexual hero this month, putting him alongside Judy Garland and Cher, because he "lives a secret double life, wears tights and has lovely long eyelashes".

Bryan Singer, the film's gay director and responsible for The Usual Suspects and the first two X-Men movies, compounded the anxiety last week by describing Superman Returns as a "chick flick about a superhero seen from a woman's perspective, with qualities you'd want in a husband". The woman is Lois Lane, played by Kate Bosworth.

"Young men do not want a soft Superman: they want the Man of Steel, even if he is 68 years old," a Hollywood executive said last week.
Singer went into damage control on Friday, describing his Superman as "probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made".

Superman takes off with an all-star premiere in Los Angeles on June 21. An industry preview due this week has been cancelled as Warner Bros tinkers with marketing. Such nervousness reflects the expense of the film. A former Warner executive confirmed last week that more than $123million had been spent before the cameras started rolling in 2004.
This went largely on abandoned scripts, although the final version is a direct sequel to the four Christopher Reeve films, which ended in 1987.
Warners also had to pay Nicolas Cage $27million after replacing him in the lead role.

One of the first directors, Tim Burton, who wanted to shoot at Pinewood near London, walked away with a $6.6million cheque, although his successor, Joseph Nichol, director of Charlie's Angels, left without compensation when told to relocate the shoot to Australia for tax reasons.
When Reeve first wore the cape in 1978 to face his nemesis Zod on Horsell Common in Surrey, he had one blue suit and seven spares. Routh had 60.

Louise Mingenback, a costume designer on the new film, said: "There was more discussion about Superman's 'package' than anything else on the suit. Was it too big? Too round? Too pointy? There was someone just working on codpiece shapes for about a month."

Nearly half the budget went on effects and technology such as a digital camera that broke down.

"This delay is costing $US600,000 an hour," Singer raged. Another fortune went on salvaging snippets of Marlon Brando, who played Superman's father in the 1978 film.

Singer denied that filming went over schedule, although he did admit he was exhausted when he took two weeks off to celebrate his 40th birthday halfway through.

He also admitted that he had overstretched himself by simultaneously producing a TV series in South Africa from his Sydney flat and other ventures. "I would not do it that way again," he said.

Nor will the studios: Warners hopes to reduce the bill with Australian tax credits and by re-using some of the sets. "But the costs could reach $534 million. That's twice as much as Titanic," said one insider.

There is life in the blockbuster yet. Prime release dates have already been staked out for next year's northern summer by the producers of the next Harry Potter, Shrek, Spider-Man and Indiana Jones movies. If Superman fails to fly, the aftershock will be felt in 2008 instead.

The Sunday Times
From Dr ("Psychology and parapsychology") Venkmam in the 'Ghostbusters' hotel ballroom, "Whoooaaooaahh ! Nice shootin' Tex."

Decline of the Warrior Male: Is Ann Coulter the Last of the "Real Men" on the Intellectual Right?
June 11, 2006
Vox Populi
By Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D.

(Extract - Last para)

Like all members of the warrior class, Ann Coulter may be brutal and harsh in the din of battle and her attacks on the opposition are not always pretty. Yet, who else is willing to call the termites of the left exactly what they are- slanderous, treasonous, and godless radicals who are committed to the goal of first subverting and then re-defining American culture in the Marxist image. Aside from a precious few on the religious right, Ann is the only "real man" in the fight for our side, and the least the rest of us can do is provide moral and spiritual support and leave the criticism to the opposing side.
Main / Is Feminism A Mental Disorder?
Jun 08, 2006, 10:39 PM
Is the Pope a Catholic? Are noses right infront of you? Is my Steed a Big Swinging Dick? Are psychopaths noticable from the damage all around them?
Is Feminism A Mental Disorder?
June 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Carey Roberts

Peer into the dark heart of radical feminism, and you'll get a glimpse of a seething caldron of delusion, phobia, and paranoia.

Visit the N.O.W. website and you'll see dark warnings that "women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work." Things are even worse at the National Abortion Rights League, which alerts us that President Bush "has waged a tireless war on women's reproductive rights and personal privacy."

But the greatest feminist boogeyman is domestic violence. No other issue so propels the luna-chicks into a wailing convulsion of breast-beating and hair-pulling.

As a service to my readers, I must state the following warning: DV HYSTERIA IS HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS. The only known way to prevent the spread of this condition is to inoculate yourself with the facts. So let's see what the research has to say.

Recently the Journal of Family Psychology reported on a national survey of married and co-habiting partners. In 4.6% of the couples, the woman had engaged in "severe" partner violence, compared to only 2.1% of couples with male violence. []

Just two weeks ago University of New Hampshire researcher Murray Straus spoke at a New York City conference to share his latest research on dating violence. His conclusions told the same story: female-only violence is twice as common as male-only violence - not just in the United States, but in 32 nations around the world. []

Got that? More often than not it's the woman who's violent, and the man is on the receiving end of the abuse.

Now prepare yourself for the ideological onslaught.
Here's feminist icon Gloria Steinem: "Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself. . . The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home."

But it's not just a few miscreant wife-beaters -- "It's every man and in every class of society," according to Gudrun Schyman, founder of the Swedish Feminist Initiative.

That settles it, hubbies. All these years you thought you were a dutiful protector for your family. But it turns out you're really a perpetrator.
Sometimes DV hysteria erupts into an incoherent rant. Here's Lis Wiehl writing for Fox News just last week: "This is one plague that doesn't discriminate. It affects all women equally, whether rich, poor, religious, non-religious, black, or white."

Not to interrupt a good catharsis, Ms. Wiehl, but you might want to re-read the fifth and sixth paragraphs of this column. As I'm sure your Harvard Law profs told you, always read the evidence before you render an opinion.

Feminist dementia even impairs persons' ability to perform simple arithmetic. This month's issue of Mother Jones features domestic violence statistics. Blithely ignorant of the research, the issue claims that 73% of abuse victims are female and 15% are men. []

Let's see, 73 plus 15 equals 88. Whatever happened to the other 12%? Oh there I go again, being so linear.

Ann Coulter's latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism devotes an entire chapter to our national epidemic of "Sobbing, Hysterical Women." This coming week thousands of these sad-sack fems will congregate in New York City to attend a VDAY celebration organized by Eve Ensler. Anyone who has heard of Ensler's raunchy Vagina Monologues knows this will be no ladies' sewing circle.

On Monday, June 12 the faithful are being summoned to attend Ensler's "once-in-a-lifetime" reading of her play Necessary Targets. The story highlights the plight of female refugees in the Bosnian civil conflict. The moral of the play: if only peace-lovin' women were put in charge, war would come to an end and the gender utopia could commence.
This time around, a two-week purification ritual is being called for.
So VDAY will continue with late-night monologues, rants, and ritualistic chanting about female genitalia. The festival will conclude on June 27 with a 5K run through Prospect Park to exorcise any remaining demons. []

Feminism has morphed from an enlightened social movement into high-octane mass hysteria, shunning reason and fact in its compulsive quest to flog the long-dead horse of patriarchy. This movement has become the beneficiary of billions of dollars in government largesse, much of which is channeled in programs designed to recruit ever-more women into its seductive fold.

Abuse hysteria is on the move and poses a threat to the well-being of millions of normal, happy women. That makes it worthy of a full-fledged psychiatric diagnosis. Here it is: FIPH - feminist-induced phobic hysteria.
Main / Real Rant 101
Jun 06, 2006, 11:24 PM
:D What can one say!! In the best interests of the children.

The Anti-Christs Live Amongst Us
June 06, 2006
by Bob Parks
Today is June 6th, 2006. "666" is supposedly the day when the Anti-Christ will be born. I contend that several million currently walk amongst us.
Last weekend, one of my kids during a passing conversation said that, with all due respect, some in our generation are kind of "computer challenged". I had to remind him, with all due respect, that it was our generation that created computers and the Internet. It's his generation that simply uses them.

The more and more I think about it, I have to admit, I hate kids today. There are times I can barely tolerate my own.

I've come to despise those we used to call "soccer moms." You know, those women who are slavishly devoted to her kids and will drop everything to drive them here, cook several different dishes for several different "orders", go to all the PTA meetings, sell hot dogs at all the Little League games, basically give up most of her waking hours to kids whose last thought it is to issue a simple "thank you", and at the end of the day think they're better than the rest of us because they care about their kids more than the rest of us do.

(The following is the commencement address I should have read....)
Now that a lot of high school commencements are over, complete with student speeches describing how they've grown, how much they've learned about themselves, and how much all of this was always all about them, I'm going to be one parent whose going to tell them just how much (or little) I think of them.

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton publicly commented on how she believes this generation thinks "work" is a four-letter word, and how they feel oh so entitled. Her daughter then publicly launched into her and Hillary backed down and apologized. This woman wants to be president, yet can't stand up to her own kid who because of family name, graduated from two pricey colleges and is now earning six-figures. But what else would Chelsea expect?

How many times do you tell a kid anything with him or her responding "I know....", but when you ask them why they did something bad, their response is almost always "I dunno...."

In a few short years from now, these kids are going to be running the show. God help us as these kids are already breeding more self-absorbed brats.

A lot of the blame for this lost generation is some of us parents and an intrusive government system that acts like they own our kids. I'll personally never forgive pop culture and Hollywood that continues to portray parents as punchline buffoons and the kids as wise-ass geniuses. Be it the whiny, social skills-challenged babies on "The Real World", or the entitlement-sickening brats on "Sweet Sixteen" which is probably the worst show ever produced for kids, they can out-sass us and that's supposed to be cool.

Government intrusion in family affairs is a big problem. Not that I advocate abuse, but why can't we smack the crap out of our kids anymore? Surely when I got smacked as a youth it was because I pushed the envelope and did something really bad. After the smackdown, I thought long and hard before I did it again. Because of do-something politicians and make-work government employees in your neighborhood Department of Social Services (they should just take the D off of DSS), kids have been encouraged to report parents who attempt to discipline them.

Shouting at them is "emotional abuse." Spanking is "physical abuse." The result are parents who are powerless to address the many instances of malfeasance by back-talking, no-conscience youth.

In a prelude to their liberal indoctrination to come in their later academic years, kids today have been taught that they have "rights." Parents indulge them by letting them wear whatever they want, pierce themselves more than Africans, provide them their "crack" (cell phone minutes that they always seem to run out of despite the pricey plans their parents obtain), and seldom do we get any gratitude. Instead, kids go right to the fridge, eat more than than their share, and give your family provisions to their friends who aren't supposed to be in your home when parents are not for all the obvious legal reasons. Rules are constantly broken because kids feel entitled to do whatever they want. Deal with it, Chelsea.

There are no "no's" that are binding. Telling a kid to avoid MySpace because of the obvious hazards, results in an eye-rolling that makes the back of our hands tingle, yet we all know the moment we walk out the door, both AIM is activated and MySpace is opened.

I wish I could have had an "emotional day" off when I was younger. On those occasions when I knew I was in for a traditional ass-whuppin' from a school bully, a day off would have been nice. Bullying was not a crime in those days and we all had to learn how to embrace our fears, and more times than not, the ass-whuppin' never happened. Today's kids are wimps.

They cry on national television reality shows when things don't go their way. They are devoid of personal responsibility, and when they hang out amidst riots and get hurt (or worse), it's everybody else's fault. They go to spring break, drink while underage until all hours, and should some evil befall them, we never ask why they were there in the first place doing what they were doing. That would be insensitive.

We've created shortcuts in life they now expect. Instead of paying their dues and growing naturally in a craft, we prematurely reward them as American Idols, and their careers are mediocre at best. We watch them complain about how hard their short lives have been constantly on MTV. What kind of generation is this going to be? I fear for the future....

One afternoon a few weeks ago, I heard a fairly loud and arrhythmic banging outside our home. I peeked through the blinds and saw one of the kids in my extended family taking Barry Bonds-like swings with a baseball bat on the doors of his car and rear taillight. Apparently, instead of performing the routine maintenance required as responsible car ownership mandates, he blew the money he bums off his mother elsewhere, and when the car started to fail, it was the car's fault.

I can only imagine what would be going through my mind if people bought the house next door and within their first month in a new neighborhood, we all witness a kid bashing the hell out of his car in their driveway. I'd be talking about them in the most unflattering of terms. What kids do to embarrass their parents is the last thing in their minds, because God knows, their response as to why they do what they do is always "I dunno...."

So, what will the future bring? This generation can't write new music or a decent movie script. Rap artists will be sampling radio jingles soon after they deplete the Time-Warner music library for hooks. There are hundreds of bad, old television shows and movies that today's movie executives will remake, and it's only a matter of time before we have a reality show based around a toilet cam. Today's youth will really find that funny.

I'm sure many of you will be extremely upset that I show so much disdain for today's kids. Maybe I am getting old and this is a cyclical sentiment. I remember my Dad's generation looking down on us, but they could at least get some satisfaction by issuing a good old fashioned spanking that eventually got our minds right. Again, I've never advocated child abuse, but you can't tell me that there haven't been times that some of you parents haven't felt like chaining your spoiled brat to a radiator when you know they'll defy a justified grounding.

If this rant sounds unreasonable, think about this: this generation of kids are some of the most heartless we've ever seen. They'll take over a whole neighborhood, participating in violent gang activity that makes those in "West Side Story" look like pansies. They plot to shoot up and bomb their schools, and are yet dumb enough to document their plans on blogs. Some succeed.

They'll show no mercy for their parent's bank accounts as they rack up more minutes on their cellphones (that we stupidly justified giving them for "safety" reasons), and they'll pout when we reign them in because we just can't afford to pay over $100 a month so they can talk to their friends constantly on a cellphone instead of the boring home phone.

Besides computer viruses, what will they create? That would take imagination, and those who are capable will be denigrated by their peers. They'll be called "geeks" because they'll actually see the value of studying and later getting a job. I couldn't wait to get a job when I was younger. These kids act as though you're telling them to enter a gas chamber.
"666" will come and go. We, as a society, will have to deal with a generation of youth who may not be the devil's spawn, but they sure do act like it at times.

If there was ever a time to pray for the second coming, now would be a good time to start.
Main / I am woman hear me roar.
Jun 05, 2006, 02:23 AM
At the end of his article, Rudov starts a list. He gets to three. Add from there.
Exposing WomenJune 04, 2006
Vox Populi
By Marc Rudov

Rampant MissBehaving
In the past week, I read two uncannily similar articles about a growing American trend: unruly fiancées. Betrothed women are exhibiting the wanton, unrestrained behavior once ascribed solely to men celebrating the end of bachelorhood. Moreover, they are exposing themselves and erasing boundaries in ways men never did. Future brides, though, are not alone in their propensity to "MissBehave." We are seeing raucous female behavior across the spectrum from teenage girls, college girls, and adult women--single and married. Alas, this trend exacerbates the double standard that negatively affects men.

In a piece from entitled "Brides Gone Wild, Grooms Gone Mild," posted on May 31, 2006, C. Spencer Beggs wrote that women are trekking in droves to Las Vegas for premarital romps and excessive binging on alcohol. Here is a representative quote from Beggs's article: "It was a blast," Margie Parsons, of Huber Heights, Ohio, said of her bachelorette party at a strip club. "I got handcuffed to the stage and two women gave me a lap dance." Nice.

"What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas" is a popular commercial mantra that must be a source of frustration to the bride-to-be with no boundaries and a penchant for exhibitionism. So, after making a jackass of herself in Sin City, why not continue the insanity on her wedding day?
On June 2, 2006, the Wall Street Journal printed Jon Weinbach's article, "Brides Gone Wild," about women hiring photographers and videographers to immortalize them in their bras and panties, just before donning their wedding dresses. Weinbach regales us about a male photog snapping pix of Alison and her 12 bridesmaids in their underwear. Huh? Mrs. Brettschneider, Alison's mother-in-law from tony Larchmont, NY, reviewed the proofs and deemed a few images inappropriate for public consumption, including one of Alison showing her G-string and back tattoo.

"My in-laws weren't too happy about that," says the bride, "but it was such a cool shot." Cool? Mrs. Brettschneider even had to admonish Alison that eventually her future kids would see those shots. Duh. Why didn't the 29-year-old bride realize this? And, where was the groom? Was he too brainwashed to join in his mortified mother's rightful objection?

MissBehaving starts young. Look no further than, a global video-viewing phenomenon. This Website allows everyone and anyone to upload videos for the whole world to see. YouTube viewers are watching 50 million videos per day--from Hollywood movie trailers to rock-group music videos to wacky home movies to, yes, teenage and college girls doing striptease. Many parents are unaware that their "sweet, innocent" daughters are exposing themselves to the world. Using the webcams of their bedroom and dorm-room PCs, they create provocative videos and upload them to YouTube. Why? Boundaries are meaningless.
Exhibitionism is cool.

If you are still naïve enough to believe that women are more faithful than men, check out, which supplies men for women who cheat on their husbands and boyfriends. When Monogamy Becomes Monotony is the motto of this service. Shocked? Welcome to reality. Bonus for the unsuspecting husband: If his cheating wife's tryst produces a child, and he raises this child as his own, most states will force him to support it until age 18--even if he later discovers that he is not the child's father. Ain't MissBehavin' great?

Much Ado About Nothing?
Do I care that women get drunk at strip joints, pose half-nude for their wedding albums, perform striptease on YouTube, and cheat on their husbands? At one level, I don't care. We live in a free society. Why, then, do I want to expose women for exposing themselves? Two reasons. First, I am a member of society, and any deterioration of my society affects me. Deterioration of society from within the family begets more and larger government programs to compensate for what the family lacks. This is an atrocious state of affairs, antithetical to the principles of the United States.

Second, our society believes that women are better behaved than men, despite evidence to the contrary. After all, we're not reading about grooms and their best men posing in their underwear for wedding albums, are we? The women described in this article are permitted to become mothers, role models, and they are ill-equipped to teach children right vs. wrong. Those children will, in turn, become parents and perpetuate the weakening of society's fabric.

Accordingly, policemen and judges in family and criminal courts tend to presume women--especially mothers--innocent, while presuming men--especially fathers--guilty, giving women wide latitude to bend and even violate court orders. A highly esteemed lawyer once told me that judges deem identical behavior as violence, coming from a man, and emotion, coming from a woman. In almost all cases, when a woman confesses to falsely accusing a man of rape--a false accusation is a felony--she is released unpunished. And, every time Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, debates Geraldo Rivera about an adult female, especially a teacher, having sex with a minor boy, Rivera laughs it off as a joke. It isn't a joke.

As I've written previously, the double standard exists on TV, too. Women can endlessly insult and assault men, and America considers that funny. But, if men were to behave similarly toward women on any TV show, it would be off the air after one episode.

This anti-male bias, which begins in elementary schools, is unreasonable and unfair to all of society. In elementary schools, teachers confer upon girls, who tend to be mild at that age, behavior-benchmark status. When boys act rambunctiously, as they do at that age, many teachers force their parents to put them on Ritalin. Women good, men bad. Girls good, boys bad.

This anti-male bias raises its ugly head in our reproductive and domestic-violence laws. Here are but three examples:

•   Roe v. Wade--gives women the right to choose abortion, gives men no rights

•   VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)--gives women, even illegal aliens, wide latitude and financial assistance to accuse and falsely accuse men of violence; provides no legal relief or financial assistance to men whom women physically abuse, even though women and men physically abuse each other in equal percentages

•   Safe-Haven Laws--47 states allow women, without penalty, to deposit their unwanted newborns at fire stations within 72 hours of birth, and to change their minds two weeks thereafter. Men must abide by whatever decisions the women make.

No-Nonsense Bottom Line
Clearly, men are limited in their rights and behaviors. Women, on the other hand, are behaving in ways unimagined just a few years ago--with impunity, indulgence, and great latitude. A woman can waltz into the office, dressed provocatively. If a man makes even a flattering comment to her, and she decides to make an issue of it, his life can end on that day. Women have gone wild and are becoming wilder. They are MissBehaving rampantly and the government encourages it.

If our society continues to tolerate the double standard that condones women and condemns men for identical behaviors, continues to offer special privileges to women, and fails to criticize women and hold them accountable for their MissBehaving, this trendline will lead us to a predictable, preventable, ultimate end, embodied by three bleak outcomes:

1.   Men will become almost irrelevant
2.   Women will self-destruct
3.   Children will become criminals and wards of the state.
Main / Wendy Wields her Sword again
Jun 05, 2006, 01:56 AM
You can't keep this good woman down. I know, I know. There are some here who do not like her. She has her moments. But guys, this is one fighter for truth we should respect despite our squabbles. She should be welcomed in out tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in. She is a great counterweight to others at Fox. Lets hear it for Wendy.,2933,197550,00.html
Feminists Deny Truth on Domestic ViolenceTuesday, May 30, 2006 By Wendy McElroy

In the last three decades, feminism has revolutionized daily life from the legal system and social mores down to the story books children use in kindergarten. Feminist discussion seems to be 'always' and 'everywhere'.
But I believe the contrary is true.

Genuine discussion of feminist issues ended in the 1970s when one school came to dominate and moved to silence competing views both within the movement and outside.

Politically correct feminists maintain that women as a class are politically oppressed by men as a class, which means that every woman is oppressed by every man. Class oppression is the ideological lens through which PC feminism views all issues.

Tammy Bruce's book "The New Thought Police" (2001) received media buzz as a former insider's expose of how PC feminists smear their intellectual opponents in an attempt to silence and discredit them. For example, Bruce described how PC feminists led a campaign of defamation against the conservative Dr. Laura Schlessinger by misrepresenting her as homophobic.

Joan Garry, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, was quoted as saying, "If she can't be controlled, she must be stopped."

The PC treatment of heretics within feminism has been no less brutal. Indeed, heretics are commonly reviled more than infidels.

Consider Erin Pizzey.
In 1971, Pizzey opened the first battered wives shelter in England, which she ran until 1982. Arguably, the Chiswick Family Rescue was the second domestic violence shelter in the world. Pizzey's book "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear" (1974, out of print) was one of the first to explore and expose wife battering.

Today, the shelter Pizzey founded denies her entry; her name does not appear in its official history.

Pizzey's 'mistake' was to diverge from the theory of domestic violence that feminists at the time insisted dominate all discussion. She believed that men could also be the victims of domestic violence, and that women could be as violent toward their partners as men.

Pizzey's views put her on a collision course with PC feminists who, according to Pizzey's own published account of events, initiated a campaign of harassment and violence against her.
Pizzey described this harassment in an article she published in the Scotsman in 1999.

"Because of my opposition to the hijacking of the refuge movement, I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me," Pizzey wrote. "Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad, asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters."

One night, the family dog was killed.

Eventually, "exhausted and disillusioned," Pizzey said she went into "exile with her children and grandchildren," leaving England in 1982 to live in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Pizzey returned to England that same year for the book tour of her next book, "Prone to Violence," which once again ignited a violent reaction among feminists. Pizzey wrote that when she arrived in England for her book tour, she was "met with a solid wall of feminist demonstrators" carrying signs that read "ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS, ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS."

"The police insisted that I have an escort all round England for my book tour," Pizzey wrote in the Scotsman.

There is some reason to believe that "Prone to Violence" has been the target of a campaign of suppression by PC feminists. According to the web site Wikepedia, in 1996 an internet search of the world libraries that can be accessed through the Library of Congress uncovered only 13 listings for the book: an astonishingly low number for a pioneering work that caused a sensation.

Why would PC feminists nearly riot over a book and, then, ignore it?
Because Pizzey advanced a competing theory of domestic violence.
When viewed through the PC lens of class oppression, domestic violence is not an act of violence committed by one individual against another. It is an act committed by men that must be correctly understood within the larger context of women's class oppression.

"Prone to Violence" spelled out some of Pizzey's disagreements with that view.

Disagreement #1: Of the first 100 women who entered Chiswick, Pizzey found that over 60 percent were as violent or more violent than the men they were fleeing. In short, a significant percentage of the women were also batterers or otherwise active participants in the violence.

Disagreement #2: Pizzey developed the theory that many battered women were psychologically drawn to abusive relationships and they sought them out. To PC feminists, such analysis was tantamount to 'blaming the victim.'

Disagreement #3: She explained why the existing model of domestic violence shelters was ineffective. PC feminists were attempting then (and now) to secure ever greater financing for these operations. Sandra Horley, director of Chiswick in 1992, reportedly complained, "if we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding."

Pizzey may or may not have been correct; I believe she was and is.
Neverthless, her book drew upon over 10 years at the Chiswick shelter during which time Pizzey dealt with some 5,000 women and children.
"Prone to Violence" is an extremely early and honest overview of domestic violence from a woman with extensive experience of its daily realities.

The book cried out to be taken seriously. At minimum, it deserved a thorough rebuttal from its PC feminist critics--not death threats directed at its author nor the ultimate silence it received.

Pizzey is not alone. In America, Suzanne Steinmetz -- author of the book "The Battered Husband" and a co-author of the much-cited "First National Family Violence Survey" -- experienced a similar drama. She and her children received death threats; an ACLU meeting at which she spoke received a bomb threat.

The reason: her research indicated that the rate at which men were victimized by domestic violence was similar to the rate for women.
In large and small ways -- from shrill protests to the tearing down of announcements, from blocking university promotions to threats and defamation -- PC feminism has attempted to stop voices it could not control.

Feminism is dying not from a backlash but from an orthodoxy that cannot tolerate real discussion...and never could.
Main / Rocky 2006
Jun 05, 2006, 01:26 AM
From those philanthropic folk who brought you the Kinsey Report - which 'showed' that  90 or was it 93% of man were really gay, but not happy - and those purveyors of camoflage paint - "Now Girrrls, we don't want anyone to see our real face, do we" - we have a Father's Day Tribute, just like old Rome. Et te Rocky?. Bring on the Games.


Avon, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Mary Kay Ash Sponsor Radical Feminist Hate for Fathers Day
June 04, 2006
Vox Populi, BullsEye, David R. Usher, VOA Social Issues, Dissecting Leftism

Students of corporate responsibility have a useful lesson studying the philanthropic practices of Avon, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Mary Kay Cosmetics.  These organizations irresponsibly provide funds to anti-family radical feminist organizations promoting widespread family civil rights violations.

Mary Kay Ash sponsored "Breaking the Silence", a shifty PBS documentary fabricating an impossible illusion: known male abusers are winning custody of their children in courts of law in order to continue abusing their children or an ex-spouse.

In the resulting uproar, "Breaking the Silence" was slammed by both the CPB and PBS Ombudsmen, and it was quietly withdrawn.  PBS is making a forthcoming documentary (at its own expense) which is expected to be reasonably truthful.  But Mary Kay Ash continues to promote hate on the front page of its website.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides funding to the entire law enforcement system and legal profession only if a man is arrested or prosecuted.  For this reason, it is quite difficult (if not impossible) for men living with violent spouses to find help or legal assistance.  This is in spite of the fact that all major studies on domestic and dating [2] violence tell us that women initiate slightly over half of all serious spousal altercations.

As a Fathers' Day "celebration", Avon and the Rockefeller Foundation funded a hysterical public lynching of husbands and fathers in New York City, featuring known lesbians, man-haters, and supporters of child sexual predation such as Rosie O'Donnell, Jane Fonda, Eve Ensler, and Marlo Thomas.  This is unsurprising coming from the descendants of the Women's Ku Klux Klan (this is a true historical fact).  Consumers should avoid the products of these shady companies as if their children's futures depended on it.

Avon is spending millions perpetrating misandry in American culture.  The Avon Foundation strongly supports VAWA, and has a number of pamphlets and programs promoting knuckle-dragging radical-feminist agitprop.

Corporate public relations advisors have not heard the message yet.  Hate based on race or sex (or both with regard to black men) is not an acceptable corporate philosophy. They believe it is reasonable to pretend that all spousal conflict is somehow the man's fault, when in fact women are responsible for slightly over half of it.  They believe that "diversity" and "equality" means citing unscientific feminist "reports" that intentionally leave half of the population outside the statistical sample.

Feminists have succeeded at this game for many years by heaping guilt on males, thus institutionalizing hard bigotry and irrational privilege for women via uncouth identity politics.  George F. Will recently opined that liberal black organizations have applied a similar game for years, as unofficially admitted in Shelby Steele's book "White Guilt".

Reason supports only one conclusion: these corporations are actually sponsoring organized violence against men by projecting women's violence on the backs of men. They prevent women with alcohol, drug, and other problems from getting well by telling them that it is OK to continue their behavior.  In doing so, they destroy multitudes of families every year, leave troubled women in much more trouble than before, and children at great risk for child abuse and neglect at the hands of a drug or alcohol-abusing mother.

For Father's Day this year, you can give a wonderful gift by calling Avon, Mary Kay, and the Rockefeller Foundation, and asking them why they spent millions destroying fathers for Father's day instead of giving them the respect they deserve and promoting policies that would give them a fair shake in society the rest of the year.

(edited by dr e to shorten link)
Main / Bastardising the Legal System.
Jun 04, 2006, 02:51 AM
SP. My emphases and comments/additions. Many thanks to Terri.

Procedurally Defeated: Law Without Laws
June 03, 2006
Vox Populi
By Terri Lynn Tersak

Everyday brings a new ream of tragic stories of fathers being wrongfully torn from their children's lives. This is usually attributed to the agenda of groups supporting radical ideologies. But I felt there had to be more to the story than just that since it is happening to mothers too, although not as often as to fathers. The answer is, follow the money.

Recently our organization had both the pleasure and misfortune of getting some national exposure on some of the surveys and interviews that we have been conducting. The surveys and interviews were dealing with various abuses of our legal system, most notably false allegations of domestic violence.

Through our in person surveys of plaintiffs in domestic violence cases we have discovered a significant level of premeditated false claims of domestic violence. Subsequently, current Family Court Judges have corroborated our survey findings. They acknowledge pervasive levels of false claims not only exist, but law firms, including Legal Services Corporation (LSC) grant recipients, are knowing participants that are scripting statements for their clients in these cases. They also expressed concern over the reluctance of their county's District Attorney's Office to prosecute these false claims.

(SP. See also, Carey Roberts, who writes:
When the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974, the idea was to help poor people deal with absentee landlords and faceless welfare bureaucracies. But along came welfare reform in 1996, and the LSC suddenly found many of its clients were no longer in need of its services. Time for Plan B.

Plan B was to implement the radical feminist agenda. That agenda says domestic violence is the tool that brutish patriarchs wield to keep women in their place.

So at the LSC, the most common type of cases became family issues, "many of which involve securing protective order to keep spouses and children safe from domestic violence," according to the LSC's latest Annual Report.)

Within hours of the article's release victims of legal system abuses requesting assistance and to have their cases included in our research inundated our offices with contacts. In the following two weeks, we received the details of over four-thousand cases of blatant gender based discrimination against men and other civil rights violations against both men and women.

Since our debut was made in an article concerning issues with LSC, it should have been no surprise to find that everyone of these cases came from the defendant of a case handled by one of the recipient law firms of LSC funding. Among other requirements of the funding they receive, these firms are required to "self-police" their operations guarding against false claims of domestic violence and other offenses. This is whom the defendants are referred to if they must file complaints.

After an exhausting review of the cases, several common themes were noticed. However, there was one horrifying commonality among all of them. In each of these cases, the defendant had complained to the LSC grant recipient law firm that was representing the plaintiff in their case about corruption they were aware of or false allegations of domestic violence made by their client against them.

Within days of making, their complaints they faced an ex-parte claim filed on behalf of their minor children and have never seen or heard from their children again. In many of these cases it has been years since their last contact with their children.

Ultimately, the result of these new claims was the destruction of any custody rights and visitation they had with their children. Beyond the emotional devastation this has on them, it eliminates their future standing in the courts on any matters related to their children, other than to revisit custody.

From this point forward, any effort they make to resolve related matters can also quickly be claimed to be "custody" related issues and quickly dismissed. Including the false claims of domestic violence and the participation, any professional had in the creation of the false claim. This carries through all the way to the United States Supreme Court as seen in the case of Dr. Michael Newdow's "Pledge of Allegiance" case. Dr. Newdow's case was discharged not on the subject matter of his case, but on his lack of custody rights of his child.

These parents are now second-class citizens because of legal actions that were in direct violation of their right to equal protection under the law and offered not even the pretense of due process of law.

Therefore, it does appear that the elimination of a parent's custody provides the participants of false claims of domestic violence with an impenetrable barrier against all efforts in the wronged defendants' quest for our constitutionally guaranteed redress.

How and why do these abuses keep happening with great predictability?
The complaints the law firms hear from the defendants are not tracked, organized, or maintained in any manner. This process, which in of itself begs to question its ethical basis, creates a sort of ex-parte communication between the defendant and the plaintiff's law firm absent of the presence of a Judge. In a few rare cases that alone was the reasoning for dismissing the defendants' complaint.

We have personally called several of the LSC grant recipients asking to file a complaint of false claims of domestic violence. They made every effort to discourage us from sending a written complaint by telling us there is not anything they can do. This matches the testimony of all of the legal abuse victims that have contacted us to date.

Through all of this, we need to ask where the defendant's attorney was and why they are not filing civil rights violations claims. Upon interviewing several dozen "Family Law" attorneys throughout the country, we came to the astounding revelation that they do not actually practice law. They are merely "processors" within a system of very constrictive procedural guidelines.

Our states' family law statutes are not designed to dispense justice or operate in "the best interest of the child." Rather to ensure the operations of their family courts leverage the maximum return from a vast array of federal grant sources.

Within many of the states' judicial systems are committees that produce and manage guidelines, rules and procedures that govern the day-to-day operation of the state's family courts and that of the attorneys practicing within them.

Since these guidelines, rules and procedures the parent's own attorney work within have nothing to do with actual laws nor have any mechanisms for protecting someone's civil rights, these parents never stood a chance against a false claim to begin with. Their defeat is due to the practice of law without laws.

The funding to LSC must to require them to establish a more rigorous system of oversight of its grant recipients. Along with the creation of a system for lodging complaints that is completely independent from their grant recipients that provides protection instead of additional punishment for filing a complaint.

Our experience handling the enormous level of complaints shows there is a lack of a sufficiently staffed operation within all of LSC's grant recipients combined to deal with the level of abuses currently taking place.
Without these changes, today's parents are "procedurally defeated" before any claim was ever filed against them. This, sadly, is by design.

Posted in Vox Populi at 6:08 pm by Terri Lynn Tersak
Main / Battle of the sexes shocker. Oh Yeah.
Jun 03, 2006, 08:11 PM
I have added some comments, and emphasised some points.

Battle of the sexes shocker:
Survey: Men and marriage are a match made in heaven
By Jessica Heslam
Saturday, June 3, 2006 - Updated: 10:06 AM EST

It just got harder for women to blame "commitment phobia" for their boyfriends' unwillingless to walk down the aisle.

   A new study found that men are more likely than women to want to get married - and are just as keen to start a family.

   "The world is a tough place and the men understand that if they're going it alone, it makes for a great cowboy movie, but it doesn't make for a great life," said Dr. Richard Pomerance, a Bay State psychologist specializing in relationship decisions.

   More than 12,000 men and women took part in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. The interviews were done in person and participants were asked a host of questions on marriage, sex, parenthood and cohabitating.

   It was the first time men were included in the survey, done regularly since 1973. The results were released earlier this week. (SP. No wonder it was a 'shocker'. It is easy enough to get the answers you want when you bias the sample as is so often done by excluding men. I wonder just how many men were in the 12000))

   Men and women were asked to respond to this statement: "It is better to get married than go through life single."

   Sixty-six percent of men agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, compared with only 51 percent of women.

   For men who said that religion was important in their daily lives, 74 percent agreed that it's better to get married than be single, compared with 57 percent of women. (SP. I guess many women got up to that bit when being thrown out of Paradise they were told to 'go forth and multiply'. That male chauvinist God! Even he had sex on his mind all the time!!)

   There are several reasons men are more willing to tie the knot these days, said Pomerance, who has offices in Boston and Newton.

   Most important, men have grown up with women who have become their equals in education. "Therefore, they see them as being more able to share the load with them as adults and they're also more comfortable with them in general," Pomerance said.

   Second, with women making money, men don't have to shoulder the financial burden of raising a familyalone, Pomerance said.

   Men today also perceive the world as a much tougher place, Pomerance said, and they want to "retreat to a place of safety in a way they did not a generation ago." (SP. Men have always wanted the home to be a place of safety. What is this 'generation ago shite?)

(Either Pomerance hasn't studied or the men he surveyed haven't. Men are falling behind in education. Women haven't become 'equals' unless you count all the Womyn's Studies degrees. As for sharing the load, by working and earning, this is short term and ignores the choice that women have and the rewards of divorce. Underscores the lack of education of many men. They have no idea what awaits them!)

   At the same time, he explained, men aren't being raised to be as vicious as they were a generation ago. "They sense that they haven't necessarily got the nastiness it takes to succeed on their own," Pomerance said.

(SP. This is sheer 'automatic' misandry. Got to put the guys down somehow. Men weren't raised to be 'vicious' in my day. As for not having the required (?) nastiness, I guess his world-view is shining through and being projected onto everyone else. Very feminist - mangina. Does it occur to him that the men might be saying that enough nastiness and viciousness is being provided by the women, the MHBs of the new world  these days??

   Divorce attorney Sharyn Sooho, co-founder of, said women take care of men and men are used to being cared for. "(Men) do believe that someone else should take care of them," Sooho said.  

(SP. More misandry and mendacity. Men are traditional carers of women. Men protect, provide for and even die for women. I guess she has found the most suitable job for her prejudices)

The survey also found that 73 percent of men and 83 percent of women agreed "that a working woman can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work." (SP. If she chooses to. Women have choice, men have responsibilities). And 76 percent of men and 72 percent of women agreed that "it is more important for a man to spend a lot of time with his family than be successful at his career." (SP. Odd how socity disagrees. If it agreed, men would have choice too.)
Main / They knew it was him.
Jun 02, 2006, 11:05 PM

Thank goodness they left out the evidence of the skid marks. :D
Main / One woman's take on one man's take
May 30, 2006, 02:32 AM
A book review from the UK. The Rantmeister has competition. But as with these things, women get the impression that all men think the same way, no matter how much we point to our differences. More myths than Aesop get an airing.,,2092-2168324,00.html

The Sunday Times - Review
Sex, lust, fantasy and the truth about men
Sean Thomas's candid memoir about his sexual adventures does women a service -- by revealing what it is to be a 21st-century man, writes India Knight

A few months ago a proof copy of Sean Thomas's new book, Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You, landed on my doormat. I flicked through it over breakfast. A few pages in, I cancelled my entire working day to read it in one go. I had just come to this bit about his first sexual experience as a child: "The first thing I had an orgasm over was the cleaning woman . . . I am weird, terminally peculiar."

The book is ostensibly about that revolutionary and now ubiquitous phenomenon of online dating, but it is also a sexual memoir, a deft first-person account of 42-year-old Thomas's entire sex life, warts and all. Thomas loses himself in online porn for days on end: "This is compelling stuff. So compelling I think I'm going to do exactly the same tomorrow. And maybe the day after that I'll do the same. And the week after that. Indeed the next time I do this, I might stay up for 24 hours at a stretch; after all, who needs sleep when there are people having live group sex in Ontario?"

He is fairly brutal in his assessments of the women he meets: "Her life seems slightly tragic and she appears to be a little mixed-up, but she's got a Pulitzer prize-winning bottom." His opinions about women and sex generally verge on the outré: "To this day I find short skirts and gingham dresses very exciting. I also like girls with bare legs." And he is alarmingly frank on the question of not having sex for a while: "Once, during my schlep across the Sinai of celibacy, I caught myself looking at a 'naked' mannequin in a shop window. With lust."

All of this makes his book compulsive; it is eye-poppingly candid about both sexual successes and crushing failures (Thomas is not of the delusional "I'm so hot it hurts" school), and it is also very funny, even if the laughter is often of the horrified variety. Here, for instance, describing a date who is having difficulty understanding Queen, The Musical:
"The woman is a moron. She is a cretin. She is, I fear, emblematic; in other words, she is crystallising a question that has been locked in the attic of my mind for some time. Just why are so many women so thick?"
I doubt my laughter would be appalled if I were a man -- I'd probably be whooping with recognition. But I suppose I find all this rather grim because I am a woman who likes to imagine that men are evolved, sensitive creatures who don't have sex on the brain 24 hours a day; and I am horrified because I also recognise that Thomas is a kind of Everyman, and that a lot of what he says about women -- or rather about what men think about women -- is probably true, particularly the bit about sex on the brain or about the way men judge women instantly (of yet another date, who doesn't look much like her online picture and who puts this down to changing her hairstyle: "I felt like replying: and your dress size? And your beard-shaving regime?")

His book won't delight the sisterhood but as a portrait of modern masculinity in a time of crisis, it is hard to fault.

If I were a man, I'd be delighted that someone has finally had the courage to say, "This is how we are. You don't have to like it, but it's true and we're okay with it." As a woman, I am agog: reading Thomas's book is like rootling around the brain of some random nice-seeming bloke: it's fascinating, startling and not entirely comfortable. "I have often found that the most successful, affluent and dominant women (in terms of career) often turn out to be the most feminine and yielding when they get the chance."

The book is also oddly moving. Thomas writes from the heart as well as from the groin and, crucially, his voice is likable.

So I'm sitting in a London club waiting for him, thinking how weird it is that I know so much about his intimate life. I know, for instance, that if -- God forbid -- this were a date that we had arranged on the internet, I would be automatically disqualified on grounds of my height, because he likes only short girls ("I prefer short girls. I just do. Short, petite, feminine, sit-on-my-lap girls").

I know he likes spanking and mild bondage. I know how many threesomes he's had. I know he's spent so much time looking at internet porn that he eventually had to wean himself off, like an addict -- and I know that when he confesses to this, which he jauntily does, he is speaking for millions of men, one of whom may be living in your house. Of women's online profiles when they do internet dating, I know that Thomas believes that "curvy" means " tubby", "cuddly" means "huge", "a cat lover" means "desperate for kids" and "scatty" means "bonkers". Not PC, indeed, but probably true.

I start by asking him what possessed him to be quite so candid. For writers of confessional journalism -- Thomas has written a great deal of it, as well as three novels -- the trick has always been to conceal as much as you appear to be giving away. Was he concerned about exposing himself so fearlessly? "Um . . . slightly. I wanted to be as truthful as it's possible to be." (There is one glaring omission in Thomas's ultra-honest book: he makes no mention of the fact that he was acquitted of date rape in 1988. "I thought very hard about whether to include that. But I'd written about it ad nauseam and I thought it would really unbalance the book, like putting a brick on a silver tea-tray.")

Aside from this considered omission, Thomas is not shy about chronicling the minutiae of his sex life. "I read The Sexual Life of Catherine M a couple of years ago and thought it was a very impressive book. I was inspired by it." But it was written by a woman, I say: explicit sex is a subject on which male writers of non-fiction have traditionally been quite coy (unlike their novelist counterparts). "We're getting less coy. There's been a huge change in male sensibility over the past 30 years. And there's feminism: women have required more emotional input from men and that's a good thing."

But feminism assumes that men might become tamed, doesn't it, or at least gentler, more attuned, less crazily macho? Thomas laughs: "Yes. But we don't. Some men become kind of neutered, that's true, but not many. They do exist. I've met . . . two. And women don't fancy them, so what's the point? I think men have twigged onto that. And then there's been the influence of lad magazines. I was on both FHM and Maxim when they were launched and worked on them for 10 years. They're often accused of coarsening the culture, but one of the good things they did was encourage men to open up. You tell stories and jokes in the pub about your sex life -- why keep them to the pub?

My male friends talk to each other about sex and relationships in a way that my father (the novelist DM Thomas) would never do."
Are men becoming more tender, and if so how does that reconcile with the fact that I found so much in the book shockingly full-on? "It's how men are," he says. "A woman today told me she'd enjoyed the book, but then she said, 'Is that really how men think?' I didn't have the heart to tell her the truth, which is that yes, in my experience, it is. They might not necessarily share these particular thoughts with the women they know, but we all present a persona to the world."

We move on to internet porn. In his book Thomas is at first an enthusiastic frequenter of the more baroque sites, and makes the point that the internet has allowed people to be almost unimaginably specific with regard to their sexual fetishes. Whereas a man might have thought "I quite like the idea of lesbianism" 10 years ago, he can now, by going online, narrow his preference down, and then down again, to the point where he can say: "What I especially like are lesbians performing dentistry."

Is this helpful? "It's quite dangerous. It becomes obsessive. These things can genuinely lie dormant in your mind for your whole life. You come across lesbian dentistry, and you end up thinking 'that's strangely erotic'. And then you Google some more, and there it is, and suddenly you've got a serious hobby on the go.

"And men are designed by evolution to be almost insatiable. So it's a dangerous combination -- insatiability and the enormousness of the net. The happy thing is that there is probably a saturation point -- you just get full up, in my case after about a couple of weeks. My friends have had similar experiences -- they've known they were out of control and they've had to come offline or block their own access to certain websites, go cold turkey."

Is the ubiquity of explicit sex on the net a good thing? "Probably not. We're not equipped to withstand this amount of porn and sexual imagery. I rarely take a puritanical view of things, but I'm suspicious now of the internet."

Is he concerned about what such images do to men's idea of "normal" women? "Men always objectify women as bodies. That's what they do. They've always been visual and they always will be." Do men who look at a lot of porn find women's sexual performances boringly ploddy? "Men are easily pleased sexually. As long as they get their rocks off, they're happy. And there's an argument for saying that you can indulge in your more unusual desires on the net -- I mean, it's going to be pretty hard to organise a lesbian dentistry scenario in your house."

As well as exhausting himself with online porn, Thomas spent some time in internet sex chatrooms, going by the magnificent moniker "Marmaduke Skewes". They get boring after a couple of hours, he says, although he mentions a married friend who had an entire online affair, "from the first flirtation in a chatroom to serious cybersex. He was discovered in flagrante by his wife." Does this constitute infidelity? "It's a new kind of infidelity. It's damaging to proper relationships."

Was Thomas tempted to try anything else? Did he go dogging? "No," he laughs. But was he tempted? "Yes, because it sounds so weird. Like the place in Baker Street Tube station where you go and look up the skirts of knickerless women."

The ironic thing about all of this -- about the detailed carnal reminiscences, about the intimate, sometimes crushing descriptions of all the women he met online and of his exes -- "I had this one girlfriend who was a very successful thirtysomething TV executive . . . She liked nothing better than ironing shirts" -- is that Thomas did, in fact, meet The One on the internet. Shoulder-deep in sex, he found true love.

Claire is 30 and expecting their first child at the end of the month. What does she think of the book in which she features? "She's very nervous. I think me writing it was tough for her. I'd been honest about my past with her before I started writing, but I think what was difficult for her was the fact that I was talking about other women I'd loved. That's difficult. She got a little bit upset. But she knows I'm a writer, so . . . And I'd never have met Claire if I hadn't been on the internet. Never. Our lives would not have overlapped. We had no social connections, we were unlikely to meet in a bar -- there'd be a million-to-one chance. That's what's amazing -- you meet people you would never normally meet."

I ask Thomas if he misses his time online -- his flirting and his messaging and his setting up of promising dates with complete strangers, all of which must get addictive. Yes, he misses it sometimes. And does Claire worry whenever he goes online now that the book is done and there is no longer the "research" excuse? "Maybe slightly, yes, but it's done jokily. You do get addicted to the out-of-the-blue messages that arrive from people who've spotted you online. They're interested in you and they're e-mailing you (Thomas's profile is still up on a couple of sites). Claire was still doing it too -- not e-mailing people, but just looking. So then we both logged off."

Is there an element, I ask, of being tormented that there are, as his book points out, still "millions of women" dying to meet him out there? After all, Thomas was immersed in this world for months on end on a daily basis. "You have to stop yourself, as you do in life. You get a partner and you might think 'perhaps I could get somebody a little bit nicer', but then eventually you realise that it's cleverer to stay with what you have. You think, ' This person isn't perfect, but then neither am I'. You teach yourself to stop looking. Falling in love helps."

To me, this strange modern mixture of porn and chatrooms and actively wanting to fall in love ("Men have biological clocks, too," Thomas says) sums up the way many men are today: they're laddish, for want of a better word, but also intelligent and more emotionally literate than their appetite for laddishness might suggest. They are happy to speak about their emotional literacy, but have become concerned about voicing their more traditionally blokey passions. It is this reticence that creates a gap and makes them so alien-seeming to many women.

Thomas has, I think, done his generation of men a service by telling it like it is, not just on the subjects of pornography and sex, but by mapping out a guide to men's emotional landscape, and in doing so telling men that being themselves is okay. They will thank him for articulating what they think but are too scared to voice. Women should thank him too -- not just for the timely lesson in social anthropology, but also for giving them a genuine insight into what it means to be a man in 2006. If you've ever wondered why the date you thought you'd got on with wonderfully never called, you need to read this book.

Oh, and for those thinking of emulating Thomas, he particularly recommends
Main / Interesting Court Case in Oz.
May 30, 2006, 12:32 AM,20867,19301861-7582,00.html

Rape victim testifies over privacy
Natasha Robinson
May 30, 2006

A RAPE victim was yesterday forced by lawyers for the ABC to answer questions about her sexual history and state of mind as the national broadcaster defended a legal claim that it had breached the woman's privacy by revealing her identity on radio.

The woman, who is suing the national broadcaster for damages after the 2002 court report blunder, was cross-examined by the ABC's lawyers about her post-attack sex life - including an affair during a Greek holiday, her mental health and employment record.

The woman, who cannot be identified, claims she suffered embarrassment, humiliation and guilt after three ABC radio news bulletins identified her as a sexual assault victim. She also claims the ABC owed her a duty of privacy in not identifying her as a rape victim - a point of law that remains largely untested in Australian courts.

She is also claiming the ABC's lawyers aggravated her damages by acting in a "high-handed and contumelious manner".

The reports were broadcast in March 2002, after the woman's estranged husband was found guilty of rape. Two reports identified where she lived and named her husband and one report went further and broadcast her name.

More than 20 missed calls were recorded on her mobile phone in the two days following the broadcast, the court heard.

In an appointment with the ABC's chosen medical expert, the woman said she had had sex with a man she met during a trip to Europe and the Greek Islands, where she went to escape the stress of her rape and court ordeal.

Barrister for the ABC Peter Flanagan asked the woman why she did not reveal that to the psychiatrist her own lawyers had instructed. Mr Flanagan said she had told that doctor she "had not been interested in having any relationships especially sexual relationships".

"I think maybe he did not ask me directly did you have sex on your holiday, that is why I did not answer," the woman said.

Mr Flanagan also asked the woman why she did not tell the ABC's appointed psychiatrist she washed her hands 20 times a day and excessively cleaned -- described by her own lawyers' psychiatrist as symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder.

It is not in dispute in the case that the woman told 22 people, which included her family, friends and doctors, about the rape. But she said her friends and family knew it was a "no go" area for discussion. The woman had also admitted that her husband had told his family, friends and boss about the rape.

Mr Flanagan said yesterday that the woman did not know how far the news of her rape had spread among her community.

"So that is what freely you have admitted in these proceedings, that you simply do not know whether this information was known to a lot of people or a small number of people prior to the broadcast," he said.

The woman told the court yesterday she felt paranoid and exposed after the rape.

"I would walk down the street and think 'oh, the milk boy knows'," she said. And after the broadcast, when she socialised, she felt people were judging her and treating her differently. "Some of them don't even start a conversation at all," she said.

The woman's work history was also probed by Mr Flanagan. She was able to work full-time between March and September 2003, but went on Centrelink payments after that, he said.

The trial continues.
Main / Dehumanisation by Edukashun.
May 29, 2006, 08:02 PM
Our Universities are infected by Nancy Hopkins clones. Their function is to tell students how to be - like them. (Don't it make you want to throw up). For the modern academic is a super-person, superior in every respect. Even their vomit is superior. And she/he is oh so part of 'kommunity'. They are quite unable to stand alone, they have to have a 'group'. Here is a writer who points to the problem but holds back in a too gentle a manner.

The need for a Humanist revival
By Gregory Melleuish

A number of years ago when I was interviewed for a position at an Australian university I was asked by one of the panel on what I based my philosophy of history. I was given three options: Marxism, Foucault or feminism. (SP. Mass-Murder, Lies or Women's privilege !) It was incomprehensible to this person that there was anything else in Heaven or Earth beyond the prison into which he had placed his stunted view of the world.

I recalled this episode after reading about the choice given to students at SCEGGS Darlinghurst. (SP. This is a high School in Sydney) They are to interpret Othello from a similar range of perspectives, Marxism, feminism and race.

There are real problems with an exercise designed in this fashion. The first is that the student is forced to adopt a particular approach to the play. The assumption behind the question is that human beings are to be understood primarily as members of a group. They act as they do, not because they are individuals able freely to choose their own course of action, but because they are women or men, members of a particular race or class.

All three approaches are deterministic. Human beings become the products of the environment that produced them. They lack the free will to make decisions and choices and must simply play out the hand that their class or gender or race has dealt them. Trapped within their gender, class and race they are to be de-humanised, considered not as individuals in their own right but as representatives of their particular group.

Why then has the alternative view, what might be called the liberal humanist or Christian humanist vision, been written out of the possible explanations? Why not consider the individual characters of the protagonists and examine the way in which they behave as individuals?

In effect to examine only Marxism or feminism or race is impose a single monolithic model of interpretation. This is pretend pluralism. It looks as if students are being encouraged to consider a variety of interpretations but in effect they are only being offered the equivalent of different brands of cornflakes. (SP. Or the chice of shit-sandwitches, shit - patties or shit-kebabs)

Students should also be offered the opportunity of considering the play in terms of the actions and behaviour and character of the individuals as they interact with each other. Of course, they should also be encouraged to explore other options, to consider if men and women are indeed constrained by their environment and the extent to which their fate has been pre-ordained. Any educational scheme, however, that seeks to exclude the notion that individuals can be thought of and considered as individuals is, to put it mildly, radically defective.

The real issue, though, must be: how has it come to this? In his excellent book Four Cultures of the West, John O'Malley identifies the four modes or styles of culture that have together come to define the meaning of culture in Western civilisation. These four styles are prophecy and reform; the academy and the professions; poetry, rhetoric and the common good; and art and performance. (SP. Stepping outside me for a moment, one has to see Sir Percy as a number three with a dash of number four - from the steed)

One can argue that the problem with Western culture in recent years, including in Australia, has been that prophecy and reform combined with the academy and the professions have come to dominate our culture at the expense of the humanistic mode represented by poetry, rhetoric and the common good.

What this means is that Western culture is now dominated by an academy that is driven by a reformist zeal to re-make the world in its own image. (SP. In the image of the Princess of Lies) The question on Othello exemplifies the consequences of this fusion. It does so by its focus on race, gender and class, by its intention to direct the attention of students to what it considers to be the inequities of the world and finally by its desire to encourage them to adopt the reformist style.

It then encourages the students to take on an academic style in their approach to the topic. One of features of this style is its attempt to establish the superiority of the current day academic over the author from the past. Modern academics consider that they have a superior knowledge to Shakespeare because they can see a reality that was obscured for Shakespeare.

This supposed superiority is both moral and intellectual. The intellectual superiority consists in its capacity to construct abstract models that academics believe enable them to explain the world. As Alan and Marten Shipman have argued in their recent book 'Knowledge Monopolies: The Academisation of Society', universities, especially the bureaucratised universities of the 21st century, love these types of models. Models enable them to reduce the abstract, complex and messy nature of the real world to something simple. Unfortunately these models, such as Marxism, invariably succeed in explaining very little. They certainly fail totally in the prophecy stakes.

Moreover, as the Shipmans demonstrate, the more our culture is dominated by the academic mode, the further are its intellectual practices removed from those of the broader public sphere. Just at a time when there should be greater interaction between universities, the wider public and government, academics are creating forms of knowledge that are designed to increase the distance between universities and the rest of society. But, it should be added, always with the intention of demonstrating their superiority over mere lay people.

What is to be done? The greatest hope lies in a revival of the humanist style of culture as exemplified by rhetoric and poetry. (SP. Hoooray me !)Just as the setting for academic culture has been the formal world of the university that of humanist culture has been the informal setting of the club, the literary circle and the dinner table. (SP. A bit like SYG, doncha think)

Humanism, for me always represented by Erasmus, loves irony and wit. It can come to terms with a messy world and poke fun at the foibles of humanity. It can express itself in the common vernacular language that people generally can understand and appreciate. In this way it can counter the anti-democratic tendencies that are part and parcel of the "academisation of society".

But most importantly it appreciates the value of the individual [/b]( SP. Without being partial or exclusive, Devia sprand to mind as I read this) and the capacity of individuals to make their own lives. The reform impulse and the bureaucratic dullness of the academy may always be with us but they can be countered by the joy of liberal humanism and learning. Not only our students, but all of us, deserve the opportunity to experience that joy.
Main / Other People
May 28, 2006, 09:55 PM
Being a self-confessed Englishman ( OK, I did take on being an Australian, because it is so much sunnier here) I cannot help but think there are two types of people when it comes down to it. Englishmen and foreigners. Hahahah. But you just have to have a laugh at this, from a great UK blog. SP
Posted by The Englishman at 08:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Avg. Rating: 2.83 (6 votes) | Rate It: 1 2 3 4 5
(1="Worst", 5="Best")

One to read

Have prejudice, won't travel
Ben MacIntyre

THIS SUMMER, as an antidote to all those books rhapsodising about the Tuscan sun, you could dip into  :D The Clumsiest People in Europe: Or, Mrs Mortimer's Bad-Tempered Guide to the Victorian World, which may qualify as the most intolerant travel guide ever published. Driving over lemons? Mrs Mortimer would rather drive over foreigners. ..

She was even-handed, in a back-handed way: she despised just about everyone and everything.

The Portuguese, as well as being "the clumsiest people in Europe", are "indolent, just like the Spaniards". The Welsh are "not very clean"; the Zulus: "A miserable race of people"; the Greeks: "Do not bear their troubles well; when they are unhappy, they scream like babies"; Armenians "live in holes in the ground . . . because they hope the Kurds may not find out where they are." Buddhists, Hindus, Mohammedans: all received a thrashing from the aggressively Protestant Mrs Mortimer.
Lao-Tzu, the father of Taoism, is dismissed as "an awful liar". Roman Catholicism comes off little better: "A kind of Christian religion, but a very bad one." Oddly, however, she professes a soft spot for Nubians: "A fine race . . . of a bright copper colour".

... Her sweepingly negative generalisations and racial stereotyping seem even more remarkable for the fact that this doughty world traveller didn't go to the places she described and disparaged.
We owe Mrs Mortimer a debt, for her little book is the shining example of how not to travel in the British manner, a reminder of a way of thinking that has gone forever.

( The Englishman adds ...) Gone forever? What the hell do you mean man? That sort of right thinking is alive and well here at The Castle - you won't catch me flitting all over the world, nothing fills me with more dread than the thought of going abroad for a holiday. I would rather lick the floor of the Bristol NHS Children's Ward than eat some filthy taverna food; bathe in the municipal cess pit rather then the oil slicked detritus ridden Mediterranean; roll in nettles rather than suffer the Dhobi rash from walking in the Aegean sun, in fact I think sitting watching the rain come down reading Mrs Mortimer excellent tome will beat any experience that involves queueing at one of our god forsaken aerodromes.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha (This bit is me. SP)