Topics

1

Main / London Protest Action, 25th January

Jan 09, 2009, 11:16 AM

London Protest Action, 25th January
by Heretic
From hereticalsex.blogspot.com


PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS WIDELY

CAAN ACTION NOTICE

Join us to mark the death of another freedom.

At 2-5pm

On Sunday 25th January 2009

Parliament Square

Westminster, London.


Beware the kinky porn ban!

On the eve of the kinky porn ban commencing, CAAN are back in London for another awareness raising action about laws which criminalise adults because of their sexuality. A law we don't think the Government is publicising widely enough, which all adults who possess or access pornography need to know about.

http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2009/01/london-protest-action-25th-january.html

2

Main / The Myth of Multi-Tasking

Dec 20, 2008, 09:25 AM

The Myth of Multi-Tasking
by Heretic
From: hereticalsex.blogspot.com

I was a child in the 1970s. My family was working-class. My father had a job in a factory, and my mother was a house-wife. That role was still called 'house-wife' back then, and it was still regarded as perfectly respectable. The poison hadn't yet spread quite so far at that time. My parents were good people. They led simple lives. They went to church. They were typical of their generation.

After dinner in the evenings, my mother would wash up while my father sat down in front of the TV with the children. There were a few occasions when she was having a particularly stressful day. "It's all right for you!", she would say, "You only have one job to do during the day. You come home at 5 o'clock and that is it. I have a dozen jobs to do. My work is never finished!"

It was hard not to feel some sympathy for her. She was my mum after all. Only when I got older did I start thinking about it.

There were some days when I was at home, either because of school holidays or illness. On those days, I remember her daily routine was more or less the following:

Read more...

3

Main / Gay Is Not All in the Genes

Jul 02, 2008, 06:09 AM

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/630/1

By Michael Balter
ScienceNOW Daily News
30 June 2008

Why are some people gay? Most researchers who study sexual orientation think that both genetic and environmental factors play a role, but the relative contributions of each remain unclear. A new study of Swedish twins reinforces earlier findings that environmental influences--including the environment in the womb--may play a greater role than genes.

Scientists studying complex human behaviors often turn to twin studies. Researchers look at both identical and fraternal twins to see how often they share a trait--a parameter called concordance. The greater the concordance among genetically identical twins compared with fraternal twins--who share only half of their genes--the more likely that genetic factors are involved.

Earlier twin studies of sexual orientation have suggested varying degrees of genetic and environmental influences. But they have suffered from the limitations typical of all twin studies. These include small sample sizes and assumptions that identical and fraternal twins both have the same family environments; if identical twins are treated more similarly by their parents than fraternal twins, for example, this could be mistaken for a genetic influence. Recruitment biases are also an issue: Some studies have enlisted participants who openly identify themselves as gay, who may not be typical of the entire homosexual population.

To try to get around these problems, a team led by Niklas Langström, a psychiatrist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, recruited subjects from the Swedish Twin Registry, the world's largest. All 43,808 twins born in Sweden between 1959 and 1985 were invited to participate in a Web-based survey that comprised a wide range of questions about personal behaviors and experiences. The team ended up with a sample of 3826 twin pairs, of which 2320 were identical and 1506 fraternal. Of that sample, roughly 5% of men and 8% of women reported sexual activity with a member of the same sex at least once during their lifetimes. Then they plugged the survey responses into a standard mathematical model for comparing identical and fraternal twins.

The results, published online this month in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, confirm earlier findings that identical twins are more concordant for same-sex behaviors than fraternal twins are but only modestly so: In men, genetic effects appeared to explain 34% to 39% of the differences between the two twin groups, whereas in women, genetics accounted for only about 18% to 19% of the difference--a finding consistent with other research showing that sexual orientation in women is not as rigidly determined as it is in men.

As for what environmental factors might be at play, the authors point out that these might not be entirely social but could also be biological. For example, some studies have suggested that exposure to prenatal hormones or even the mother's immune system could influence the sexual development of a fetus.

J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who led earlier twin studies of sexual orientation, calls the new study "good, important, and one unlikely to be bettered in the near future." But Jonathan Beckwith, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, says that the new work fails to overcome a number of problems faced by previous twin studies. He notes that the final sample included only 12% of the males in the Swedish registry, leaving open the possibility of recruitment bias. And Beckwith says that the failure to control for family environment could inflate estimates of genetic influence.

4

Main / Marriage: For Petesake Don't Do It!

Jun 23, 2008, 02:24 AM

An interesting, although somewhat simplistic, view on marriage written by NewlySingle on the mabtw forum.
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com...about4549.html

---

Hi All,
I was thinking overnight and had some thoughts to share with young men who were willing to listen and consider my experiences. Up to you.

Some women tell me (and even some 'men') that I sound very 'bitter' and all I need is a 'good women' to help me heal. They tell me "they are not all like that". They tell me "the next one might be good"...You name it, people are doing their damndest to get me to jump on the next hook!!!

Here are some facts that you might want to think about.

For the last 100,000 years....or maybe even longer, up until 1945, the survival of the group, be it a family, a small communal group, a village, a town, a state or a country, depended directly up the number of young men who could be pressed into battle.

That's right, for the last 100,000 years the survival of the group was answered by the question "how many men can be pressed into battle."

Sometimes small technology edges or better tactics swayed the outcome of the war. Sometimes, races that did not advance their weapons quickly enough were all but wiped out due to inferior weapons. The Australian Aboriginals, the Incas, the American Indians, most African countries.....these were all conquered by the Europeans because of superior weapons rather than superior numbers.

But in the European Wars until 1945 it was the number of young men who could be pressed into battle that decided the issue because there was relative parity in the weapons among the European countries.

So, old men, yes men, modifying political and social systems in secret or at least very quietly knew that it was their solemn duty to their heirs to create institutions and 'norms' that encouraged the highest possible birth rates. Survival of the group depended on it. And they were right to do so.

So marriage was mandated in almost all western countries, and the Catholics got it the 'most right' with their 'no contraception' rule. The woman had no function other than to produce as many babies as possible and look after them until she died.

Men had the function of protecting the group and providing for the group because we are good at that from our last 100,000 years of practice. The old men made damn sure that no woman would leave her husband by making damn sure there was no way she could survive if she did so. Women got the husband they got, and got lots of babies, and were taken care of. If the husband abused her the other husbands would generally kick his arse or he would get drafted into the army to be used as cannon fodder.....

And so life was well 'balanced'....though also pretty harsh and short....Women never loved their husbands, they had to stick with them to get 'babies and money' and they had nothing else to do and nowhere else to go anyway and so they were 'satisfied' with their lot reportedly.

Men lived short lives dying of disease and war in their millions and were 'satisfied' with their lot reportedly.

After all, in either case there was no point bitching because things were not going to get better in their lifetimes......and it didn't.....it was as simple as that.....

As I said..this went on for 100,000 years...but if you look at the last 200 years you can see how clearly it was the role of the women to produce babies to fight wars (boys) and have more babies (girls). Having babies was the 'nuclear arms race' up until 1945...

Even Adolf Hitler eased marriage laws so that women could have more babies with more men as quickly as possible. A new soldier takes 18 years to make....it's a very slow growing weapon.

So, to blame women for wanting 'babies and money' is like blaming a dog for liking a bone. It's what they have liked and done for 100,000 years and it is bred into them and re-enforced by ALL the social norms including language, books, movies, family histories. You name it. And it was done from necessity.....

Women are given dolls at a young aged and taught to 'play mummy'.

So, I for one do not blame them for wanting 'babies and money'.....my wife still plays with dolls houses and dolls. If you think you can get a 'career woman' who does not want 'babies and money' you are stupid. That is the same as saying "I think I can get a cat that is a dog." You can't.

A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog. A woman is a woman and a man is a man. They are not the same...they are not equal. No matter how much a cat claims to be a dog, it is not.

No matter how much a woman claims to be a man, she is not.

We make great mistakes when we assign 'manly' attributes to women like 'honesty'. They aren't. They have never, ever needed to be 'honest' in the last 100,000 years, why would they start now?

Something else to be really clear on. For the last 100,000 years, men have been the 'most disposable' member of society and the most easily replaced. That is why the cry on the titanic was 'Women and children first'. One man can impregnate many women, but a woman usually only has one baby at a time.

Whether we like it or not 'society says' that a man is the most disposable member which is why in a divorce the man is 'disposable' and everything he has goes to the women and kids. When she cries for 'divorce' he should hear 'titanic'.

So, what happened in 1945 to upset this 'balance'?

Three things.

1. Manufacturing capacity.
With WWII Russia and the USA built factories to produce arms all through the early 1940s...with the number of factories buit and the volume of weaponry they could turn out, for the first time, manufacturing capacity started to outweigh number of men as the deciding factor in war. Sure, the Germans also ran out of men, but the Japanese didn't. By the end of the war boys as young as 12 and men over 65 were pressed into service by the Germans....and they had almost nothing in the way of weapons. The Japanese had many men but nothing in the way of weapons.

2. Nuclear Weapons.
For the first time, ever, in the history of man, the number of men that could be pressed into service was irrelevant. With Nuclear weapons the balance had swung completely to the favour of technology. No matter how many men you have, if the other side nukes you they don't count, they are all dead.

3. Advances in Medicine.
Remember that in 1900 we had 1B people on the planet and in 2000 we had 7B people on the planet. Most of that growth coming in the second half of the century due to reductions in deaths by war and disease.


What happened next?

Because women worked in the factories in WWII they got the idea they might like financial independence from men and have jobs....and since men had given them the vote there was not stopping 'women's equality'......it was just a matter of time.

And since they had the vote and were allowed into governments it was only a matter of time until they started getting divorce laws changes so that there was something else for a woman to do other than have babies and then die.

For some reason, stupid as it was, women decided having a 'career' sounded like a good idea....people always think the grass is greener on the other side....personally I think staying at home with the kids is wwwaaayyyyy easier than working for a living.

And pretty soon, women were writing the 'Family Law'.....but they did not write it in 'isolation'.....as with any group that perceives itself to have been 'disadvantaged'....they stacked the rules in their favour.....They denounced any politician who tried to right the balance a bit as a 'male chauvinist pig' so women would not vote for him and he would lose his political office....

Remember, women do not recognise that men dying in their millions to protect them and the children were in fact the 'disadvantaged' members of society....they think they were 'disadvantaged' because they didn't have a job...yes, they are that f***ing self centered....they do not appreciate a man who will fight and die for them.......

So, you think you can 'impress a women' or 'gain a woman's respect'? No. Not even if you fight and die for her....ask the poor f***ers in Iraq today who's woman divorces his or girl leaves him while he is doing his duty.....No woman now will give a man respect for anything he does....

In stacking the rules of Family Law women, sly cats they are, used the social norms, morals, and plain manliness of men, to stack the laws......the talked about the 'little kiddies' and how they need to be protected and men bought it because it had been so ingrained in them for 100,000 years....and they played up the incidence of 'bad husbands' and they played up the incidences of how 'women need to be protected'...

Indeed, they used every sly trick in the book to manipulate the honourable intentions of men to strip future generations of their manly power and rights.....

And this is where we are now.....Family Law strips a man of his power and rights as soon as the baby arrives.....two babies and you are really screwed.....

Getting married and having two babies is like buying tickets on the titanic...it is going to go down and the cry will be 'women and children first'.

And men, we did this to ourselves......men gave women the vote, and the Family Law we have today was inevitable from the time women got the vote....

All you need to remember is...you do not HAVE to buy a ticket on the titanic.

And because of all this history, and because of all these laws, you have no chance of getting a decent woman today. Women who grew up in WWII know how hard it was and they were grateful to have a man look after them....this is my mums generation......

Women who were born after 1950? They have no idea how hard it used to be and they are given jobs and money, even though they are terrible at them, and told they are 'equal' and told they are 'entitled' to whatever they want.

'Women's Liberation' has created two generations of totally self interested women. There are no women like there were in the first half of 1900s because they do not need to be like that any more. It's as simple as that.

And, if history is anything to go by, it will take a couple of generations for all this to sort out.....We do not need 'more babies' for the survival of the group any more.....and so all the old 'norms' have become redundant...indeed, if we keep having babies at the rate we are going they will actually threaten the survival of the group.....

So, young guys, as you think about whether you want to marry a woman and have babies....remember, you are being suckered in by your 100,000 years of 'manly' history...your desire to 'be honest', have integrity, be honourable, protect the woman you love, give her what she needs, your desire for children......all these things are conspiring to convince you that getting married and having babies is what you SHOULD do......

And before 1945, for the sake of the broader group, it was what you SHOULD do...this is why these desires and feelings are so strong in young men....and were in me and still are by the way....for 100,000 years we have been programmed this is what we SHOULD do for the survival of the group.

Today, all that you are doing is buying your ticket on the titanic......having babies makes you the 21st century equivalent of 'cannot fodder' in WWI....and millions of guys died as 'cannon fodder' in WWI....and if you do not know what I mean by that then google it...

So, this is my long winded way of saying....do not blame a woman for being a woman...they have always been self interested, they have 100,000 years of being told their role in life is to do whatever it takes to get babies......only now they have such laws behind them that they can ruin a man by their choice....don't forget...men used to get much more ruined fighting and dying in wars by they way...

If you want to have a woman like the 'old days' move to Russia, China or Brasil.....the family laws there are still the old way.....as in kick the bitch out and get a new one....and in china there is the one child policy.......and their legal systems are so chaotic that they cannot make anyone do anything.....

But if you want to live in the west....just do not get married and do not have kids with the woman you love......

I hope this 'less emotional' and 'more logical' rendering is also 'persuasive'...I do not propose to you that you do not get married or not have babies with the woman you love from 'bitterness'....it is merely the inevitable result of the last 100 years that women have risen to complete power once the babies arrive.....

5

Main / Hot for Teacher: 18 Sexiest Sex Offenders

Feb 29, 2008, 06:51 AM

http://www.coedmagazine.com/news/6069

It has to be said: female school teachers are the new male Catholic priests.

Sexual offenses committed by female teachers is at its peak, much like the libidos of the accused. While male teachers are (rightfully) lambasted for their sexual misconduct, women seem to get off much easier - literally and figuratively. And why, you ask? The answer is simple: older women seducing younger men is part of our culture, like it or not. Just ask Mrs. Robinson, or Stifler's Mom.

South Park touched on the subject in "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy," where Kyle's little brother Ike has an affair with his Kindergarten teacher. The cops in the episode have a field day with the case, exclaiming "niiiiiiiiice" after hearing about the teacher's naughty secret. Their point, however blurry, was well taken: everybody loves a sexed-up authoritative figure, within reason.

My point and solution? Horny teachers should wait, ever so patiently, until their prey graduates. If you're into kids, you derserve to be locked up; if you're into being the older lady for kicks, play your cards right, don't break the law, and have at it like a jackrabbit.

We here at COED do not condone sexual misconduct by any means, unless said means consist of hot, willing and able teachers getting down with young studs. Just kidding...?

(follow link for pictures)

6

Main / The History of Political Correctness

Feb 26, 2008, 05:42 PM

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236

7

Main / poll to protest hate site

Dec 13, 2007, 02:32 PM

Some feminist have started a poll to get menarebetterthanwomen.com shut down. We have started a poll to get a feminist hate site shut down.
http://miss-andrist.livejournal.com/


Please vote, if only to give them a taste of their own medicine.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/15745.html

8

Main / Account from an arrested man

Oct 28, 2007, 04:38 AM

From antimisandry:

"I can remember the day I was arrested on a trumped-up charge of domestic violence. As I was led across my lawn in handcuffs, a neighbor looked at me judgmentally, smiling. I felt so alone at that moment. But it didn't stop. I got to the police station, and was thrown in a tiny holding cell not much bigger than a house bathroom, along with 20-25 other men. The concrete floor had a grimy substance, and because all the benches were occupied I (and several others) had to sit in it for hours. Then the officers came in and read me a notice that I was not allowed to return Home, talk to my kids, contact anyone there (indirectly or directly) for at least one week. The day began this way at 10:30 AM. I was moved in and out of crowded cells like this until the wee hours of the morning, when I was searched, then released on the street with nothing but my wallet and the shirt on my back. It was 2:30 AM. There was a row of taxi cabs waiting a few feet just outside the door to the courthouse building. The cabbies knew this was the time when former inmates were being released. It was a regular occurrence. Those men who couldn't afford a cab walked to the nearest all-night restaurant, a Denny's a few blocks away. What they did after their first hour sipping coffee, I didn't know... It was damn cold that night too, and I didn't want to be outside. Not around these people. I got in a cab and asked the cab driver to take me to the nearest hotel. I was dropped off on a seedy street of several hotels. I walked up to the first hotel, a Super 8, and spoke to the man inside the lobby through a bullet-proof window. I asked him if I could get a room for the night, and he looked at me with suspicion. He knew where I had just come from. He took my credit card and swiped it. He told me the card had been declined. My Ex had deactivated the credit line in the preceding few hours. So I pulled out a second card, but he declined to even try it. I moved on to the next hotel and, fortunately, my second credit card worked that time. When I got up to my room, all I could think about was taking a shower. I not only wanted to wash off any grime from my body, but also the stench of shame and humiliation I felt. The feelings didn't wash off. After the shower, I changed right back into the same grimy clothes I wore in the prison cell for the previous 16 hours, turned off the light, and went to bed. At that moment I didn't know anyone that I could talk to -- not just because I was prohibited from calling certain people, but because I simply didn't want other people to know. It was so late, and I was so isolated. The next day wasn't much better.

Over the next few weeks I slowly pieced together my life again. But my Ex had called every one of my family members, and all of her own, trying to frame the issue. My family members did support me, but they were all out of town. I wished I could have talked to someone real, someone immediate, someone available, and someone who understood. Someone who could not only listen, but provide help and advice to assist me.

(...) there are people out there that are hurting. I was one. Today I am helping men with just such situations. They call me frequently. I spoke on the phone to one just a few days ago. They find me through my Web site, but sometimes they just need to speak to a real person. I am there for them. I've been where they've been. I know what it's like -- to be emotionally abused prior to the arrest, then vilified subsequent to it. I help guys like this because the Web is not enough. They are out there, and they need it. I want to help them. "

9

Main / Domestic violence courts in America

Oct 27, 2007, 02:06 AM

Found this on divorcesource.com

---

By ANCPR on Oct 26, 2007 in Domestic Violence, Courts and Legislatures

Gitmo at home: Domestic violence courts in America
By David Heleniak
Online Journal Guest Writer

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic violence is a very real and significant problem in America. This month would be a good time to address the attempt of state governments to combat domestic violence through the issuance of temporary and permanent restraining orders.

In the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center and our nation's response to terrorism domestically and abroad, there has been a flurry of negative reaction in the press to the subjecting of suspected terrorists to trial by military tribunal without the constitutional protections afforded other criminals. As John F. Kearney, III, put it in the March 24, 2003 issue of the New Jersey Lawyer, "All of us want as much done by government as possible to protect us from more Sept. 11 attacks or worse. None of us wants to be nuked, poisoned or fall victim to a suicide bomber. But none of us should want, either, to give away our hard-won liberties."

While the legitimacy of using military tribunals to try accused terrorists is getting well-deserved attention, the media have been largely silent on a related topic, the legitimacy of trying defendants accused of a crime, domestic violence, in brief restraining order hearings in the family court, where defendants are denied virtually all of the due process protections afforded defendants in the criminal court. These systems have been in effect much longer than the anti-terrorism measures, and affect many more people, yet one hears very little about them.

Under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, for example, 10 days or less following the entering of a temporary restraining order (TRO), a final restraining order (FRO) hearing is held. At the hearing, required by the act to be a summary proceeding, a Chancery Division judge is authorized to make a finding of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act of domestic violence, defined as one of 14 enumerated crimes that include assault, burglary, rape and even murder. Having made such a finding, the judge may bar the defendant from seeing his kids and from ever setting foot in a particular house again, yet can make him pay the mortgage; make him provide monetary support to the plaintiff; force him to see a psychologist or psychiatrist at his own expense, who can in effect interrogate him and then write a report to the judge that can be used against him in a subsequent proceeding, such as a child visitation hearing; temporarily give the plaintiff exclusive possession of the defendant's car, checkbook, and other personal effects (which could include a beloved pet); bar the defendant from ever speaking to any individual that the plaintiff does not want him to speak to (which could include a beloved friend or relative); force him to turn any firearms he has into the hands of the proper authorities and bar him from ever possessing another firearm in his life; and make the defendant pay a "civil penalty" of $500. If the defendant does not comply with any aspect of the judge's order, he can be tried for contempt and imprisoned. Lastly, his name is put on a list of domestic abusers known as the New Jersey Judiciary's Domestic Violence Central Registry.

The potential for abuse of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is tremendous. A spouse willing to commit perjury can spend months or even years with his or her lawyer planning to file a domestic violence complaint at an opportune moment in order to gain the upper hand in a divorce proceeding and preparing the presentation of his or her case, while an accused spouse is given 10 days or less to prepare a defense. Ten days is not nearly enough time to prepare for an FRO hearing. It is not even enough time for most defendants to fully understand the gravity of the situation they're in. The lack of time is compounded by the stress, alarm, and confusion caused by suddenly and without warning being thrown out of their homes by armed law enforcement officers.

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario. Upon the initial enforcement of a TRO, which was based on an allegation of physical abuse, a husband/defendant is thrown out of his house without so much as a toothbrush. He is allowed to take his wallet with him but is prohibited from taking his checkbook because the police officers fear that he might maliciously exhaust the marital assets. He isn't given a place to shower or sleep, and only has enough money in his wallet for a few meager meals. During this period, when his main concerns are about his physical survival, he is told that there will be an FRO hearing 10 days from the filing of the complaint. Having no legal background, he has no inkling of the consequences of this hearing or of the goings on of a courtroom. He has not been advised he has the right to have an attorney represent him, and doesn't realize he needs one. He couldn't afford one if he did, but he has no right, unlike a criminal defendant, to be provided with free counsel. He arrives at court on the hearing day woefully unprepared, tired, unshowered, unkempt, and disheveled.

During the hearing, our hypothetical plaintiff introduces hearsay and alleges prior bad acts. Unfamiliar with the law, the defendant does not object to the judge's consideration of the improper evidence, but simply insists that it's untrue. He is surprised when she brings up events that were not alleged in the complaint, and taken out of context and twisted so as to only be partially true, the introduction of this evidence hurts his defense. He hasn't thought of these events for years and, caught off-guard, cannot articulate to the judge what really happened.

After a few short hours of testimony, the judge declares that the defendant committed the acts charged in the complaint, effectively labeling the defendant a wife beater. He is forbidden from returning to the marital home and from seeing his children, and is ordered to pay large sums of money periodically to his wife. Since he could not afford an attorney for the FRO hearing, he certainly cannot afford one for an appeal, and, not knowing the first thing about the appellate process, does not appeal the ruling. He wants desperately to see his children but he is baffled by the procedural labyrinth facing him and doesn't know what steps to take. At a subsequent proceeding regarding visitation, he is instructed to attend and participate in counseling. The court-appointed psychologist, having pre-judged him to be an abuser, continually advises the court not to grant visitation. He does not know when he will ever see his children again.

In 10 days, the hypothetical husband has gone from having a normal life with a wife, children and home to being a social pariah, homeless, poor, and alone, trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare.

A report put out by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), entitled "An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses: Ranking of States' Domestic Violence Laws," ranks New Jersey's domestic violence statute as one of the laws "most likely to violate the civil rights of persons accused of domestic violence." Nevertheless, New Jersey's statute is not an anomaly, as a review of the report and another RADAR report, "Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children," reveals. Political scientist Stephen Baskerville's online report, "Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse," makes it clear that false allegations of domestic violence and the legal system that rewards them is not only a national problem, but an international one as well. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, confirms this. Just released by Cumberland House, it cites as an example of the national problem a shocking statistic put out by the Department of Justice: "a restraining order is issued every two minutes in Massachusetts."

Big Media probably won't report on the problem anytime soon. It's therefore up to bloggers, podcasters, and YouTubers to expose the due process fiasco that media silence has allowed to persist.

Note: This article is an adaptation of David Heleniak's Rutgers Law Review article "The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act."

David Heleniak is a civil litigation attorney in New Jersey and Senior Legal Analyst for the True Equality Network.

http://ancpr.com/blog/2007/10/26/gitmo-at-home-domestic-violence-courts-in-america/

10

Main / shit for brains magazine (satire)

Oct 25, 2007, 01:19 PM

http://genderwar.org/articles/2007_10_24/sfb.png

11

Main / Dems Must Woo White Men To Win

Oct 24, 2007, 02:57 PM

(The Politico) This story was written by David Paul Kuhn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2008 election offers the most diverse array of presidential candidates in history. But this rainbow campaign will hinge on the most durable reality of American politics: White men matter most.

Every election cycle, a new slice of the electorate - suburban mothers, churchgoing Hispanics, bicycling Norwegians - comes into vogue as reporters and analysts study the polls and try to divine new secrets about who wins and why in American politics.

The truth is that the most important factor shaping the 2008 election will almost certainly be the same one that has been the most important in presidential elections for the past 40 years: the flight of white male voters away from the Democratic Party.

The hostility of this group to Democrats and their perceived values is so pervasive that even many people who make their living in politics scarcely remark on it. But it is the main reason the election 13 months from now is virtually certain to be close - even though on issues from the war to health care, Democrats likely will be competing with more favorable tail winds than they have enjoyed for years.

The "gender gap" has been a fixture in discussions about American politics since the early Reagan years. But it is usually cast as a matter of women being turned off by Republicans. By far the greater part of this gap, however, comes from the high number of white men - who make up about 36 percent of the electorate - who refuse to even consider voting Democratic.

In 2000, exit polling showed white women backed George W. Bush over Al Gore by 3 percentage points, but white men backed him by 27 percentage points. Four years later, with John F. Kerry carrying the Democratic banner, the margin was 26 points.

The Bush years have echoed with what-if questions: What if the votes in Florida had been counted differently in 2000, if Ralph Nader had not run or if Gore had been able to carry his home state? What if Kerry had responded more deftly to the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004?

A more powerful what-if is to imagine that Democratic nominees had succeeded in narrowing the white male gap to even the low 20s instead of the mid-20s. Both Kerry and Gore would have won easily.

In 2008, Democrats are assembling behind a front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, with singular problems among white males. Polls show her support among this group is approaching the record lows scored by Democrats during the peak of Ronald Reagan's popularity in the 1980s. Some recent hypothetical matchups - which are highly fluid at this stage of a contest - showed Clinton winning roughly a third of white males in a race against Republican Rudy Giuliani.

In the past three decades, the only two Democrats to win the presidency, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were politicians who organized campaigns around rhetorical and ideological pitches that were designed to reassure voters skeptical of liberal values - an attitude that dominates among white males. Even these victories, however, took place amid special circumstances, with the Watergate backlash of 1976 and the Ross Perot independent boom undermining Republicans in 1992.

Despite this history, so far none of the Democratic candidates has fashioned a program or message that seems calculated to reverse the flow of white males away from the party. One of the party's politicians who has thought most about the problem chose not to make the race in 2008.

Over the past two generations, said former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, "there was a morphing of the Democratic Party from a sense of a common good or a common commitment to each other as fellow citizens to being an advocate for groups. And I think that Democrats were advocates for every other group except for white males."

The problem with this approach is that it leaves virtually no margin for error. To win national elections, Democrats need to win nearly all of the African-American vote, a substantial majority of Hispanics and at least come close to winning half of white women. (Democrats have not actually commanded a majority of white women since 1964.)

One of the Democrats' top experts on political demography, Mark Gersh, has pondered how this math affects the most fought-over prize of recent elections, the 20 electoral votes in Ohio. "Gore got 90 percent of the black vote; you are not going to do better than that," Gersh said. He adds that Kerry earned 88 percent, as well. "So how are you going to win? I have this theory that the only way he could win the state was by really jumping the numbers up in Democratic performance in blue-collar northeastern Ohio."

"Concern for the common man"

Easy enough to say. But actually achieving this feat in Ohio and elsewhere for Democrats requires reckoning with political attitudes that have had several decades to take root - and are twisted not simply around policies but also deep cultural and economic shifts.

Trying to understand this history is what led to "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." The idea for the book began during the 2004 election, when I was traveling the country for CBS News. Many of these men, even three years ago, had lost their patience for the Iraq war. Often they had obvious reservations about George W. Bush. But it was made clear in conversations the contempt they felt for Democrats - and felt in return from Democrats. For these voters, it was an election with no real competition for their votes.

Liberals didn't realize they had a whole constituency of disenfranchised people without rights who were called standard masculine men.

Harvard University social psychologist William Pollack As I later learned, this was precisely the circumstance that some Republican strategists had vividly anticipated a quarter-century earlier.

Early in Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, his pollster Richard Wirthlin wrote a book-length campaign plan - never previously obtained - detailing a strategy expressly designed to "break up" the Democratic coalition. To "target the populist voter," the campaign would work toward the "development of the aspiring American populist theme of 'anti-bigness - big government, big business, big labor.'" The media messages were to be "simple, direct and optimistic." They were to focus on "blue collar" voters utilizing "principal themes" that "project a realization that these voters are no longer solely motivated by economic concerns but by larger social issues, as well."

It was an idea that informed not simply the 1980 campaign but also the next 25 years of GOP strategy. It was to "position [Reagan] as a doer, a man of action," the "decisive leader capable of making tough decisions." But above all, Reagan was to "solidify a public impression" that he "has concern for the common man and understands the problems facing voters in their daily lives."

It was Wirthlin who first coined the term "gender gap." But once "the press ran with the idea - the question they always asked was, 'Why is Reagan doing so poorly among women?' But that's only one blade of the scissors. The question I was always interested in was, 'Why was Reagan doing so well among men?'" he says. "It's been a mystery to me for 25 years why that wasn't recognized."

From 1980 on, Democrats never won more than 38 of every 100 white men who voted. Soon Republicans seemed to own masculinity itself.

There has been much discussion about the GOP's ability to reach poor and working-class whites. But the phenomenon was overwhelmingly a story of men.

Between 1948 and 2004, for the poorest third of Americans, white women's support for Democrats hardly shifted. For white working-class men, there was a 25 percent decline. Within the middle class of white America, the Democratic Party lost the support of 15 percent of white women. But white men left Democrats at twice that rate: 29 percent.

The white backlash against liberalism, of course, predated the 1980 election. It was Lyndon Johnson, 16 years earlier, hours after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who turned to Bill Moyers and said, "I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."

Racial animus may have been part of the problem for Democrats. At least Democrats could feel good about themselves while losing elections. But it was one of Johnson's own confidants, Harry McPherson, who later concluded that the problem with white male voters was far more complex - not confined to the South or racial politics.

"Democratic primaries and conventions often rocked with the language of rebuke," McPherson wrote in a 1972 memoir. "Very like, it has occurred to me, the language many wives use in speaking to their husbands, particularly toward the end of marriages. You never think of the children, or of my mother, or of me; only of yourself. Substitute the ignored disadvantaged, the homeless, people trapped downtown. The reaction among husbands, for whom read 'white male voters,' is what is normally provoked by attempts to burden people with a sense of guilt."

As portrayed by the new breed of liberalism, the white man held all the cards, and everyone else's bad deal was his fault. The problem was that the bulk of white men did not feel like dealers or players. They felt like pieces on someone else's table, and their livelihood, their family's very stability, was in richer men's hands, as well. Increasingly, as Reagan assumed the presidency, many white men, particularly those in industrial trades, found their lives marked by instability. This was true in the home, as cultural changes refashioned the role of women and the place of sex in popular culture. And it was especially true in the workplace, as many once-secure union jobs disappeared.

Between 1979 and 1983 alone, more than 9 million Americans were added to the poverty rolls and more than half were from white, male-headed families. In 2004, white men still constituted the vast majority of leading CEOs. Yet many more white men still live the hardscrabble life. About 21 percent of white men and 22 percent of white women who voted in 2004 made $30,000 to $45,000 in household income.

These men are seen as failing to capitalize on "white male privilege." Those who felt powerless, like so many women and minorities, were told they were indeed powerful. Conservatives came to validate a struggle many liberals had demeaned as merely the anger of the "angry white male."

"Liberals didn't realize they had a whole constituency of disenfranchised people without rights who were called standard masculine men," Harvard University social psychologist William Pollack explains. "I'm not saying that all liberal Democrats saw these men as the enemy, but they didn't see them as the victim - but these men felt more and more victimized."

Today, many white men continue to feel disempowered, distant from liberal mores and unmoored from the stability that their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. Like others, white men feel controlled by bosses and compelled by fiscal responsibility. They take on thankless work to meet their obligations, and it often creates a sense of compromised manhood. If a white man's salary places him in the upper class, his self-worth is often tied to that wage. For many, the definition of being a man has meant surrendering what one wants to do for what one must do. This has long been true. But modern liberalism no longer saw it that way. The hard life was said to be the easy life if one was born white and male.

Yet many Democrats expected middle- and lower-class whites to ignore their grievances with liberalism and vote Democratic based on tax policy, as if issues like the breakdown of the American family were a superficial concern. This was the worldview behind the 2004 Thomas Frank bestseller, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

But the voters Democrats lost were not conned by distracting "wedge issues" like abortion or gun control. They quite knowingly voted for their self-interest, but they defined that interest in ways that were deeper than the size of their paychecks.

Even when efforts were made to reach some white men in 2004, it was limited to shallow discussions. The regular white guy was referred to as the "NASCAR dad." Like Republicans' outreach to African-Americans in the 2000 and 2004 general elections, the rhetoric failed because it was accurately perceived by both groups as mostly artifice.

In some sense, Kerry was touted as the war hero to appeal to these men, and their wives, many of whom share similar values. But when it came time to defend his fight in Vietnam against a conservative veterans group, Kerry's senior aides counseled reticence.

It was "my mistake," says the Kerry campaign's chief strategist, Tad Devine, though other senior officials gave similar advice. "Obviously [I was] too much lawyer and not enough soldier," Devine continues. "Not that I'm a soldier. I'm a lawyer. That's my problem. I needed to not be a lawyer. I needed to appeal to the gut in [Kerry]." He adds, "We should have pleaded guilty to being tough and stayed with it, because, really, it was much truer to John."

A failed experiment

Today, many leading liberal intellectuals continue to argue that Democrats should not concern themselves with fundamental weaknesses. Thomas F. Schaller, author of "Whistling Past Dixie," has argued Democrats should ignore their deficit with white men (again, more than a third of voters) as well as the South (which remains the nation's largest region, by a margin of tens of millions of Americans).

In fact, this has been the de facto Democratic strategy for decades. Safe to say the experiment has failed.

The recent midterm elections exhibit the potential for Democrats in closing the white male gap. Democrats never would have won back the Senate in 2006 without candidates not of the urbane sort winning more white men. In crucial Senate contests, from Montana farmer Jon Tester to Robert P. Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania - whose father was barred from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views - the Democrats' victory was, above any other, dependent upon significant improvements with white men, according to exit polls.

Recently, in a conversation with veteran liberal strategist James Carville, I raised the popular belief within the liberal base that Democrats should ignore their weaknesses with white men and the South. Carville scoffed and called it an "idiotic argument."

Yet that is exactly the argument that has kept Democrats the minority party for decades.

It is, after all, the white working man who once was the backbone of the Roosevelt coalition. America has changed since. But Democrats' need to compete for white men's votes has not.

---------------------

Found this on niceguy - bola

12

Activism / National Call For Amnesty And Cease Unlawful Enforcement

Oct 12, 2007, 12:26 PM

Found this on divorcesource.com

National Call For Amnesty And Cease Unlawful Enforcement

Krights News [[email protected]]


(Denver) In an unprecedented move to speak out for non custodial parents and their children in America, Los Angeles syndicated talk show host Richar' Farr an outspoken critic of the Child Support System has called for a "Complete Amnesty of All Punitive Measures Against All Non Custodial Parents".

"How can we possibly as a society allow a taxpayer supported government agency to jail or hinder the ability of good Americans to support themselves and their children on the basis of data rifled with errors and illegalities. These state agencies need to be audited and investigated for their misuse of funds, campaigns of misinformation, and the over whelming amount of physical evidence exposing fraud and corruption by personnel within this system" says Richar' Farr.

Ph.D Professor Stephen Baskerville and author of the explosive new book, "Taken into Custody" adds, "The Family Court and Child Support System are so corrupt and so devoid of due Process of Law no American should ever assume those being targeted by these crooked agencies are anything else than completely innocent."

"These feelings are echoed by the 25 million non custodial parents and their children who are organizing across the nation to become one of the most powerful constituencies in America," says Shelly Barreras whose husband was defrauded of over twenty thousand dollars through the actions of a Bernalillo County family court judge Debra Davis Walker and the Child Support Agency of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

There are untold numbers of adults who are barely surviving under the cruel hands of the child support system. "These agencies have written themselves a free ride to steal our children's money and our elected officials are doing nothing. Their must be federal oversight. There must be reform of the unconstitutional and illegal laws the child support agency enforce for their own gain", States Ron Smith founder of Children Need Both Parents.

It is certain that Long and overdue investigations of the Child Support System in America must begin at once. Millions of Americans are now suffering under the illegal control of an unlawful federal system.

If you have proof of egregious conduct by a Family Law, Child Support or Child Protective Services Employee and would like to register your voice, call 303-617-8185.
Krights.com has opened a National Hotline to allow Non Custodial Parents, Custodial Parents, their Children and extended Families a place to let their story be heard.

13

Main / Doc, what’s up with snooping?

Oct 10, 2007, 03:05 AM

Just found this on niceguy. Better read up on your Kafka:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1035832

Doc, what's up with snooping?
Pediatrician paranoia runs deep
By Michael Graham | Thursday, October 4, 2007 | xhttp://www.bostonherald.com | Op-Ed

They're watching you right now.

They counted every beer you drank during last night's Red Sox [team stats] game.

They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.

They know if you've got a gun, and where you keep it.

They're your kids, and they're the National Security Agency of the Nanny State.

I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter's annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter's boozing. Mine.

"The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it's too much," my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. "She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house."

"What!" I yelped. "Who told her about my stasher, I mean, 'It's an outrage!' "

I turned to my wife. "You took her to the doctor. Why didn't you say something?"

She couldn't, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife's knowledge or consent.

"The doctor wanted to know how we get along," my daughter continued. Then she paused. "And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable."

Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she's fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.

We're not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad's "bad" behavior.

We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we're "persons of interest."

The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore "legal barriers and deference to parental involvement" and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.

And that information doesn't stay with the doctor, either.

Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, "Does Daddy own a gun?"

When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.

If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.

But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family's (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad.

She also got a new doctor.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.

Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs.

At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.

"I still like my previous pediatrician," Debbie told me. "She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didn't seem to have a choice."

Of course doctors have a choice.

They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children.

They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position.

They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office.

But the doctors aren't asking us parents.

They're asking our kids.

Worst of all, they're asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent.

And then they wonder why we drink.

14

Main / Butterfly Kisses

Jun 29, 2007, 01:35 PM

Another group of oppressed women is demanding their rights

http://www.bkgirls.net

15

Introductions / Greetings from bola

Jun 21, 2007, 10:22 AM

Bola says hello to everybody on SYG.

I usually hang out at antimisandry.com, but I've been reading and quoting SYG a lot. Very nice forum you got here, interesting stuff.

I'm 45 years old, live in The Netherlands and I'm sick and tired of the misandry in Western society. That's why I like to meet like-minded people on forums like these. Most people in the off line world seem to be under hypnosis or something.

There seems to be some beginning of resistance forming itself on the internet. So, let's keep spreading the word.

Feminism is based on lies!