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 - Chris Key

Main / Inaction, indifference enable abuse
Dec 10, 2010, 07:40 AM
Inaction, indifference enable abuse
Local News


Brian Vallee didn't know what fear was until he met Jane Hurshman.

The investigative journalist went to meet Hurshman in small- town Nova Scotia two years after she killed her abusive husband Billy Stafford.

Stafford was known for his psychopathic rages, but nothing he did in public was as frightening and sadistic as the abuse he practised at home.

As Hurshman was miked for an episode of the Fifth Estate and she began speaking about her experience, the sound technician thought there was something wrong with his equipment. It turned out her heart was beating so heavily and quickly, the microphone was picking it up.

Vallee met Hurshman as a producer for the Fifth Estate in 1984. Since then, he's written the book Life with Billy and The War on Women, a screenplay based on Life With Billy, produced more documentaries and continues to speak around the country about violence against women.

Vallee was the keynote speaker at a forum Tuesday hosted by the Stop Violence Against Women in Perth County committee to commemorate domestic violence awareness month.

Women in abusive relationships often get asked why they don't leave. Vallee said 70% of women murdered by their partners are killed when they try to leave.

Regardless, he said, it's the wrong question.

"We've got to stop asking the victim why she didn't leave and ask the batterer why he's beating her," he said.

Hurshman met Stafford, whom she thought was charming, after a failed marriage. In 1977, she moved in with him. They had a son together, but he had wanted a girl. Hurshman couldn't have more children and the relationship began to turn.

Stafford would fire a gun at her to see how close he could get without hitting her. He knocked her teeth out with the barrel of a gun and once knocked her unconscious and left her on the kitchen floor overnight.

The sexual abuse was unthinkable.

He told her if she left, he'd kill her family one person at a time.

Stafford wouldn't allow their son to cry even as young as six months old. He forced their child to eat so quickly he'd vomit. Then, Stafford would make him eat the vomit.

The night she shot him, he was drunk and raving about burning down their neighbour's house with the neighbours inside.

He passed out in the truck and she shot him in the head.

An RCMP officer said she deserved a medal. While interviewed on the Fifth Estate, the officer said Hurshman probably saved a couple of RCMP lives.

She was charged with first- degree murder. Ironically, Vallee pointed out, men who murder their partners rarely face first- degree murder charges.

Hurshman's case represented a turning point in Canadian history. It was the first time the courts began to acknowledge abuse as a defence and the windows were opened on what was previously a private issue.

As Hurshman said on the Fifth Estate, violence against women isn't taboo but speaking about it is.

She was initially acquitted -- the courtroom broke out in applause -- but was retried and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. She was sentenced to six months in jail but was released after two months.

She committed suicide 10 years after killing Stafford.

In his speech yesterday, Vallee suggested any gains made by Hurshman's willingness to share the very worst of her story and her determined advocacy for others have halted and maybe even faltered.

Funding for women's shelters and programs has been decimated, he said.

"The federal government is telling women to shut the f--- up," Vallee said.

Gender inequality is the elephant in the room, he said.

"If you speak up, you're a Femi-Nazi. You can't say violence against women,' you have to call it domestic violence' -- it sounds more gender neutral."

Vallee said the cost of violence against women in Canada comes to about $4.5 billion in health care, law enforcement, court and other costs.

"Shelters are in the crime- prevention business. The sooner politicians realize that . . . they should start putting money where it belongs. This is the only way we're going to solve this thing."

The number of men killed by women dropped by 70% with the advent of shelters, he said. The rate of women killed only dropped by 25%, he added.

Along with funding for shelters, mandatory gender equality courses should be taught through elementary and high school, he said.

Law schools also should have mandatory courses which include survivors talking about their experiences.

He also was critical of media coverage of the issue noting it's either ignored or buried in the back of the paper.

"Most men don't beat women and don't condone it. Men should speak up because it's the right thing to do," he concluded.

[email protected]

Article ID# 2860365
Main / Boys Injured by 'Sack Tapping' Game
May 27, 2010, 11:38 PM
Boys Injured by 'Sack Tapping' Game
Posted by Al Tompkins at 12:05 AM on May 27, 2010


If it were just an isolated incident, it would not matter as much. But "sack tapping," or hitting or kicking someone in the testicles, is a YouTube attraction and is leaving serious injuries.

Take this story from Minnesota for example, which quotes a local urologist saying he performs three to four surgeries a year on teens who have been injured in these so-called games. He sees dozens of such injuries in his office that do not require surgery. All in just one community.

Late last year, WTHR-TV in Indianapolis took a deeper look at the rumors of widespread sack tapping (also called "ball tapping"). I appreciate that this station, which often proves to be thoughtful in its reporting, conducted a survey of school nurses to find out the extent of the phenomenon, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. My friend and investigative reporter Bob Segall reported:

"It's a disturbing game with devastating consequences, and a new WTHR survey suggests it is rampant in Indiana schools [PDF].

" 'Ball tapping' is the act of intentionally hitting or kicking a male in the genitals. Earlier this month, an Eyewitness News investigation showed the game has become commonplace in some area schools, resulting in serious injuries for students.

"As part of the investigation, WTHR also conducted a statewide survey of school nurses. The results are in, and they show the problem of ball tapping is more common and widespread than many school officials had realized.

"School nurses from 163 Indiana schools participated in the anonymous survey, and 33% of those nurses said they're aware of ball tapping happening at their school within the past twelve months.

"But a closer look at the statistics shows the problem is much more serious in some schools than in others.

"23% of school nurses who work at the elementary level say they've seen or heard of ball tapping at their school. That number nearly doubles in high schools, where 43% of school nurses say they've seen it.

"And in middle schools, 62% of school nurses said they're aware of students engaged in ball tapping.

" 'I would have expected it to be a low number,' said Mary Conway, president of the Indiana Association of School Nurses. 'I would not have expected [school nurses] to have had much experience with it at all ... because I think it's something most kids won't talk about with a nurse. I'm very surprised by this whole issue and it's given me a new perspective.'

"Among the 72 middle school and high school nurses who participated in WTHR's survey, 50% said they had seen students who came to the school clinic seeking assistance related to an incident of ball tapping. Half of those nurses also reported they had observed the problem several (more than two) times each school year, and about 10% said it happens at their school on a daily or weekly basis."

A lawsuit involving sack tapping even ended up on the "Judge Judy" show.
"Men's Rights" Movement Doesn't Belong On Top
Andrew Belonsky :: Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 3:40 pm


There's something queer happening among men in America. As society moves toward a more integrated, gender-blind direction, a small yet potent group of men are looking to rise up and reclaim the nation's reigns. And their mission involves a prescriptive masculinity that, frankly, seems like a step back.
The period after World War II helped solidify the macho man's role in America. Men were meant to rule their roost, help damsels in distress and answer to no one, not even their wives. As time went on, hippies, homos and women helped erode this image of the "ideal" male and helped men touch their sensitive side. No longer were men afraid to cry. Nor were they afraid of vanity, as seen in the "metrosexual" movement and arsenal of body sprays. Shit, men are even being used to peddle low-fat yogurt! Now the only images of "macho men" are on a screen, fictional etches of masculinity gone by. But certain groups want to change that.

Rutgers University Professor Lionel Tiger and some of his penis-wielding peers have been rallying to establish a "men's studies" program at Rutgers University. Men have reached a point where "they're experienced a considerable amount of dismay and uncertainty," says Tiger to CNN. Men today feel "somewhat scorned, in principle by women." Tiger's work has been born from a fear that men are being feminized. Thus, men must explore what it means to be masculine; both on a social and biological level, and reclaim their territory.

Professor Tiger's not alone in his masculinity mission. Just ask Harry Reid. The senator enraged "men's rights" activists last month when he claimed unemployed men are to blame for increased domestic violence. Said Reid, "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive." Men's News Daily Editor Paul Elam described Reid's remarks as "bizarre and unfounded" that "reveals an unimaginable disconnect from the millions of unemployed Americans who are not abusive." The National Organization for Men, Men and Fathers for Justice, Men's Equality Conference, the Fatherhood Coalition and at least a dozen other "men's rights" groups joined the fray and called for Reid to apologize. He did not.

These organizations not only protest the feminization and demonization of men.  They also rally against what they describe as widespread inequality against men. Marty Nemko, president of the National Organization for Men, insists that men are consistently put on the back burner for women and "minorities," "When boys start to look into college, the very first thing they see are the colleges' brochures and websites, with far more pictures of women and minorities; the subliminal message: we don't care about white males." Thus, they feel like a "disposable sex." He goes on, "In our attempt to lift up girls and women, we have destroyed boys and men. Just as we are assiduous to avoid unfair treatment of women and minorities, we must do the same for boys and men." Other members of this men's movement are making a career out of revitalizing America's men.

A man named Brett McCay has become something of a leader for the "retrosexuals," and wrote a book with his wife called The Art of Manliness, which is chock full of outdated advice on how to keep one's sack from becoming a purse. Like what? Well, men don't cry. We have to be "the rock" in a (presumably straight) relationship: "When something tragic happens that affects your family, be a pillar of strength during the crisis. Take care of the business that needs taking care of." It's only later, when he's alone, that a man can cry. I can only assume that these images of "manliness" don't involve any of the gay or even sensitive men roaming around. And that's why I'm worried.

Complaints about the "inequality" facing men and the loss of masculinity implicitly endorse an archaic image of the masculinity, one in which only the strong - and straight - survive. Countless boys, whether they be uncoordinated, weak or a bit fey, have been told they need to "man up." What does that even mean? Who writes the rules of what it means to be a man?  It seems to me that such choices should be left to the individual, rather than a group of irate activists who claim men need to embrace "maschismo," which would basically produce cookie cutter clones. And who in the world wants a man who's just like the next?

I left the following responses under the comments section:

Quote from: Comment #1
Andrew Belonsky,

The insinuations you've made about the men's movement would be laughable if they weren't so damaging. Accusing men's rights activists of labelling the inclusion of women and minorities at colleges and universities as a form of oppression is a complete misrepresentation of their stance. I've never come across an MRA who said anything of the sort. Please cite a men's rights activist who has said men are oppressed because women and minorities are allowed to study at college and university. I've heard many MRA's speak about the introduction of gynocentric policies that discriminate in favour of women and at men's expense. This is not even close to resembling the straw-man you're created.

There is a lot of merit behind the commentary from men's righs activists on men's position at colleges and universities: male students are often required to fund the women's only departments that they're forbidden from entering, yet there are no similar measures assured for men; women's studies programs often promote unsubstantiated ideology and hate-mongering myths as "facts"; men who are falsely accused of rape are considered guilty until proven innocent and, receive no recourse when they're found to be innocent (remember the DUKE innocent?), and; the "men's studies" course is based solely on the feminist theory about masculinity and, does not allow men to critique feminism -- it's why the newly formed "male studies" course was introduced by MEN.

A key issue you're failed to mention is the men's pathway to college and university. The teaching standards and the curriculum in schools is detrimental to boys and preferential to girls -- as has been pointed out by many experts, many of whom are women -- thus leading to women outnumbering men on most campuses because boys do neglected and judged by women's standards. The system places more emphasis on girls' innate abilities and ignores boys' innate abilities. It's patently obvious to anyone who has a brain that the teaching standards rate girls' superior ability to cooperately in class and, write and communicate at an advanced level over boys' superior spatial awareness and problem solving skills. Haven't you ever wondered why the majority of the "high performing" girls are hopeless at maths and science and only study art, law and other ideological-based programs at college and university? If you think it's due to "discrimination against girls" then you're nuttier and dumber than any conspiracy theorist I've never known. Contrary to what the feminazis would have you believe, there are no old men in white robes using subliminal messages to prevent female geniuses from reaching their potential in maths and science. The reason women are less successful in science and maths is because extremely high intelligence is mostly found among men. Every test and study that has been performed on the issue, whether it has been in the form of IQ tests or comparison of men and women in maths and science, has shown that most geniuses, scientists, inventors and mathematicians are men and that men are more likely to dominate the extreme ranges of the IQ scale.

Considering you're wrongly portraying all MRA's as lazy whiners who aren't as qualified as the female counterparts, I thought it was quite ironic to see you make the following error:

"As long as your qualified"

You meant to say "As long as you're qualified", right? Any journalist who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" isn't qualified to work as one!

Quote from: Comment #2
"Women can get ahead and so can men. As long as your qualified"  Andrew Belonsky

Andrew Belonsky,

1. A qualified journalist knows the difference between "your" and "you're".
2. Affirmative action leads to women and minorities gaining jobs over equally qualified Caucasian men.

Quote from: Comment #3
"Now that the playing field is beginning to level, they wonder if their son or grandson will be able to EARN a spot at that college since it won't be handed out." Christopher

It never was handed out. Only the most talented candidates were accepted into the college and university system. Academically-challeged athletes might have been included, but only because they were the best athletes available. Whether you like it not, sport has been part of the college and university curriculum for over a century. Allowing men of moderate intelligence to enter university because they excel at American football holds more merit than giving a seat to a feminazi who excels in womyn's studies.

"I personally don't think or feel that I have been discriminated against as a white heterosexual male. In fact, I look around and see a lot of privileges like disparity in pay because of race/gender in favor of white men, or the ability to marry someone I love" Clinton Jasperson

You don't have a clue. The so-called "disparity in pay" is derived not from discrimination, but lifestyle choices. Women tend to choose part-time work over full-time work and, are less likely than men to work overtime and remain committed to the same job over many years. Women will opt out of the workforce so they can have children, then re-enter in a reduced capacity so they can blend work with motherhood. While men tend to work in the high-paying fields that are avoided by most people (IE. dangerous industry and physical labour), women choose the easier, safer, more comfortable jobs thay pay less. The fields dominated by men pay more because of the demand for workers in these professions. Most women are not going to contemplate the idea of working in dangerous industry and physical labour because it's messy, dangerous and tiring work that requires a great deal of effort and strength. It's hardly fair to say that a woman who sits at a desk and answers phone in an airconditioned building deserves the same wage as the man who is risking his life in the blazing sun by working with dangerously heavy and sharp objects that can kill him.
Main / Monopoly -- Feminazi Edition!
Nov 07, 2009, 05:29 AM
Main / Radical feminists are angry with me.
Jan 25, 2009, 07:33 PM
My video, "Sensitivity of the Vulva", has angered a few radical feminists.  A few angry comments from them have been left under the comments section of my video.

In December 2008, a savage female chauvinist said she was going to kick men in the testes because she watched my video.

"WTF? This doesn't even make any goddamn sense. You are a deluded and sad little man. All of you commenting in agreement on here are sad, sad, little men. You wouldn't know objective analysis if it kicked you in the crotch. In retribution for your dishonesty I am going to kick as many people in the balls as I can over the holidays."

A week later she claimed to have kicked seven men in the testes.

"I'm already up to 7 sets of "abused testicles" in my wake and going strong into the New Year! "

Then she expressed her desire to enslave white men.

"Haha, thanks! You too! Here's to enslaving teh white menz in 2009!"

A female chauvinist who uses the handle, TheGoddessNetworks, flagged my video and referred to me as "weak".

"Just FLAG this DUMB ASS WEAK MANS VIDEO, As I just did. ROFL!"

TheGoddessNetworks' profile contains the following statement:

I am can not be DESCRIBED. What words can you formulate or utter than can express the female gender made in the Divine image of the Creatress. The Universal Womb, The Great Mother, The One that exists in ALL THINGS, The Darkness and the Light, Alpha and Omega. Enough Said...... "

Her profile contains a link to a book called The Great BLAK MAMMA of Creation, by Suzar. The book's descrition aimlessly denigrates men.

"Before global Patriarchy the Supreme Being was worshipped all over the planet as a Creatress. If Her Children & precious planet Earth are to survive, the Female Mother Principle of God must be resurrected and restored, along with the Blak Woman, Mother of HuHuManity."

On the 25 January 2009, a woman who uses the handle "benevolantfem" -- an argubly crazier woman than TheGoddnessNetworks -- attacked my video.

"My radical sisters ,do not feel anger at this stupid video. Like all men antifeminaziaus hates and fears superior women and is jealous because his foul raping dick and balls are inferior to the strong generative female organ. He has vagina envy and feels jealous because he has been born an inferior animal. "

In response to benevolantfem, I pointed out a few facts that turned her statement upside down.

"A man's generative organs produce an abundance of testosterone. His muscular power, sound cognition and general resilience to emotion is derived from the testosterone produced within his testes' Leydid Cells. Therefore, I think this cunt has testicular envy! "

I publicised my glee over producing a video that has caused so much outrage among radical feminists.

"The fact my video is causing insane feminazis to sprout absurd lies and ridiculous conspiracy theories is great! I never knew my video was going to have this much of an impact on them."

benevolantfem went on to tell me about a private message she had sent me.

"I sent you a message. My job as a radical feminists is to educate men BENEVOLANTLY bout the truth of their inferiority so watch out in your inbox a storms in there."

Here is a transcript of benevolantfem's private message.

"challenge you

I am sure you were hoping to get away with just a few dumb youtube messages so that you wouldn't actually have to confront any factual proof that would make you realise you're inferiority. But I'm a active member of the patriacy killer clan of the radical feminist carnival website so its my job to spread the truth to dumb men I meet on the internet. So I now offer you now a challenge to debate me one on one by email. I promise to present comprehensive arguements and proven statistics facts to prove that physical and mental male infeority is true and what is killing this world. Will you dare to accept my challenge or are you too scared ?. Send me message if you are not a frightened coward.

ps I don't think you can"

I accepted her challenge.

"I accept your challenge. You can bring the debate to my forum if you wish. Feel free to bring your braindead feminazi supporters with you."

I don't know if these women are serious or are just having a bit of fun, but either way, it's bizarre.


For best viewing, make sure you watch it in high definition.
Farmer jailed 16 years for wife's murder
December 8, 2008, 4:36 pm

Source: Yahoo!

A NSW farmer who shot his wife and buried her with lime to deter wild pigs from disturbing the body has been jailed for at least 16 years for her murder.

Laurence Bede O'Connor told police he had had "a gutful" of Flordelizza O'Connor and shot her as she descended a ladder after repairing a leak on the roof of their property.

Acting Justice Timothy Studdert noted O'Connor resented the "expressed assertion" by his wife that she was "the boss" and told police "she used to yell and scream and screech".

The now 65-year-old admitted to the manslaughter of Flordelizza O'Connor, 47, on the basis of provocation in July last year at their property, called Quandalli, near Tooraweenah, in the state's central western slopes.

But in October, a NSW Supreme Court jury sitting at Dubbo found him guilty of the more serious charge of murder.

In sentencing him last Friday, the judge described the shooting as "callous" and "cowardly".

But he accepted O'Connor was remorseful and concluded he had suffered some loss of self control at the time of the murder.

Two months after the shooting, he confessed his crime and showed police where he had buried her body, in a relatively isolated location on the property.

O'Connor said he placed her body in the bucket scoop of a tractor and placed lime on her body when he buried it.

He told police his wife had been on the roof when she said she had taken his car keys, his wallet, his cheque and deposit books, and had burnt his tobacco.

He unsuccessfully searched for his keys and later told police he had had a "gutful" of his wife doing these things, which he claimed had been going on for years and getting worse

"There was a loaded .22 rifle kept on the verandah, placed there for shooting birds that raided the strawberries and this was the gun the offender used," the judge noted.

As she descended, he placed the gun against his wife's spine and fired without warning, firing a second shot at her temple when she fell on to the concrete and was moaning.

The judge said the marriage was happy at the outset but stresses developed and increased when their two children left home.

O'Connor, an alcoholic, had resented his wife's wish to participate in decisions about the property, most of which was leased out but which she wanted them to work themselves.

In setting a maximum sentence of 21 years, Justice Studdert said O'Connor shot his unsuspecting victim twice at close range with intent to kill.

The earliest date he will be eligible for parole is September 6, 2023.

If the sexes were reversed, then the the murderer would have been considered a victim of "Battered Women's Syndrome".  
Is Cilmi a chauvinist?
Sacha Molitorisz | November 22, 2008
Source: Brisbane Times

Gabriella Cilmi is a Melbourne teenager who came from nowhere - that is, Dandenong - to win six ARIA awards last month. That's one award for every man bound, gagged, trussed or tethered in the video clip for Cilmi's breakthrough song, Sweet About Me.

A catchy number in the style of Amy Winehouse, Sweet About Me is all innocent and playful, until it reaches the chorus. "Sweet about me," sings Cilmi, who turned 17 last month. "Nothin' sweet about me."

A cheeky lyric, and the video clip is cheekier. Performing with her band, Cilmi wears skinny jeans, cowboy boots and an air of confidence in a stylish, warehouse-shot clip shot that's just like hundreds of stylish, warehouse-shot clips. So far, so predictable.

But as the camera follows the singer, it reveals a man bound and gagged and hanging upside down, suspended from the rafters. The revelation is underplayed, as if the presence of a shackled, dangling man is no big deal. Then the camera reveals another victim, tied with rope and reaching frantically for what looks like a mobile phone. It turns out to be a harmonica, which he grasps just in time to play a solo. Next Cilmi arrives at a young man stuck in a box. Only the man's head and arms are showing, upon which Cilmi pours water (or is it vodka?). A fourth man is gaffer taped to the floor; a fifth is tied to a chair; a sixth is caught in a net.

In the war of the sexes, it seems, Cilmi will not be a victim. "When you're playing with desire," she sings, "Don't come running to my place when it burns like fire, boy." It's an empowerment anthem for modern gals.

What if a similar clip had the genders reversed? Say, with Damien Leith crooning, "I'm a nice guy - out in public," as he passes a succession of writhing mannequins strapped to his bedhead. Or Robbie Williams singing, "I'll respect you in the morning, but not tonight", as he bundles a handcuffed businesswoman into a crate beside half-a-dozen near-nude colleagues. Can you imagine?

"Of course not," says Helen Garner, author of The First Stone. "Because there's no history of women's violence towards men that it would be subverting."

Fair point. And if Cilmi is subverting the history of men's violence towards women, she isn't alone. Rather, she's evidence of a growing trend towards what might be termed reverse sexism or female chauvinism. Especially in advertising, where women are increasingly ogling, objectifying and victimising blokes.

In the late 1990s a Voodoo hosiery billboard showing a near-naked woman sitting astride a naked man tied up with black stockings. In 2005 a Morning Fresh TV ad showed a woman striking a man over the head with a spanner.

Also generating controversy: a soup ad showing a policewoman felling a male crook with a kick to the groin; a Volkswagen Polo ad showing a female driver laughing upon seeing the crotch of a male courier in her side mirror beside the words, "Objects in mirror may appear bigger than actual size"; and another Voodoo billboard with two naked crouching men on a leash wearing only dog collars.

In response, masculinists and men's libbers now argue they are the ones suffering. These days men are claiming the right to be victims too. Not that you will hear Kathy Lette crying.

"It's a man's world," says Lette, author of 10 novels about the sex war. "One hundred years since Emmeline Pankhurst tied herself to the railings and women still don't have equal pay, and we're still getting concussion hitting our heads on the glass ceiling - plus we're expected to Windex it while we're up there. Until women are treated as equals instead of sequels, we have every right to comically kneecap you in ads or song clips. And you're pathetic whinge bags if you complain about it."

I'm not complaining. As a man - albeit a man with a woman's name - Cilmi's video is not offensive. It's harmless and clever, with a mood that's more teen dress-ups than Nazi-themed sex romp. Not one of her victims looks distressed. These young men may be deprived of their liberty, but every hair is in place. That, presumably, is the main thing.

But is Cilmi's video is a step towards or away from gender equality? By tying up boys, is she countering stereotypes and redressing past injustices? Or is her reverse sexism dark and potentially damaging - a vengeful wrong in answer to an earlier wrong?

It's the former, a necessary step on the path to parity. For too long, men have held power at the expense of women; now, in a few corners of pop culture, this inequality has been overcorrected and replaced by an inverted inequality. In some music videos and ads, sex objects and sex subjects have traded places. As long as this inversion is both temporary and playful, I'm all for it

At the end of her clip, the diminutive Cilmi steps up onto a box and lets the man fall from the rafters. He lands out of shot, but I'm guessing he's bruised but intact, his little game of subjugation and submission finished for the day. And presumably Cilmi then liberates the rest of her prisoners, including the boy in the box.

I like the clip; but I'm also looking forward to the arrival of a more pervasive, profound gender equality. Only then, when we're finally all liberated from the metaphorical box of inequality, will men and women be free to put each other in literal boxes, regardless of gender. Playfully, of course.
The Statue of Hitlery

News Brief from the Albert and Logan News

Girls charged
TWO Crestmead girls allegedly assaulted their foster care mother and stole her car at about 12.30pm on Saturday. Police said the girls, 13 and 16, were stopped at Pimpama and charged with car theft, obstructing, assaulting and evading police, trespass and stealing. One was also charged with robbery with violence, while the other was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

Original Link:
Main / Feminazi Organisation in Logan City
May 14, 2008, 08:24 PM
On page 3 of the Wednesday, May 14, 2008 edition of the Albert And Logan News -- a free publication that is handed out to residents from the Logan City and Beenleigh -- published a news feature story about a not for profit organisation called Working Against Violence Support Service (WAVSS).  The story was presceded by a photograph of three WAVSS members: Monique Clindeman, Vicky Mohajerin and Grace Stampleton.

Mohajerin, a counsellor for WAVSS, spoke to the Albert and Logan News about a ceremony that was recently held at WAVSS.

"The event is to remember the women and children who have lost their lives to domestic violence

"It brought on a lot of tears - it was very real for us.''

The article went on to quote WAVSS team leader and senior counsellor Sylvia Vermaat's views on the effect of domestic violence on children.

"These children experience feelings of sadness, helplessness, anger, guilt and shame"

"A significant problem in relation to children and domestic violence is the child's powerlessness and vulnerability and their complete reliability on the adults in their lives to get it right."

The only mention of men came in the last sentence of the article's fact box.

"Men can also contact the Men's Information Line by phoning 1800 600 636."

The focus on women and children from the representatives of WAVSS led me to believe that it is an feminist organisation.  My suspicion was confirmed when I located the "About Us" page on the WAVSS website.

"WAVSS is a feminist organisation in that we focus on the needs of women and children."

The group's refusal to acknowledge women's role in perpetrating domestic violence against men and children suggests that they care not about children, but about their desire to marginalise men.  According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), women are the main perpetrators of child maltreatment.  A report from the AIHW, released in 2001-02, said the majority of children who are victims of child maltreatment come from single mother households.

Therefore, if the group cares about cihldren's welfare, then it'll reach out to the many children who are abused by women.


Original Link to News Story --

WAVSS Website --

Child Maltreatment Information --
I created a video about Catharine MacKinnon.  You can view it by clicking here.  Alternatively, you can view it by copying and pasting the following URL into the address bar of your browser.
Here is the URL to my latest Video.
Main / Video on Devious Feminists.
Jun 19, 2007, 05:37 AM

For a bit of fun I created a video about devious feminists.  You can see it by clicking here.
Main / -- I had a good laugh.
May 26, 2007, 11:01 PM
The feminazi's on are proving just how hysterical and ignorant they are of history.  They are lauding a graffitist who they think is a 'feminist rebelling against patriarchy'.  What the dumb cunts don't realise is the graffitist is a man who was playing a joke on radical feminists.  Anywhere, here is the message I left on their shithouse website:

MRO Owner Said: According to a member from the Cool Tools 4 Men Forum, the graffitist was a man. A cabal of insane feminist savages were planning on vandalising the graffitist's house.

What this goes to show is the devious feminist savages are quite adept at damaging property that they don't like, but they throw a tantrum, fall in a rage and bust the capillaries within their vulva's when some one does something that they don't like.

Even schizophrenic children have demonstrated that they can show more self-control that the contemptible feminists are able to muster. Why? Because women receive a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law advantage over men.

It has been this way for many centuries. Under Old English law, women received a large amount of legal impunity. When a woman violated the law, it was her husband who was required to answer for her actions.

Belfort Bax's documentation of 19th Century Law shows that women received a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege over men.

The bottom line: Women have never been oppressed in the Western World.[

As for all of those dumb cunts who thought the graffitist was a heroic feminazi. You should stop functioning entirely on emotion, as it limits your ability to observe and infer. At the moment you're limited to observing and drawing fallacious conclusions that suit your agenda.

Posted by: MRO Owner  | May 26, 2007 09:07 AM

All of my future comments on their site await moderation.  As a result, I doubt they will post the following comment I left on their site, as it exposes them in six ways to Sunday:
Charity Said: Yes, as already pointed out, women were considered property and they were beaten by their husbands on those fun occasions when they "transgressed" but, being inhuman, were not subjected to legal ramifications. Quite a position of advantage, there, MRO...or, you know, completely the opposite.


a reasonably stated, genuine, intellectually honest "dissenting view" and one that was crafted (poorly, incoherently, disingenuously, and historically inaccurately) for no other reason than to have an excuse to call women on a feminist web site "dumb cunts".

MRO Owner Says: If you bothered to study history, then you would realise that woman-battery was prohibited under Old English Law.  The following citation repudiates your claim in six ways to Sunday:

"The feminists/socialists are successful as they use fraudulent and immoral tactics to deceive their supporters into believing that they're an oppressed minority; even if they are the bulk of the entire population. Second-Wave-Feminists as well as the socialists who appeared at the Women's Convention at Seneca Falls, New York, USA in 1848 were able to gain a LOT of support by distorting the truth of the Old English Law, as doing so would allow them to convince the populace that there was a need for a legal reformation.

The socialists and feminists from the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries have tried to insinuate that the Old English Law allowed the men of society to batter their wives with legal impunity, however there is an abundance of evidence that proves the claim is a fallacy.

Official documents from the 18th Century have shown that the concept of *Wife-Battering* was prohibited in England and the USA. If a man were to batter his wife,then he would face prosecution from the state. The concept of *Old English Law* ensured that the husbands were required to answer for the misbehaviour of their wives, so the system allowed the men to use *moderate correction WITHOUT the usage of violence* in order to control the women from engaging in unlawful activity (IE. They were allowed to discipline their wives and children in a similar manner).

Punishments for wife-battering were severe, with some of the American states such as Maryland and Delaware enforcing the flagellation at the whipping post of any man who performed the act. Some of the other states issued heavy fines and imprisonment for the men who performed the act of *wife-battering*.

The feminists have tried to refer to the *Rule of Thumb* metaphor as the legalised battering of women, however the phrase does not even originate from the legal documents of the Old English Law system.

Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock stated the following: "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers ... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs."

According to Philip Hiscok, the phrase came into metaphorical usage by the late 17th Century.

Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a detailed editorial on the subject in her book "Who Stole Feminism?" (Simon & Schuster, New York 1994). An actual except from her book (Chapter 9 "Noble Lies" pp.203-208) can be viewed by Clicking Here."

As you can see, Charity's claim is factually fallacious.  Perhaps she should educate herself on history before she makes absurd statements.  In my opinion, she should be banned for being a hysterical cunt who uses false information to spread her agenda.  Then again, if she was banned for doing that, then the owners of this site would need to ban themselves, as they're guilty of doing the same thing.

Charity Said: So, I would hesitate to legitimate a troll like that as a "dissenting view". Just my two cents! And that's why I really feel we should not be afraid to ban such people - there are plenty of others who will have honest dissenting views and who will express them in coherent ways that assume the audience is human, and not merely collections of "icky" anatomical parts or receptacles for entitled, hateful nonsense-spurting.

MRO Owner Says: The feminazi's anger is derived from the fact I used factual evidence to repudiate her fallacious claim.  Her demand for me to be <i>banned</i> is merely her way of saying "this guy knows too much, we better ban him before he exposes us for being lying cunts".
Carbon copy judge quits

By Melanie Christiansen
December 18, 2006 11:00pm

Source: The Courier-Mail

BRISBANE-based federal magistrate Jennifer Rimmer has quit, nine months after being exposed as a plagiarist.

In a scandal that rocked the Federal Magistrates Court, The Courier-Mail revealed in March that Ms Rimmer had copied significant parts of three separate judgments without attribution.
At the time Ms Rimmer blamed her plagiarism on a thyroid condition and overwork. She has since been on sick leave from her $220,000 a year job.

In a statement yesterday, Chief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe said he met Ms Rimmer last week to discuss her continuing ill-health and yesterday she had submitted her resignation to the Governor-General.

Federal Liberal MP Michael Johnson welcomed Ms Rimmer's resignation, saying her failure to step down earlier had undermined respect for the court. "I think Ms Rimmer's place on the federal magistracy bench had become untenable," he said.

"The judiciary simply can't afford to carry someone lacking in either merit, independence or probity of character and plagiarism goes to merit."

Mr Johnson said the case highlighted the need for an improved process for dealing with any grave allegations against judges.

Labor's shadow attorney-general Kelvin Thomson has also called for a review of the way complaints against judges are handled, suggesting it should be the subject of parliamentary committee inquiry.

"I think there are potentially weaknesses in the system," Mr Thomson said. "There is very little in the way of processes for complaints against judges to come to the surface. Indeed it is principally the media raising issues that causes them to come to light, as occurred in this case."

Mr Thomson said a parliamentary committee also could look into professional development and training opport-unities for judges, as well as how the courts managed their growing workloads.

Australian Bar Association president Glenn Martin said he also was concerned that the Federal Magistrates Court was overworked.

"At the moment I know the magistrates are working much longer hours than they should," he said. "I know they are working 10 or 12 hours a day and some are working six days a week.

"That situation can't keep going forever. It's not in the interests of the people who appear before the magistrate, because you want someone who isn't exhausted, and it's not in the interest of the court to have its members risking their health."

Mr Martin said the government had begun appointing more federal magistrates, but much more was needed.
Working mothers are mugs

By Sue Dunlevy
December 15, 2006 12:00am


WORKING mothers are a bunch of mugs. That's the only conclusion I could reach after filling out the Government's 20-page childcare rebate claim form to find I'd save $1.20 a week off my childcare bills.

It was the first and only taxpayer-funded family welfare benefit I had ever applied for and I decided I would be insulting myself if I went ahead with my claim.

Last week a House of Representatives committee on work and family balance found that Australia's shambolic childcare subsidy system was the reason up to 20 per cent fewer mothers work in Australia than overseas.

And the families punished the most by this ridiculous system are those 640,000 middle income families who earn between $60,000 and $100,000 a year.

If the father in these households in Sydney earns the average wage of $1217.28 per week, it is not worth his wife going out to work.

She could earn $591.84 per week if she worked for three days at the average wage.

But after tax and childcare costs for two children are taken out of her wage and her family tax benefits are reduced because of her earnings, the family is only around $54 per week better off.

That's right, she gets to keep 9 per cent of her earnings.

And the reason she ends up with so little is that Government subsidies only cover about 15 per cent of her childcare bill.

If she waits another 18 months, she might be lucky enough to get the Government's 30 per cent childcare rebate, but a subsidy that turns up 18 months late is not much help when she's actually paying the childcare bills.

Proof of this is the fact that two thirds of the families eligible for this rebate, promised at the last election, haven't even applied for it.

The only reason most women using childcare are working is to keep a foot in the office door so they'll have a job when their kids reach school age and work becomes an economic proposition again.

The House of Representatives committee says the remedy is to make all childcare fees, including nanny wages, tax deductible.

And it has called for the fringe benefits tax to be removed from childcare so employers have an incentive to deduct childcare fees from their employees' income before tax.

Quite rightly, the report attacks a tax system that lets you salary package a mobile phone, a car and a laptop computer, but doesn't recognise childcare costs as a necessary work related expense.

Aegis Consulting, which gave evidence to the committee, has a model which shows that a working mother's tax and childcare bill could be slashed by up to $8000 a year if she were allowed to salary sacrifice her out-of-pocket childcare costs after receiving childcare benefit. This is based on a family income of $80,000 with two children in care.

It shows that the Government would make $586 million in extra taxes if such a move encouraged even a modest 50,000 extra women back into the workforce, as it did in Britain.

The Prime Minister's response to this inquiry is to claim that childcare costs are already close to fully tax deductible under his 30 per cent rebate system. Eighty per cent of taxpayers pay no more than 30c in the dollar tax, he says.

But what he and his Treasurer Peter Costello refuse to see is that their 30 per cent rebate, which turns up 18 months after you pay your childcare bills, is too late.

Childcare centres bill parents every fortnight or every month - they need their subsidies then, not 18 months down the track, and not as a lump sum once a year.

Removing the fringe benefits tax from employers who contribute their staff's childcare bills is much better than a simple childcare tax deduction.

It helps families on middle incomes, not just the super rich, who will be the only ones who will benefit from making childcare tax deductible.

Lower income earners, those families on less than $34,000 a year, are still likely to be better off under the current childcare benefit system.

This inquiry has defined the problem with the current system and suggested a range of solutions - but don't hold your breath waiting for action.

Daily Telegraph reader Mary Lou Carter this week asked what was the point of having women MPs if they didn't get off their bums to help working mothers?

The only times women MPs had crossed party lines to act as a group was on anti-family issues like abortion, she said.

"When do you think one of the many women in Parliament will see her way clear to bringing a private member's Bill with a view to easing the lot of working mothers of young children?" she wrote.

The woman's argument is based on the following points:

- - The childcare system is offered a 15% subsidy to the childcare system.  The subsidy is raised to 30% if the mother's child/ren have been in childcare for 18-months.  Apparently, the subsidy does not encourage childcare centres to lower the fee's they charge.

- - The amount of mothers who are active within the workforce has declined by 20%, as the childcare system is not subsidised enough to allow childcare to be a 'cheap enough' option for working women.

- - Most mothers are only working so that they can retain their office job.

- - Government has offered to make all childcare feels tax deductible.

- - If the father of the household earns the average wage, then it's not worthwhile for his wife to work.

- - Families earning $60,000-$100,000 a year are 'affected' the most by the current system.

- - Female MP's are not doing enough to correct the system.

- - Female MP's only 'band together' when they're working to enforce anti-family issues such as abortion.

The Chris Key Analysis:

The proposal does not aid or advance society, as it's intent is to help no one other than the 'career-women' who want to acquire their own wealth via a system that is funded by the tax-payer's money.
Main / Study on PTSD
Nov 24, 2006, 07:55 PM
Women Are Diagnosed With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder More Than Men, Says Research


Males experience more traumatic events on average than do females, yet females are more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), according to a review of 25 years of research reported in the November issue of Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

The authors reviewed 290 studies conducted between 1980 and 2005 to determine who is more at risk for potentially traumatic events (PTE) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) -- males or females? The results of the meta-analysis found that while males have a higher risk for traumatic events, women suffer from higher PTSD rates. PTSD is defined as an anxiety disorder precipitated by a traumatic event and characterized by symptoms of re-experiencing the trauma, avoidance and numbing and hyperarousal.

From the review, researchers David F. Tolin, PhD of the Institute of Living and Edna B. Foa, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that female study participants were more likely than male study participants to have experienced sexual assault and child sexual abuse, but less likely to have experienced accidents, nonsexual assaults, witness death or injury, disaster or fire and combat or war. Sexual trauma, the authors conclude, may cause more emotional suffering and are more likely to contribute to a PTSD diagnosis than other types of trauma.

Women's higher PTSD rates were not solely attributable to their higher risk for adult sexual assault and child sexual abuse, explained Tolin. PTSD rates were still higher for women even when both sexes were compared on the same type of trauma.

"PTSD may be diagnosed more in women in part because of the criteria used to define it. Cognitive and emotional responses to traumatic events make a diagnosis of PTSD more likely. So even though men may experience more traumas, they don't seem to have the same emotional responses to traumatic events," said Tolin and Foa.

Furthermore, according to the authors, those participants who experienced multiple traumas may be more vulnerable to re-experiencing old PTSD symptoms when confronted with a new trauma. For example, if one studies male and female survivors of a motor vehicle accident, typically the female accident victims report more PTSD symptoms than do the male accident victims. "However, the data suggest that the female victims will have brought to the table a much greater risk of abuse and sexual assault prior to the accident; this could place them at higher risk of developing PTSD after the accident even though the current accident may not have caused all the symptoms," said Tolin.

These findings were consistent regardless of the population and age examined and the type of study and assessment tool used.

A reason that men may not fit the current diagnosable criteria of PTSD, said Tolin, is that their symptoms may manifest themselves differently. The male participants examined in this review were less likely to report anxiety or depression, but were more likely to report behavior and drug problems. They were also more likely to become irritable, angry or violent after traumas.

Understanding that responses to trauma can vary from person to person will help better determine if a person has experienced a trauma, said Tolin. An example of how subjective trauma symptoms can be illustrated in research investigating the traumatic effects of 9/11 terrorist attacks. Quite a few studies showed that participants' distance from ground zero was directly related to the likelihood of experiencing severe PTSD symptoms. But, said Tolin, "People from all over the U.S. could technically have been classified in research as having 'experienced' a terrorist attack just by watching it on TV. This is a major problem for trauma research because it's hard to determine whether someone has really been traumatized or not."

"Simple checklists or short interviews are insufficient for assessing trauma and this is what is used most in these types of situations. More thorough assessments are needed to know if someone will suffer long-lasting symptoms from an accident, attack or disaster," said the authors.

'Exposure therapy' is the most effective treatment of phobic disorders.  Men are required to 'expose' themselves to their fears, as failure to do so will often lead to their shunning by women and other men.  Women on the otherhand are allowed to 'hide' from their fears, as men tend to be protective, supportive and understanding of 'women who are distressed'.  Therefore, the extra privilege and pampering that women receive could be a hinderance to them, as it more or less prevents them from 'confronting' and 'understanding' their fears.

A review of the Human immune system may explain the results from the study.  In order for a person's immune system to develop a resistence towards a strain of influenza, then the former needs to be exposed to the latter.  Therefore, a person who is exposed to influenza will develop some resistence towards it, while a person who is sheltered and isolated will not.

In other words, the 'chivalrous' men may be burdening women, as the actions of the former may prevent the latter from developing a 'resistence' towards the harshness of the real world.
Main / An article about female sex offenders.
Nov 16, 2006, 07:26 AM
Why Female Sex Offenders Generate So Much Less Outrage Than Males

By Bryan Robinson


Sept. 30, 2004 -- Mary Kay Letourneau's plans to marry the former student she was convicted of sexually assaulting when he was just 12 years old are shocking, but have generated relatively little public outrage.

After serving seven years for child rape for having sex with a former student -- and having two children with him -- Letourneau, 42, has reunited with Vili Fualaau, now 21. They are said to be very much in love, and both have said publicly that they plan to marry.

If Letourneau had been a man and Fualaau a female student, residents of Burien, Wash., likely would have protested when the former teacher moved in following her release from prison in August. Letourneau was obliged to register as a sex offender, and her case is very well known. But few people showed up at a neighborhood meeting announcing her move to the community.

There were complaints at the meeting, but those were about the 27 other registered sex offenders -- all male -- who already lived in the same ZIP code area. One Burien resident said she had no problem with Letourneau moving next door to her because "she's not a threat to my kids."

The lack of outrage surrounding Letourneau's case, some believe, illustrates the differences in how male and female sex offenders -- and their victims -- are perceived.

"Maybe it has more to do with who the victims are, as opposed to the perpetrators," said Lawrence Driscoll, professor of criminal justice at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia. "As a society in general, we tend to be more protective of females. It's like [society believes] boys will be boys but we have to take care of the girls."

In addition, young boys' crushes on older females -- such as baby sitters and teachers -- are often treated with a humor and levity not easily found when girls, especially teens, develop crushes on male authority figures.

"When a boy develops a crush on his female teacher, there's a certain amount of laughter. 'Ha, ha, ha. Look who has a secret crush' kind of thing," said Keith Durkin, associate professor of sociology at Ohio Northern University.

"But let me tell you, if there's a male teacher spending an awful lot of time alone with a female student, you can bet there's going to be a lot of people walking by the classroom to make sure nothing inappropriate is going on."

More Than About Sex

Perhaps the rarity of female-on-male sex assault cases fuels their shock value and dulls the sense of outrage.

Male sex offenders, some argue, invite more disgust because their cases are much more common. Men may be still perceived as aggressors while women may be viewed as nurturers -- the unlikeliest sex offenders. According to a 2000 report by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, 96 percent of the sex assaults reported involved male perpetrators.

Women were most commonly involved in sex abuse cases involving victims under age 6, making up 12 percent of those offenders. Women were involved in 3 percent of the sex cases involving victims age 6 through 12, and 3 percent for victims ages 13 through 17.

Criminologists have not been able to create a profile of female sex offenders because of their rarity. However, some say female sex offenders, like their male counterparts, are often in positions of power -- such as teachers or baby sitters -- when they become involved with their victims.

And female sex offenders are often in troubled adult relationships when they become intimate with their victims, and are driven by more than sex, experts say.

Letourneau has said her marriage with her husband was crumbling when she first became involved with Fualaau, who was 12 years old at the time. Debra Lafave, the Florida teacher charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor, was still a newlywed but was having trouble in her marriage when she allegedly had sex with a 14-year-old student.

"In their minds, both Lafave and Letourneau believed that they were in relationships.

They were talking to their alleged victims like girl would talk to her boyfriend," said Durkin. "According to court papers, Lafave drove her alleged victim to McDonald's, they went to a Smoothie King, she told him how she was buying an iPod with a credit card her husband had given her. She was talking to him about the kind of things that couples would talk about.

"One thing both male and female sex offenders have in common is they have no sense of boundaries. They're often isolated. They don't often have a lot of meaningful age-appropriate relationships, friends that could rein them in," Durkin continued. "Or they don't have any age-appropriate relationships at all."

Still, some experts say, abuse cases involving male victims and female perpetrators may be underreported because of the societal attitudes and myths surrounding boys' sexual development. A sexual assault on a boy by an older female may be misconstrued as a "rite of passage."

"In society, it used to be that with a 13- or 14-year-old male, if his first sexual experience involved a 25-year-old girl who may well have taken advantage of him, his male counterparts may say, 'Hey, you lucked out,' " said Dr. Richard Gartner, who has treated male sex-abuse victims, in a past interview. "It was almost seen as a rite of passage.

"That's the only group that later recalls such experiences as 'lucking out,' " said Gartner. "You don't find that in females."

The Shadow of Notoriety

As for Letourneau and Fualaau, they are moving on with their lives. Letourneau has said she is trying to launch a new career, perhaps in legal research. Both Letourneau and Fualaau have said they hope people will be able to accept their relationship -- and maybe the public has, since they've been involved for eight years and are now both adults.

"They're now both seen as adults in a consenting relationship and perhaps people have grown to accept their relationship and moved on," said Driscoll, the Wheeling Jesuit professor.

But lack of public outrage aside, the relationship between Letourneau and Fualaau may never escape its scandalous origins, and skeptics will wonder how consensual it really is.

"Yes, he [Fualaau] is an adult legally," said Durkin. "But you wonder whether his view of Letourneau was colored by his experience of her as a child."