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 - Roy

This will never be published, because Dr. Evil has programmed my posts, after "welcoming me back to SYG" to APPEAR as if they are being published, but he has decided that I am amusing enough to play with for a while.

Cute little ruse Dr. Evil.

Post replies without replies.... ever.

If I wasn't working 60 hours a week I would have noticed it three days ago.

You are in fact Dr. Evil.

I cannot imagine the lack of self-esteem that could inhabit a soulless shell like your ummmm "self."

What a sad, sad man.



(Now, if I were you, I would publish all my past few posts.... and do some silly infantile editing to make it look like I was actually posted after your "amnesty" appeal.

You know what's really funny?

You passed on one of the best allies you might have ever had.

My final advice to you is a pop cliche' ----

"Wherever you go, there you are..."

Over and out, Dr. E!!!!
I try to keep up with N.O.W. Prezident Kim Gandy's frequent personal commentary columns, seductively titled Below the Belt.  :shock:

But I missed a recent Thanksgiving week-end one where Commander-Go-Girl wrote -

Women in this country have a higher opinion of the women's movement now than ever before --

a recent CBS News poll found that fully 69% of women say the movement has made their lives better, up 45 percentage points since 1983!

At this time of year, and after more nearly four decades of NOW, it sure is nice to know that lots of women are giving thanks for the work you and we are doing together.

And lest you think it's just them, let me end on a note of personal thanks.

In addition to my wonderful family, what I am most grateful for this year is you.

All of you.

Your hard work and dedication keeps me going. Yes, we still have a long way to go, but once in a while it's also nice to remember how far we've come. Together, we have changed the culture, we have changed our world.

And that is something for which we can all be truly thankful.

Now, I have come to expect that Kim PropaGandy seldom provides references or links to the data she quotes.

So, I looked up the CBS poll she cites. Here's a bit more data and a link to the full monty:

According to a CBS News Poll conducted this past May, an overwhelming majority of women say their opportunities to succeed in life are better than the opportunities their mothers had -- and most credit the women's movement for making their lives better.

But while nearly all women say the status of women has gotten better in this country, they are divided as to whether there is still a need for a strong women's movement.

Even though many women value the achievements the women's movement has made, most are reluctant to call themselves a feminist outright.

Just a quarter of women say they consider themselves a feminist;
70 percent do not. These numbers have changed little over the years.

The low numbers of self-described feminists may have more to do with the feminist label than with views on goals of the women's movement.

Even though most women (64 percent) consider the word "feminist" a neutral term, they are a bit more likely to think of it as an insult, rather than a compliment.

Women are divided .... on whether there is still a need for a strong women's movement. Today, 48 percent say a strong women's movement is still needed, while 45 percent say that most of the goals of the women's movement have been met.

Of course, I've put my own "spin" on this issue by editing IN the stats that Ms. Gandy edited OUT with her typical feminist deference to objectivity, diversity of opinion, and MANipulation of her audience.

I found the poll's observation that women are divided especially heartening, since this suggests that women are increasingly behaving like real adults, instead of the lock-step infantilized feministas that Kim Gandy would like to believe she is "leading."

There's lots more context in the complete survey, link above.

(So, how can an outfit like N.O.W. claiming an unverified membership of 500,000 paying members -- a statistically trivial percentage of American women -- continue to wield so much influence? )
TB is now appending to all of her posts with a web site link called "Black and Blue Triangle --

I believe this must violate some rules on SYG against promoting one's personal commercial profiteering, but maybe I'm off base.

TB's introductory splash page text (see immediately below) makes numerous generalizations about men, women, gender, and maybe even puppies.

It's hard to tell, and I have serious reservations about exploring this web site further than the splash page.

For the more courageous among us, here you go ---  

Black and Blue Triangle : Sexuality and Men's Rights

BBT was created as a place for men(and women) of all sexual orientations and those who deny sexual orientation to discuss western society's devaluing, demonizing, and politicization of men's sexuality and physicality.

And how that treatment relates to social attitudes towards men as a whole.

Black and Blue Triangle is for you if you've ever wondered...

***Why western women display and enjoy far more physical and emotional intimacy with their same-sex friends then men

***Why Christians have historically persecuted same-sex sexual behavior in men far more severely and frequently then the equivalent in women when both are "against nature

"***Why Will, who is supposed to be gay, allows Grace to treat him like a feelings maxi-pad(he doesn't even get sex from that wound-tight drama queen)

***Why the west is the only society that has ever developed a system of categorizing men based on the gender of the individuals they desire

***Why feminism coincided with the creation of said system of categorization of men

***Why homosexual men in the west show less physical affection for each other then supposedly straight men in most every other culture

***Why a man's friendships must always be a source of contemptuous humor

***Who really is served by homophobia

***Why a patriarchy like ours would consider men's genitalia disgusting and unsightly while reserving the highest praise for female

***Why manhood revolves around women, either desiring women sexually and/or providing for them physically

***Why so many men seem to go out of their way to help women and hurt men

Or if you're...

***A gay man who is beginning to question if feminists really are friends.

***A man whose actions defy the western system of sexual categorization.

***A straight man who wishes there was more room for non-sexual intimacy between men in our society.

*** Frustrated at the manginas in western society who are retarding the progress of Men's Rights.

*** Curious to take a peek behind the lace curtain.

***And anybody else who's interested in discussions on sexual power and value systems and how they shape society...  

Please note that the site requires "authorization" to view --


For the really hard, slippery topics. **Needs authorization to post/view so send your friendly Admin a PM if you want access**


I hope SYG has a really good attorney, because this looks like a set-up to me!
Fatherhood is being redefined and "enhanced" by this Australian feminist researcher who wants men to be "assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way..." particularly if he is not the sperm donor who actually fathered the child.

(In essence, this piece argues that when you look up the definition of "cuckhold" in Webster's dictionary, it will read "antiquated term no longer permitted; see total victory of feminist DoubleThink (also deleted and incorrect.)

The so-called "research" is an exquisite example of feminist logic --- blaming men who feel a tad bit uneasy about having to support children that they did not sire, and at the same time exonerating women who practice paternity fraud because the oppressed gals experience "moral panic."    (That's gotta be the funniest feminist stand-up line yet! As in -- "my thong got way too aggressive and I felt some moral panic!)

This may be the loopiest piece of feminist research ever, but I guess that means it predicts what's coming next in the never-ending assault against men and fathers.

If anyone at SYG can explain what the research offers for men and dads, it would contribute to a very thankful post-Thanksgiving week-end.

(Just a few titillating excerpts; link to complete piece below ---)

The behaviour of women who society charges with infidelity and sluttishly having more than one partner - while posing in the community as "good" wives and mothers - is depicted as morally indefensible. Turney says: "They encapsulate not only female sexuality out of control but also a view of women as predatory, deceptive and instrumental." ... (duh?)

The difficulty is not the return of DNA results that show a social father is not a biological one, but the return of such results to a man who did not know there was any doubt about his partner's sexual fidelity and his genetic paternity. The trouble is the discrepancy between what men believe is the case about their partner's fidelity and genetic paternity, and the reality. ... (Feminists have never been big on cognitive dissonance, another Evil Patriarchal social construction...)

What all this should make clear is that the current child-support payment system, which assigns payment obligations on the basis of biological paternity, not parenting commitment, is tragically flawed. Regardless of whether the father suspected, knew or had no idea that the child he was parenting was genetically unrelated, and notwithstanding however culpable his female partner's behaviour was in creating that situation, the law needs to recognise and affirm men's value to children as parents - and people - not sperm donors. ...  (This woman may well be the best ideological propagandist since Joseph Goebbels!)

Of course, rejecting mandatory paternity testing at birth does not mean that men should not be assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way. Upon the birth of a child, men ought to be given the opportunity to give one-time-only non-rescindable consent to their acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. If they feel unable to sign on the dotted line without conclusive proof that they are the biological progenitor, they should be offered a DNA test free of charge. ... (Oh, free is always good! But wait....)

However, once a man does formally accept social and legal responsibility for a child - either with knowledge of their genetic paternity or in the face of a fully informed waiver of that knowledge - their status as the child's legal father should rightly be set in stone. No DNA skeletons rattling out of the cupboards at a later date should affect what they legally owe their child or, hopefully, how they feel about the kid who calls him dad.
(Ah yes! Feelings will now become legally mandated under the new VAWA '05 order!)

Enjoy the full dimensia at --

Secrets and lies
By Saturday essay, Leslie Cannold
November 26, 2005

Or link from Men's News Daily's "Sex and Metropolis" column at --
In a newly published op-blurb on her i-am-still-a-feminist web site, Wendy McElroy opines about the PBS "Breaking the Silence" mock-doc controversy, and comes up with the conclusion that the real tragedy was that --

... the producers of "Breaking the Silence" made an egregious error in casting a physically abusive mother as a wronged heroine.

Note that she bobs and weaves around every salient point involving the now proven facts of the program's smearing of fathers, distortions of the child custody issues, and the dismissal of Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Like a true iFeminist, she semi-skillfully avoids taking any actual stand about this blatant example of feminist propaganda and its shilling by PBS.

Is it just me, or is Wendy's writing starting to resemble a kind of local radio weather report where the weather bunny looks out the window and earnestly proclaims that today it's gonna be cloudy?

(McElroy's piece -- )

PBS Film Controversy Continues
November 23, 2005
by Wendy McElroy, [email protected]

The Public Broadcasting Service documentary "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories" portrayed Sadiya (Sadia) Alilire as a heroic mom who was abused by her husband.

Two controversial questions persist. Did producers ignore the extensive court records with which they were provided on Alilire's multiple abuse of her two daughters -- then aged 8 and 3? Is PBS demonstrating bias against fathers?

The tension surrounding these questions is heightening.

On Nov. 7, Dr. Scott Loeliger (the accused father) wrote to Pat Mitchell, President and CEO of PBS, to "demand that you immediately cease and desist from rebroadcasting all programs and advertisements relating to "Breaking the Silence."

Loeliger's reason: "the numerous false and defamatory statements about me."

On Nov. 11, PBS' Vice President of Communications Lea Sloan replied that the matter "is currently being reviewed by our legal department." PBS Director of Corporate Communications Jan McNamara had confirmed earlier that the accuracy of "Breaking the Silence" was under an "official review"; PBS stated it anticipated its review would be concluded within 30 days as of Nov. 8.

Meanwhile newspaper columnist Glenn Sacks announced "Round Three" of a campaign to convince publicly funded PBS to air both sides of issues raised by "Breaking the Silence." According to Sacks, Round Two resulted in over 10,000 protest calls and emails from the "Sackson Hordes" to PBS.
Round Three is aimed at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the funding of public television.

"We want PBS to provide fatherhood and shared parenting advocates a meaningful opportunity to present our side," said Sacks, explaining the campaign's goal. So far, PBS Houston has responded with an even-handed round-table discussion on its news analysis show, The Connection.

The blogosphere is also buzzing. Liberal feminist Trish Wilson has posted the accounts of both Alilire and her daughter Fatima, the child whom "Breaking the Silence" features.

Both sides should be heard -- and giving children a voice is particularly commendable -- but Wilson contends that attacks on Alilire are based on "outdated court documents." This charge is an odd one. If Alilire was, in fact, found liable for multiple counts of child abuse on Aug. 19, 1998, then -- unless the court finding has been overturned -- it is neither outdated nor up-to-date. The finding simply is, although additional information may provide some insight.

Perhaps in response to accusations, Sacks recently posted the formerly withheld smoking gun: the judgment on Case No. 97-048856 of the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare, Juvenile Court.

In that judgment, Fatima and her younger sister became dependents of the juvenile court under Section 300, subdivisions a, b, c & j, of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The codes require a finding either of actual abuse (physical and emotional) and neglect, or of the risk of abuse and neglect. Alilire claims the court actually found that she "threw a shoe at Fatima" and "spanked her with a plastic coat hanger." She denies both charges.

There is an undeniable "he said/she said" aspect to the potential scandal that threatens the credibility of PBS. But the "he said/she said" scenario breaks down in the presence of documents that include far more than the Juvenile Court papers.

It includes the rulings of two judges on separate occasions, 1991 and 2003; the report of a child abuse investigator for Tehama County; the arrest of Alilire in 1989 for felony domestic violence against Loeliger; and, the custody evaluation conducted by a clinical psychologist for the Superior Court of Monterey County.

If Fatima's voice is to be heeded -- and I sincerely hope it is -- then her earlier accounts must also be taken seriously, especially since they were independently investigated and verified.

In the furor of accusations and counterclaims that may well occur, and soon, it is wise to state what I believe the controversy is not about.
It is not about whether Loeliger is a good father. I don't have information to make that judgment but I suspect both parties behaved badly toward Fatima at different points.

It is not about Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), upon which much attention has been focused. The syndrome, by which custodial parents are said to systematically alienate children from non-custodial ones (overwhelmingly fathers), is heralded by shared custody advocates; it was targeted for debunking by "Breaking the Silence."

I don't subscribe to PAS as a psychiatric category.

So what is the controversy about?

Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young, who also covered the film on her blog, got it right.

"It looks to me like the PBS documentary has taken a very complicated and messy situation in which both parents are at fault (though the mother is the only one with a fairly clear record of physical violence), and transformed it into a melodrama about a villainous father and a wronged mother," she said. "And this melodrama is put into the service of a narrative that vilifies fathers, most explosively suggesting that the majority of fathers who seek custody of their children are abusers. And that's just wrong."

I believe the producers of "Breaking the Silence" made an egregious error in casting a physically abusive mother as a wronged heroine.

"Breaking the Silence" may well contribute to misinformation on domestic violence and its impact upon children. And that is shameful.

Copyright 2005 Wendy McElroy.

The always urgent gals at the National Organization for Women are either frontin' or they are really in a panic that Congress is going to let the Violence Against Women Act expire.

I "urge" all fair-minded persons to use the phone numbers listed below to dial up and register your opinion that VAWA be allowed to die a timely death.

The $5 billion dollars VAWA '05 demands would be best redirected to real social problems; something other than institutionalized misandry and further funding for family destruction.

(The original blurb from NOW) ---

Take Action on the Violence Against Women Act

Congress went home last week and failed to finalize the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

It will not be easy to convene a conference committee and come to an agreement about what the final VAWA2005 should look like. But it is not impossible.

Both the House and the Senate will return for a short time in December and the leadership must hear from us that we expect them to get VAWA's differences worked out and passed!

If you haven't done so already, please sign the VAWA petition urging Congressional leaders to pass VAWA NOW! Forward this appeal to your colleagues and coalition partners as well, because we will be delivering the final batch of petitions to Congress the week of December 5 and need as many signatures as possible.

We currently have almost 10,000 signatures with names from every state. Good job!

Call the offices of the House and Senate leadership with this simple message: Add passing VAWA to your December agenda and get it passed before services are reduced and programs are eliminated. Women, children and families are relying on you.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn), 202-224-3135
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill), 202-225-0600
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), 202-224-5556
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal), 202-225-0100
Send an email to your Senators and Representative asking them to help expedite this process.

PS -- NOW boasts nearly 10,000 signatures for their petition. NOW publicly states its membership as 500,000 women. That means, by my simple Patriarchal math, that 490,000 of their members could give a shit.
Main / Back to Basics: Male Privilege
Nov 20, 2005, 04:52 PM
What does SYG actually stand for?

It's a convivial neighborhood, thankfully; where good friends and good enemies can have a good debate and inform one another about issues that relate to the gender wars.

But, underlying all this polite chit-chat is an ideology.

Or, the resistance to an ideology.

I love definitions.

Because we almost always fall for them.

I learned at the age of 3 that if you can define the situation, you can dominate the discourse.

(I got my ball back, and fuck you very much, Uncle Bill!)

So, what exactly does Stand Your Ground mean?

What do the people who post here and support this site have in common?

Is there any kind of SYG "identity?"
I was doing some research about feminism as a social malady when I came across an insightful piece about Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

After reading the original article (link below), I thought it might be fun to use the "change/change all" text tools in MS Word to see how this piece might read if gender-specific words were reversed (his=her, etc.) and Narcissism = Feminism.

Here is the result -- inexcusably lengthy, but maybe worth a five-minute glance.

Apologies to the author, who never thought his piece would be sampled and morphed by MRAs.

Feminism FAQ #6: The Spouse / Mate / Partner of the Feminist
Sam Vaknin, PhD

What kind of a spouse/mate/partner is likely to be attracted to a Feminist?

On the face of it, there is no (emotional) partner or mate, who typically "binds" with a Feminist. They come in all shapes and sizes. The initial phases of attraction, infatuation and falling in love are pretty normal. The Feminist is putting on her best face - the other party is blinded by budding love. A natural selection process occurs only much later, as the relationship develops and is put to the test.

Living with a Feminist can be exhilarating, is always onerous, often harrowing. Surviving a relationship with a Feminist indicates, therefore, the parameters of the personality of the survivor. He is molded by the relationship into The Typical Feministic Mate/Partner/Spouse.

First and foremost, the Feminist's partner must have a deficient or a distorted grasp of his self and of reality. Otherwise, he (or she) is bound to abandon the Feminist's precarious ship early on. The distortion is likely to belittle and demean the partner - while aggrandizing and adoring the Feminist.

The partner is, thus, placing himself in the position of the eternal victim: undeserving, punishable, a scapegoat. Sometimes, it is very important to the partner to appear moral, sacrificial and victimized. At other times, he is not even aware of his  predicament.

The Feminist is perceived by the partner to be a person in the position to demand these sacrifices from the partner, superior in many ways (intellectually, emotionally, morally, financially).

The status of professional victim sits well with the partner's tendency to punish himself, namely: with his masochistic streak. The torment, which is a life with a Feminist is a just, punitive measure.

In this respect, the partner is the mirror image of the Feminist. By maintaining a symbiotic relationship with her, by being totally dependent upon the source of masochistic supply (which the Feminist most reliably constitutes and most amply provides) - the partner enhances certain traits and encourages certain behaviors, which are at the very core of Feminism.

A Feminist is never whole without an adoring, submissive, available, self-denigrating partner. Her very sense of superiority, indeed her False Self, depends on it. Her sadistic Super-Ego directs itself at the partner, thus finally obtaining a legitimate source of satisfaction (which does not endanger the very existence of the Feminist).

It is through self-denial that the partner survives. He denies his wishes, hopes, dreams, aspirations, sexual needs, psychological needs, material needs, everything, which might engender the wrath of the Feminist Godess-like supreme figure. The Feminist is rendered even more superior through and because of his self-denial.

It is easy to explain self-denial undertaken to facilitate and ease the life of a Great Woman. The Greater the Woman (= the Feminist), the easier it is for the partner to ignore his Self, to dwindle, to degenerate, to turn into an appendix of the Feminist and, finally, to become nothing but an extension, to merge with the Feminist to the point of oblivion and of dim memories of one's Self.

The two collaborate in their macabre dance. The Feminist is formed by her partner inasmuch as he forms her. Submission breeds superiority and masochism breeds sadism inasmuch as the reverse is true.

The relationships are characterized by rampant emergentism: roles are allocated almost from the start and any deviation meets with an aggressive, even violent reaction.

The predominant chord in the partner's mind is utter, unadulterated confusion. Even the most basic relationships - with wife, children, or parents - remain bafflingly obscured by the giant shadows cast by the intensive interaction with the Feminist.

A suspension of judgment is part and parcel of a suspension of individuality, which is both a prerequisite to and the result of living with a Feminist. The partner no longer knows what is true and right and what is wrong and forbidden.

The Feminist recreates for the partner the sort of emotional ambience that led to her formation in the first place: capriciousness, fickleness, arbitrariness, emotional (and physical or sexual) abandonment. The world becomes uncertain and frightening and the partner has only one sure thing to cling to: the Feminist.

And cling he does. If there is anything which can safely be said about those who emotionally team up with Feminists, it is that they are overtly and overly dependent, even compulsively so.

The partner doesn't know what to do - and this is only too natural in situations of conflict, as any relationship with a Feminist is. But the typical partner also does not know what he wants and, to a large extent, who he is and what he wants to become. A lack of answers to these questions is serious.

It is serious because it hampers the partner's ability to gauge reality, evaluate and appraise it for what it is. His primordial sin is that he fell in love with an image, not with a real person. It is the voiding of the image that is mourned when the relationships end.

The break-up of a relationship with a Feminist is, therefore, more emotionally charged than usual. It is the culmination of a long chain of humiliations and of subjugation. It is the rebellion of the functioning and healthy parts of the partner's personality against the tyranny of the Feminist.

The partner is bound to have totally misread and misinterpreted the whole interaction (I hesitate to call it a relationship, usually there was none but in the aspirations and the hopes of the partner). The lack of proper interface with reality might be (erroneously) labeled "pathological".

Why is it that the partner seeks to prolong his pain? What is the source and purpose of his masochistic streak? In all likelihood, the partner is an inverted Feminist, a suppressed one, or a latent one - in the limited sense that his psychological make-up and formation are identical to those of the Feminist.

His deep-rooted, deep-seated identity fosters the frequent follies-a-deux which is the Feministic couple. Upon the break-up of the relationship, the partner (and the Feminist) engage in a tortuous and drawn out post mortem.

But the question who really did what to whom (and even why) is irrelevant. What is relevant is to stop mourning oneself (this is what the parties are really mourning), start smiling again and love in a less subservient, hopeless, and pain-inflicting manner.


Abuse is an integral, inseparable part of the Feministic Personality Disorder.

The feminist idealizes and then DEVALUES and discards the object of her initial idealization. Her abrupt, heartless devaluation IS abuse. ALL feminists idealize and then devalue. This is THE core of pathological feminism.

The feminist exploits, lies, insults, demeans, ignores (the "silent treatment"), manipulates, controls. All these are forms of abuse.

There are a million ways to abuse. To love too much is to abuse. It is tantamount to treating someone as an extension, an object, or an instrument of gratification. To be over-protective, not to respect privacy, to be brutally honest, or consistently tactless - is to abuse.

To expect too much, to denigrate, to ignore - are all modes of abuse. There is physical abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse. The list is long. Feminists are masters of abusing surreptitiously. They are "stealth abusers". You have to actually live with one in order to witness the abuse.

There are three important categories of abuse:

OVERT ABUSE - The open and explicit abuse of another person. Threatening, coercing, beating, lying, berating, demeaning, chastising, insulting, humiliating, exploiting, ignoring ("silent treatment"), devaluing, unceremoniously discarding, verbal abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse are all forms of overt abuse.


Feminism is almost entirely about control. It is a primitive and immature reaction to life circumstances in which the feminist (usually in her childhood) was rendered helpless. It is about re-exerting one's identity, re-establishing predictability, mastering the environment - human and physical.

The bulk of feministic behaviors can be traced to her panicky reaction to the remote potential for loss of control. Feminists are hypochondriacs (and difficult patients) because they are afraid to lose control over their body, its looks and its proper functioning. They are obsessive-compulsive in an effort to subdue their physical habitat and render it foreseeable. They stalk people and harass them as a means of "being in touch" - another form of feministic control.

But why the panic?

The feminist is a solipsist. She carries the whole universe in her mind. To her, nothing exists except herself. Meaningful others are her extensions, assimilated by her, internal objects - not external ones.

Thus, losing control of a significant other - is equivalent to the loss of control of a limb, or of one's brain. It is terrifying. It is paradigm-shattering.

Independent or disobedient people evoke in the feminist the realization that something is wrong with her worldview, that she is not the center of the world or its cause and that she cannot control what, to her, are internal representations.

To the feminist, losing control means going insane. Because other people are mere elements in the feminist's mind - being unable to manipulate them literally means losing it (her mind). Imagine, if you suddenly were to find out that you cannot manipulate your memories or control your thoughts... Nightmarish!

Moreover, it is often only through manipulation and extortion that the feminist can secure her feministic supply. Controlling her sources of feministic supply is a (mental) life or death question for the feminist. The feminist is a drug addict (her drug being the FS) and he would go to any length to obtain the next dose.

In her frantic efforts to maintain control or re-assert it, the feminist resorts to a myriad of fiendishly inventive stratagems and mechanisms.

Here is a partial list:


The feminist acts unpredictably, capriciously, inconsistently and irrationally. This serves to demolish in others their carefully crafted worldview. They become dependent upon the next twist and turn of the feminist, her next inexplicable whim, upon her next outburst, denial, or smile.
Because she is assumed to be the only one intimately acquainted with her self - she becomes the source of certitude and veracity. In other words: the feminist makes sure that SHE is the only reliable existence in the lives of others - by shattering the rest of their world through her seemingly insane behavior. She guarantees her stable presence in their lives - by destabilizing their own.


One of the favorite tools of manipulation in the feminist's arsenal is the disproportionality of her reactions. She reacts with supreme rage to the slightest slight.

Or she would punish severely for what she perceives to be an offence against her, no matter how minor.

Or, she would throw a temper tantrum over any discord or disagreement, however gently and considerately expressed. or, she would act inordinately attentive, charming and tempting (even over-sexed, if need be).

The ever-shifting code of conduct coupled with the inordinately harsh and arbitrarily applied "penal code" are both of the feminist's design and unbeknownst to the "offenders". Neediness and dependence on the source of all justice meted - on the feminist - are thus guaranteed.


People have a need to believe in the empathic skills and basic good-heartedness of others. By dehumanizing and objectifying people - the feminist attacks the very foundations of the social treaty.

This is the "alien" aspect of feminists - they may be excellent imitations of fully formed adults but they are emotionally non-existent, or, at best, immature.

This is so horrid, so repulsive, so phantasmagoric - that people recoil in terror. It is then, with their defenses absolutely down, that they are the most susceptible and vulnerable to the Feminist's control. Physical, psychological, verbal and sexual abuse are all forms of dehumanization and objectification.


From the first moments of an encounter with another person, the feminist is on the prowl. She collects information with the intention of applying it to extract feministic supply.

The more she knows about her potential source of supply - the better able she is to coerce, manipulate, charm, extort or convert it "to the cause".

The feminist does not hesitate to abuse the information she gleaned, regardless of its intimate nature or the circumstances in which she obtained it. This is a powerful tool in her armory.


The feminist engineers impossible, dangerous, unpredictable, unprecedented, or highly specific situations in which she will be sorely needed.

The feminist, her knowledge, her skills or her traits become the only ones applicable, or the most useful to resolving them. The feminist contrives her own indispensability. It is a form of control by proxy.


If all else fails, the feminist recruits friends, colleagues, mates, family members, the authorities, institutions, neighbors - in short, third parties - to do her bidding.

She uses these them to cajole, coerce, threaten, stalk, offer, retreat, tempt, convince, harass, communicate and otherwise manipulate her target.

She controls these unaware instruments exactly as she plans to control her ultimate prey. She employs the same mechanisms and devices. And she dumps her props unceremoniously when the job is done.
Another form of control by proxy is to engineer situations in which abuse is inflicted upon another person.

Such carefully crafted scenarios involve embarrassment and humiliation as well as social sanctions (condemnation, opprobrium, or even physical punishment). Society, or a social group become the instruments of the feminist.


The fostering, propagation and enhancement of an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, instability, unpredictability and irritation. There are no acts of traceable explicit abuse, nor any manipulative settings of control.

Yet, the irksome feeling remains, a disagreeable foreboding, a premonition, a bad omen. This is sometimes called "gaslighting".

In the long term, such an environment erodes one's sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Self-confidence is shaken badly.

Often, the victims adopts a paranoid or schizoid stance and thus renders himself or herself exposed even more to criticism and judgment.

The roles are thus reversed: the victim is considered the mentally disordered component of the dyad and the feminist - the suffering soul.

(See Articles > List Alphabetically > Narcissism FAQ's)
My e-mail was graced by a frantic appeal from the ever-appealing Allison at

It seems that some feminists are starting to really worry that VAWA will be allowed to expire through the end-of-session fatigue of Congress.

My personal belief is that it will pass, because there's not a Congress"man" on the floor who would wish to defend his lack of support for VAWA.

Allison, on the other hand, needs some relief from her near-constant state of "urgency."  

Urgent Action Alert  -- 11/15/05 -- Please Forward

Don't Let Congress Adjourn for the Year without Reauthorizing VAWA!

Congress must finish work on VAWA **NOW** or risk never passing the bill!

The two Violence Against Women Act bills passed by the House and Senate earlier this year were very different from each other, and Congress must resolve the differences between the two bills before VAWA can be reauthorized.  Congress may recess for the year at the end of the this week.  If they return in December to finish any other business, it will only be for a day or two.

Your calls over the last week and a half have WORKED.  In response to your calls, House and Senate staff began negotiations on the bill and it began to move forward.  You are being heard!

But we still need you -- now more than ever!

There is a grave danger that Congress will not finish the bill this year, or will agree to a watered-down bill that is missing many key protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence.

***If VAWA is not passed and signed into law this year, funding for domestic and sexual violence programs could be lost.***  

What can you do?

There is only one thing that will ensure Congress reauthorizes VAWA:  YOUR VOICES!

We need EVERYONE to make calls THIS WEEK.  Please encourage your friends and family to participate!!

All Members of Congress can be helpful.  Even if they have promised to support VAWA, they need to hear from you again.

Tell them:

** Your name and the city and state you live in.

** "Please reauthorize VAWA before you adjourn for the year."

** Tell them what it will mean to your community if VAWA is not reauthorized.

To find your Member's contact information, including phone and fax numbers, visit,, or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senators and Representative.

Never called your Member of Congress before?  Don't worry, it's easy!

When you call your Senator or Representative, your call will be answered by a receptionist.  Tell him or her that you want to leave a message for the Senator or Representative.  The receptionist will take down your message.

For more information, please contact Allison Randall at [email protected] or 202-543-5566.  

Only you can ensure that VAWA is reauthorized this year!  

Thanks for all your work!!!


Allison Randall
Public Policy Specialist
National Network to End Domestic Violence
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 303
Washington, DC  20003
202-543-5566 (phone)
202-543-5626 (fax)
[email protected]  
The more that I have pondered the generic behaviors of radical feminists, the more I have come to suspect that feminism is a personality disorder masquerading as a social movement.

This led me to wonder about actual clinical criteria for PBD's as defined by the professional psychiatric community.

One doesn't have to dig too deep to find repeated references to psychopathy, anti-social disorders, and sociopathology.

Do these clinical descriptions have any relevant relationship to feminism today?

* AGGRESSIVE SOCIOPATHS derive strong, yet nonperverse gratification from harming others. They like to hurt, frighten, tyrannize, bully, and manipulate. They do it for a sense of power and control, and will often only drop subtle hints about what they are up to. They polish their aggressive, domineering manner in such a way to disguise any intimidation others might feel.

They seek out positions of power, such as parent, teacher, bureaucrat, supervisor, or police officer. Their style is one of passive aggression as they systematically go about sabotaging the ideas of others to get their ideas in place. ... They are usually effective at getting their way, and are especially vindictive if resisted or crossed. They don't follow the social norm of reciprocity like others do.

(A Checklist of Sociopathic Traits - PCL-R by Hare.):

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.

3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.

4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.

6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.

8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.

10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.

12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.

13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.

14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.

15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.

16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.

17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.

18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.

19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.

20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.
The ever-enticing Allison at the National Network to End Domestic Violence today sent me a personal e-mail to alert me to the need to urge our Congresspersons to reauthorize VAWA, or else "funding for domestic and sexual violence programs will be in serious jeopardy!"

Well, I always assumed that not reauthorizing VAWA would achieve that important goal, but well, I'm on Allison's mailing list, so she still thinks I'm a sympathetic pro-feminist type guy.

Her plaintive appeal follows, though after 40 days without VAWA and no national crisis involving females being beaten, gang-raped, or murdered, I'm just wondering why an additional  $5 BILLION dollars is required to "keep the lid on" male aggression.

I am deeply disappointed in all the homicidal patriarchal sociopaths for not having shown up for the party!   :shock:


(From Allison):

Action Alert - Finalize VAWA NOW - Please Forward -- November 9, 2005

VAWA Is Stalled as House and Senate Debate Differences between Bills

As you know, the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (VAWA) passed in the House on September 28 by 415-4 and in the Senate on October 4 by unanimous consent.  The two bills were very different and Congress must now convene a conference committee to resolve the differences.
There is a danger that Congress will get stuck discussing these differences and not finish the bill this year.

If VAWA is not passed and signed into law this year, funding for domestic and sexual violence programs will be in serious jeopardy.
Though VAWA 2000 expired on September 30 of this year, existing VAWA programs are funded in the FY 2006 budget through September 30, 2006.  However, that funding may not be distributed on time if VAWA reauthorization is pending, as administrators wait to see what changes are enacted.  

Administrators and local programs may be concerned that there will be a gap between funding cycles or that the future of funding is uncertain, and therefore may start cutting back on personnel and programming.  We have heard from some communities that funding cuts have already happened!

Funding for FY 2007, which starts in October 2006, is even more uncertain.  New budget proposals will begin in January and will not include any new programs or increased funding for programs unless VAWA has already passed.  Moreover, without an authorization, funding for existing programs is not guaranteed.  

Funding could be cut, or could be given to DOJ as a lump sum with no specification for how it should be spent.

In a few weeks, Congress will recess for the year, so they must finish work on VAWA 2005 soon!

What can you do?

There is only one thing that will focus Congress on VAWA:  YOUR VOICES!

We need EVERYONE to make calls and send faxes over the next two weeks.  Please encourage your friends and family to participate!
All Members of Congress can be helpful.  Even if they have promised to support VAWA, they need to hear from you again.
Tell them:

** Your name and the city and state you live in.
** "Thank you for your help moving the Violence Against Women Act through the [House/Senate.]"  
** "It's critical that VAWA be finalized before Thanksgiving and sent to the President's desk for his signature THIS YEAR.  If VAWA isn't reauthorized this year, offices and programs may have to lay off workers and lives could be lost."  
** Give examples of pending layoffs in your community and programs or positions that will disappear if there is any gap in VAWA funding.  Tell them what it will mean to your community if VAWA is not reauthorized this year.
** "We can't afford to let the year end without reauthorizing VAWA!  
** "Please do all that you can to make sure the differences between the House and Senate bills are resolved and pass VAWA before Thanksgiving!"

To find your Member's contact information, including phone and fax numbers, visit,, or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senators and Representative.

For more information, please contact Allison Randall at [email protected] or 202-543-5566.
Your calls ensured that VAWA passed the House and Senate by overwhelming, bipartisan majorities.  

Now your calls will make VAWA happen this year!  

Thanks for all your work!!!


Allison Randall
Public Policy Specialist
National Network to End Domestic Violence
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 303
Washington, DC  20003
202-543-5566 (phone)
202-543-5626 (fax)
[email protected]
Kudos to Angry Harry (@ for this wonderful bit of anti-feminist comic relief!

Do you suffer from the nightmare of suspicion and doubt caused by the  infidelity of a cheating spouse? Find out  what's really going on, the quick and easy  way with the Infidelity Test Kit from CheckMate.


If you think your girlfriend is banging your boss, get definite proof! Has the missus stopped nagging you? Does she have renewed pep in her step and a twinkle in her eye? Well, guess what, dude--you may be getting sloppy seconds.

But don't take our word for it. Instead, get scientific confirmation with the CheckMate Infidelity Test Kit. Just apply the Checkmate product wherever you think there may be traces of gooey proof--her car's backseat, her panties, the church confessional etc.

CheckMate Semen Detector Test Kit Testimonials (excerpt --- they're all great reading!)

Just wanted you to know that your product not only just proved me right, it also changed my entire life.

My wife just got back from a trip to Las Vegas with two of her friends. She even told me that they met some guys and went out to have drinks with them twice while she was there. Of course that was driving me crazy and even though I kept asking her she continually denied doing anything and became very angry and defensive about it.

The positive tests were from underwear that came directly from her suitcase and she still denied it. Then she finally admitted that on the last day there she did take a guy to her room and she did have sex with him!

I guess her friends are furious with her now too because they didn't even know she did it. You know what's really funny? Ever since she got back her and her friends have been going around saying, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" too.

There is no way to describe how I feel right now. The feelings of vindication and truth are almost overwhelming!

She has now fully admitted what she did and believe it or not at least for now we are going to work on things and see if we can fix our relationship.  Your company and your product are totally awesome and I sincerely thank you for what you have done for me.

Please keep my phone number on file and feel free to give it to anyone who has any doubts about how powerful your product really is.  

This is now my favorite gender war web site, it's like a forensic anti-feminist festival with detailed ammunition for the Marriage Strike.

(BTW --- the semen test is gender neutral. There are stories of wives who caught their husbands doin' the down-low thang.....)   :cry:
I subscribe to the National Organization for Women's press alert e-mail service, mostly because they always have the best inside info. predicting accurately what our feminist male reps in Congress are up to.

But imagine my surprise today to receive in the snail mail multiple copies of the very colorful, very expensive National Now Times magazine, as well as several copies of the luscious "Love Your Body Day" poster!

The back splash page is all about "Love Your Body Events Raise Awareness and Self-Esteem." (The poster is a faux-Picasso female nude abstract that would not "raise" much of anything in a male viewer. I wonder if N.O.W. recognized that its female poster competition winner was ripping off one the most unapologetically misogynist artists in history!)

Anyhow, here's the fem-blurt that caught my eye --

Media Images Lead to Dangerous Behavior

Images of women in the media are narrow and unrealistic -- even photos of supermodels are airbrushed to create an illusion of "perfection."

Television provides few positive role models for girls, and teen and "fashion" magazines would rather discuss makeup than career choices. The message is always the same -- women and girls should be frail, weak, and sexy, and not appear to be seeking power.

Women are not immune to these messages, and the constant pressure to look like the latest "it" girl can lead to dangersous eating disorders like anoerxia or bulimia.

Plastic surgery promises to make any woman look younger and thinner, and many women are buying what the plastic surgeons are selling.

Aging is set up as the antithesis of beauty, and women are led by advertising images to believe that a dress size larger than a 4 is unacceptable.  (Bonnie Rice -- Love Your Body Day Coordinator, NOW)

So, I thought rad-feminists were down with post-modernism, social reconstruction of reality, gender morphing, PhotoShop, all that?

They seem perfectly comfortable with the pathological media distortion of men and fathers ( witness the latest PBS documentary scandal...); but gawd forbid if a million-dollar supermodel's boob is airbrushed to hide her post-breast-feeding droop, or if Gloria Steinham's eyelids are digitally elevated so she looks only 65.

Well, hypocrisy is indeed the Mother of Invention! And the mother's milk of feminism....

Wanna bet Ms. Rice is an aspiring size 14?

(The Love Your Body Day posters will be available on e-bay in just a few minutes, minimum bid = FREE!)   :)
The National Organization for Women is going into the movie business!

Partnering with producers of the just released "North Country" to launch another DV hysteria campaign, N.O.W. hopes to piggy-back on a potentially bankable feminist flick in the tradition of classics like "Norma Ray" and "Thelma & Louise."

N.O.W. appears to have hired some young and savvy marketing ideologues who understand how to tie-in politics with pop media.

(Lord knows Kim Gandy could use an extreme make-over, so maybe there's hope down the road.)

Explore the new web site created specifically for this N.O.W. venture into new media, at the links posted. (And I trust a few SYG'ers will have a field day with the Women Friendly Workplace Pledge, copied below.)

Hollywood Gets it Right -  by Liz Gilchrist, Gift Planning Director
October 14, 2005

"North Country" -- a new movie starring Academy Award-winners Charlize Theron, Frances McDormand, and Sissy Spacek and directed by Niki Caro ("Whale Rider") -- opens on Oct. 21, and NOW is proud to be a partner in a unique collaboration to provide moviegoers with opportunities to take action against sexual harassment and domestic violence.

"North Country" is based on the true story of story of Lois Jenson, the lead plaintiff in the first successful sexual harassment class action lawsuit in the country, which was brought in 1988 against the Eveleth Mines in northern Minnesota. NOW, along with Feminist Majority Foundation and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, are working with one of the movie's producers, Participant Productions, in an action campaign called "Stand Up: A Campaign to End Sexual Harassment and Domestic Violence." The campaign allows those who are moved by what they see in the movie to get involved in the issues.

The just-launched campaign website provides resource materials, action items and a community discussion space. In addition, users can download the Employee Pledge and Consumer Pledge we created for NOW's Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign and use them to bring women-friendly workplaces to their own neighborhoods.

NOW has been able to bring "North Country" to 20 campuses nationwide for a special sneak preview in the two weeks before the movie officially opens. College chapters and Campus Action Networks will follow the screenings with a variety of actions on their campuses, ranging from organizing town halls and speak outs on sexual harassment, to taking part in Take Back the Night marches against sexual assault, to starting purple ribbon campaigns against domestic violence.

When you visit the "Stand Up" website, don't miss the blogs, where NOW staffer Shauna Shames will be a regular contributor.

Check out the movie when it opens in your area, visit the "Stand Up" website and get involved in NOW's effort to make every workplace women-friendly.


______________________________________________ (name of company or employer)
hereby pledges to support our employees and honor our customers/clients by ensuring a Women-Friendly Workplace. We pledge that we:

Treat all customers/clients equally and with respect, without regard to their sex, race, sexual orientation, age, marital or family status, pregnancy, parenthood, disability or size.
Provide a workplace free of discrimination based on sex, race, sexual orientation, age, marital or family status, pregnancy, parenthood, disability or size.
Support all employees in their efforts to balance work and family responsibilities. In this regard, we not only meet the minimum requirements of the law but also strive toward policies that are genuinely family-friendly. (Such policies might include paid sick leave, flex-time, job sharing, child care and/or elder care benefits, family and medical leave for companies not legally obligated to provide it.)
Do not tolerate sexual or racial harassment. We educate all employees, including management, with regard to these policies and rigorously enforce them.
Ensure that any allegation of sexual or racial harassment, sexual assault and sex or race discrimination are promptly and thoroughly investigated. Employees making such allegations are protected from retaliation and are not required to seek redress from a workers' compensation board or forced to submit to arbitration in lieu of pursuing legal or statutory remedies.
Have an affirmative action program to ensure that we include women and people of color in the recruitment, hiring and promotion of employees.
Do not tolerate sexist, racist, sexually-explicit or pornographic images in the workplace or at any company-sponsored events.
Respect the laws that recognize the right of our employees to organize and establish an independent voice.
Provide all employee benefits without discrimination based on sex. Any health benefits offered cover the full range of reproductive health services -- including abortion.
Do not discriminate on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. Benefits provided to spouses of employees are also extended to domestic partners -- including
same-sex couples.

Make this pledge to our employees and our customers or clients on __________. (date)
Signed ___________________________________________________________
Title _____________________________________________________________
Print Name________________________________________________________
City___________________________________ State____________
Zipcode________________ Phone ___________________________

I'm almost sure, even confidently cocky, that all dedicated SYGers took some time today to celebrate their bodies!


Because today is/was Celebrate Your Body Day .... another high-concept P.C. campaign schtick event staged by .... who else? N.O.W.

Here's the ever-urgent N.O.W. Prez' Kim Gandy's appeal for you to join the celebration:

NOW Foundation Celebrates Eighth Annual Love Your Body Day

Today the National Organization for Women Foundation celebrates our eighth annual Love Your Body Day.

Since its inception in 1998, the Love Your Body campaign has served to raise awareness about women's health issues, protest harmful and offensive advertisements, and promote the importance of positive body images for women and girls.

As part of the campaign, Oct. 19 is designated as this year's day of action for students, teachers and women and girls of all ages.

"More and more women and girls across the country are embracing the Love Your Body campaign every year," said NOW Foundation President Kim Gandy. "They are speaking out about the dangers of plastic surgery and silicone implants; telling the fashion, cosmetics, and diet industries that they reject the myth that women's bodies need constant renovation and enhancement. Women and girls are saying 'No' to impossible beauty standards."

Each year, the NOW Foundation holds a contest for artists of all ages (and skill levels) to design the official Love Your Body Day poster. The 2005 winner was designed by Diana Fabre and inspired by an Henri Matisse collage. The poster contest for next year is already underway, with a March 1, 2006, deadline for entries.

The Love Your Body campaign has a website where visitors can send e-cards with winning poster designs, view a gallery of bad and good ads, and take the body image survey.

The Love Your Body campaign's spokespeople include the NOW Foundation's national officers as well as Jessica Weiner, performer and author of "A Very Hungry Girl," Wendy Shanker, comedian and author of "The Fat Girl's Guide to Life," and Wendy Hilsen-Bernard, author of "A Woman's Place," psychotherapist and mind-body wellness expert.

For more information on the campaign, visit  

(From the poster site --- a cute quiz...)

What misconception  of how women/girls are "supposed" to look would you most like to see disappear forever?
The most common response was the misconception that only skinny bodies are beautiful. Other related responses included: the "supermodel" look (also referred to as boyish bodies with unnaturally large breasts) and the pressure to get plastic surgery. Additional misconceptions mentioned:
  All bodies have to be alike to be beautiful and worthy of respect
  A size 8 model is plus-size
  The skeletal look
  You can't be smart and savvy unless you are knockout beautiful
  Women/girls only look good with long hair"
  The ridiculous concept of "one-size fits all"
  The religious idea of subservient women
  If a women isn't thin she can't be happy
  The notion that women embody goodness and purity.  

So, did you celebrate your body today? How so?    :oops:
If you want to understand why VAWA 2005 sailed through the Congress entirely unopposed after a valiant effort by MRA's to create a national reexamination of the bill's sexist, anti-family, and arguably unconstitutional programs...

Check out the link below, with a full transcript and 15-minute video of President Bush expressing his profound support for the feminist's gender war against men.

Just a few excerpts ---

- "women and children are facing danger and they need strong allies...."

- "our prosecutors are finding the abusers, and throwing the book at them..."

- "we're now spending money on violence against women at the highest level in our nation's history..."

Also pay attention to the Prez' when he states that he wants to see more federal funding for "faith-based" initiatives against DV.

Of course, there is absolutely no mention of male victims of domestic violence whatsoever, in our Dear Leader's remarks.

Link at --
Main / VAWA Passes in the Senate Today!
Oct 04, 2005, 07:31 PM
I subscribe to several feminist press release sites, because they seem to be mysteriously better connected to our Congress than any MRA organization that I know.

So here's today's latest e-mail from the ever-lovely Allison at the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

( I could not find any reference to this bill passing on the U.S. Senate's official web site.)


Tuesday, October 4, 2005 5:36 PM

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 was just passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.

This unanimous support of VAWA is tremendous and we thank all Senators for their work to bring VAWA to the floor!  Chairman Specter and Senator Biden and their staff really pulled out all the stops to make this happen.  Many Senators set aside other pressing issues to move VAWA forward, particularly Senator Landrieu, and we thank them and the Republican and Democrat Senate Leadership for making VAWA a priority.  

This was really down to the wire, and truly all the credit goes to YOU who mobilized your grassroots, who made calls yourself, who spoke on behalf of all the victims who have been silenced.

The versions of VAWA passed in the House (HR 3402) and the Senate (S 1197) are different, and now must go to conference where the differences between them will be resolved.  We will need your voices again in the coming months to ensure that needs of victims are met in the final VAWA that is signed into law!!

Thank you again for all the amazing work you do.


Allison Randall
Public Policy Specialist
National Network to End Domestic Violence
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 303
Washington, DC  20003
202-543-5566 (phone)
202-543-5626 (fax)
[email protected]  
On Friday the Senate failed to pass VAWA's reauthorization, allowing VAWA to expire on Sept. 30th, 2005.

Our nation is now experiencing the turmoil and chaos of its first
VAWA-less week-end since 1994.

Word on the street is that men everywhere are taking advantage of this temporary interval in feminist tyranny to beat their wives, rough up their girlfriends, and make disparaging remarks about women in general with utter impunity and no fear of reprisals.

I just overheard one zealous MRA insult all women by shouting - "One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor!"

Without the social control and repression of VAWA, a virtual Category 4 hurricane of pent-up masculine patriarchal aggression has been unleashed and now threatens to escalate into actual gender warfare.

Women everywhere are .... shopping as usual, and seem unaware of their imminent peril.

Our nation is being torn apart in only one VAWA-less week-end!

And, Congress does not reconvene until Wednesday October 5th!

By then, it could be too late.

Men will have tasted a few days of liberty, and will not want to go back to being indentured servants under the thrall of radical feminism.

Women's very lives are at stake if VAWA is not renewed!

(Just look out your window right now to witness the carnage happening without VAWA!)

At a cost of only $4-billion, VAWA will ensure that society will return to normal, and men will not be allowed to behave as if they are free.

We cannot risk more VAWA-less week-ends, especially with the baseball playoffs coming up.

We do not need another SuperBowl Sunday spike in domestic violence against women, especially because baseball is a very slow game and it would mean actual weeks and weeks of heightened violence against women, instead of just one Sunday.

Call your Senators now, and demand that VAWA be re-authorized ASAP.

And the "DNA Fingerprint" amendment attached to VAWA 2005 is no big deal.


Having your DNA taken against your consent and included in a national database of criminals is a small price to pay for a return to normalcy, and saving countless women's lives.
Main / Lynndie Says "Love Made Me Do It!"
Sep 22, 2005, 02:50 PM
The dominitrix of Abu Ghraib has apparently decided to base her legal defense on her victimhood within the Evil Patriarchy, and the fear and terror she experienced in Iraq, alleging that if she had disobeyed her evil boyfriend's orders, then she would have been at extreme risk.

This is a very clever variation on the Battered Woman Defense, straight out of the feminist DV Industry, seeking to paint dear Ms. England as a victim of male oppression and an abused woman who reacted out of self-defense.

In other words, she tortured Iraqui men because an American man forced her to, through psychological coercion and as yet undefined dire threats.

In other, other words, she had no choice.

What is N.O.W.'s position on this legal defense strategy that defines a female soldier as an infant and a moron?

"FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) -- Lynndie England's lawyer said the Army private was a lovestruck woman who posed for photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison to please her boyfriend, an older soldier who outranked her."

Story at --
Dr. Evil has been attempting to wage an intelligent discussion with Hugo over at Hugo-boy's crib.

See --

Dr. E. -- From what I have heard so far it seems likely that you have a distaste for men and boys that could conceivably be described as misandry. Perhaps you can help me see that this is incorrect?

It's all worth reading, especially Dr. Evil's compassionate attempts to get Hugo to state anything about why he still hates men.

(Well, to be kind, Hugo just sees no virtue in masculinity...)

Dr. E. --- I believe I have found the key to Hugo's dementia ---

From a book by a Jungian analyist.

Just this ---

"Narcissism is not self-love but rather the confession that one cannot love the self."

You are more qualified than I am to consider this theory.