Latest Posts
Showing posts with label radfem hub. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radfem hub. Show all posts

Feminists encouraging male extermination in Sweden.
Filed Under the "No Woman is EVER Violent" fantasy label. From A feminist Male Extermination "play" in Sweden.

Greg's excellent article, which I was not aware of when I did my previous post, reflects precisely the same implications, female behaviour and in its same context. It is the case that females are violent as all the information applicable to that fact has already clearly indicated, there is no avoiding that obvious fact. Copious legislation has been introduced over the last few decades, that has totally ignored the violence that women introduce into the home and into society..

This is of no surprise to anyone except politicians after the "Vagina" vote or the slut-feminist movement. The live in constant denial that it even ever exists. They constantly interfere with the truth and the facts in order to promote their own doctrinal message and that message would never confess that fact, because if they allowed women to be recognised as being violent, that would mean that the entire abuse industry based solely on "women are not violent" would have to undergo a complete and total reassessment and readjustment in their thinking. A complete overhaul of their whole approach to DV and societal violence. Their funds would disappear overnight. They are forced to continue to promote their great lie in order to maintain the taxpayers dollars and all those elite positions, over inflated departments and legislation, they have forced their respective countries to establish. They are hanging on for their dear lives and their outlandish incomes..

They will blink before we ever will..

How embarrassed are they now ?. They have generated that lie to such a degree that it is outstrips their very own "Women do not lie about rape" meme. How obvious an liar would you be and what a sham-faced liar do you have to be, to deny something that is so blatantly obvious, that the majority of the population have already witnessed it at one time or another. Yet they still claim that the situation is totally opposite to what common sense and facts dictates it is. One does wonder how they even live with themselves, let alone with other humans..

VAWA, IMBRA and copious of other legislation such as "Safe at Home", bought into law just brushes aside any mention about female violence and even encourages such behaviour as being in self defense. The slut-feminist claim that a female only EVER uses physical violence/abuse, when she is defending herself (see video in this and previous post) is another example of their total incoherence and deliberate denial of the situation. Even the "White Ribbon" campaign lives in denial as one would expect, when the researchers and other people involved in those scheme/s, have been linked directly to those same radical feminists who organised, attended and spoke at the SCUM Manifesto conference in Perth, Western Australia in 2011 and also participate on that site including Novelist Pamela OShaughnessy, one should and would have to question the sanity, ethics and morality of those those disgusting and shameful individuals..



Bad-Girl

Girls behaving badly

One of the cornerstones of conventional domestic violence dogma is that the victim is never, ever, responsible for violence perpetrated against them.  Rather perpetrators must accept responsibility and be held accountable for their violence.  Statements along these lines are enshrined in the White Ribbon Campaign and Australia’s “Time for Action” Plan to reduce violence against women and their children.

A White Ribbon Campaign fact sheet states:

Myth 4 Some people deserve to be beaten by provoking the violence. Fact : Responsibility for violence must rest solely with the abuser.[1]

As a young intern during one of my first night sifts in the casualty department (ER) I received notification that a young man was being brought in by ambulance after being punched in the head outside one of the local nightclubs. He was said to be unconscious but stable, however on arrival he was in complete cardio respiratory arrest and after almost an hour of vigorous resuscitation attempts could not be revived. Post mortem examination subsequently showed that he had suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a single blow to the head. The story from bystanders was that another male had walked up behind him and punched him once in the back of the head; there was no apparent provocation.

I learned several lessons that night including, the potential for a single well placed blow to be fatal, the dangers of alcohol fuelled violence on the nightclub strip – and never trust the paramedics radio alert to be accurate. In those days most of the brawling was male on male.  But trends in more recent times show mixed violence and female on female violence becoming more common.
In 2010 the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released a paper “Female Offending: Has their been an increase” [2] found that

Using police person of interest (POI) data, this brief considers trends in offending by females and juvenile females over the 10 years to June 2009. Over this period, the number of females proceeded against by police increased by 15 per cent, whereas the number of male offenders remained stable.
They also noted a much greater rise in the rate of female juvenile offenders 1/3-increase verses a 1/10 increase for male juvenile offenders.

There are thousands of video clips on Youtube showing drunken violent women to which I recently added this one: http://youtu.be/7qq8Z3L6UwE It’s a recording from a popular Australian evening show called A Current Affair.
Three young women, two of them mothers of young children, were recorded on a mobile phone drunk, violent and out of control outside a nightclub after closing time.  The general community attitude to this was one of disgust at their behavior. However the girls wanted to “give their side of the story,” and appeared on national television to tell us  “they were provoked by a group of drunken men.”

One of the girls explains “I remember crossing the road, and some guy yelled out you’re a fat s(Beeped out – presumably “slut”), and then I walked over and started yelling at him and stuff, and I think that’s when it started, all the troubles.”
It’s not quite clear what she means by “and stuff” but presumably it means a physical element added to “yelling at him.”  Suffice it to say she could have simply walked away rather than crossing a road to confront a group of men and start a fight.
The girls claim “They hit us, they spat on us, they called us names.”  Yet whilst there is lots of shouting and name calling to be heard during the video there is no sign of any male hitting any of the girls, only their relentless aggressive attacks.  Despite being dragged away by security these girls continued to run back into the fray on the attack.
One even walked up behind a male who was facing away from her and posing no threat and viciously wacked him on the back of the head with her high heeled shoe.  That scene sent a shiver down my spine and reminding me of the case I encountered as an intern. She said in the interview that perhaps he did not deserve a heel in the head but “he did deserve a punch in the head.”
When quizzed by the interviewer if this was indicative of their usual behavior the girls admitted, “We’ve been in fights but nothing like this,” so this was not their first involvement in violence.  Further the girls admitted to consuming a large amount of alcohol, and feeling “very angry.”
We just wanted to hurt someone because they were hurting us.
When asked if they were sorry for their behavior all agreed they were “embarrassed” but it would appear that they were more embarrassed about being recorded and exposed then by their actual violence, which they claim their victims deserved.  “I’m not sorry, I’m not sorry to those guys, I’m sorry to my family but not to the guys.”
One of the girls has no hesitation in stating for the camera “No guy should hit a girl, I think it’s disgusting,” yet their recorded behavior show they clearly believe it is ok for women to be violent toward men.
One of the girls offered this gem “what if their mothers saw them behaving like that towards girls?” which had me bemused. Surely she meant what if their fathers saw them behaving like this toward girls?  But then it hit me; apparently single motherhood and fatherlessness are now common enough to considered the norm.
I don’t like being judged as a mother. They don’t know the full story about everything, like we were provoked and they wont know till they watch this.
If this is the view of young mothers it does not bode well for the chances of our current generation of children to become civil, non-violent members of society.
Another recent trend of concern is that of mothers encouraging their daughters to fight in the schoolyard or similar circumstances.  There have been several well-publicized cases in Australia and the US including this one where the mother was charged with child abuse. http://youtu.be/G9chmFG50E4

So what is the message from all this?  Abusers must always be accountable for their violence except if the abuser is a woman and they were provoked to violence by a man.  There is an increasing trend for women to be physically violent and encourage such violence in their offspring, a trend that can only worsen, as the mother headed household becomes a social norm.
US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan commented in the mid sixties  “A community that allows large numbers of young men to grow up in broken homes, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos.”
We should add to this that girls who lack the guiding influences of a father and who are encouraged by mothers (who don’t seem to understand all violence is wrong) are adding to that chaos.

[1]http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/uploads/media/Fact%20Sheet%2010%20Ten%20Common%20Myths%20and%20Misconceptions%202009.pdf
[2] http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB46.pdf/$file/BB46.pdf

Written by Greg Canning


4 Posts in Total See Them »
Greg is father, Family Physician and medical educator located in North Queensland, with interests in mens rights and exposing the corrupt domestic abuse industry.

How similar is this to the Jezebel logo ? Same sexist doctrinal mentality at work..


I did spend some time last year perusing the "Mumsnet" site and was sickened by the malice and male hate stated on that site. The automatic vitriolic responses to my comment, even though very rational and unassuming, were responded to in ways that were totally unacceptable and were a direct assault on the site's policies, but were ignored.  It was akin to the same vitriol and venom expressed on the RadFem Hub, just as sick and just as obnoxious and abusive. That feminastie site is definitely due for a shakeup and it is time that those sexist, male bashing sites started applying their own policies of fairness instead of fomenting hate and ignoring the  obvious male bashing diatribe those haters have always indulged in..

Mumsnet on Facebook..

Mumsnet Site..

DSC Development and Hosting

Client Story: Mumsnet


Fathers 4 Justice Stage Naked Mumsnet Protest in Marks & Spencer Oxford Street

Like Matt States "Not a good sight"..
Members of Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) staged a naked protest in the flagship London branch of Marks & Spencer at Marble Arch, Oxford Street.
Group founder Matt O'Connor was arrested during the weekend protest, which criticised the high street store for its advertising on parenting blog site Mumsnet.
Along with four other members of the group, O'Connor took off his clothes in the store to draw attention to what F4J claimed was Mumsnet's "anti-male agenda".
He claimed that the protest was just the start of a series of attacks on M&S in order to draw attention to the "naked truth" that Mumsnet "promotes gender hatred".
He told IB Times UK: "We discovered some horrific content on the Mumsnet forums, including calling men fascists and equating fathers with Ku Klux Klan members.

So it is understandable that the Fathers4Justice movement faced up to that site's sexism, hate and discrimination. In a letter addressed to the CEO of the Mumsnet site, the  Fathers4Justice Campaign Manager explains precisely what those nasty members on that site get up to and needless to say it is precisely what I witnessed as well. The entire site has been overrun by male haters as this letter states..
Dear Justine,

 The following is our response to your 10 point statement about Fathers4Justice and gender hatred on Mumsnet. We are disappointed that this dispute has escalated over the last week and that Mumsnet has chosen not to resolve this matter.

 As soon as we were made aware of the offensive anti-male discrimination on the Mumsnet website, we brought this matter to your attention in the appropriate manner.

 We asked you to remove the offending content and commit to a zero-tolerance policy on gender hatred. We also offered to write a piece for Mumsnet outlining what Fathers4Justice actually campaigns and stands for, rather than the misrepresentation of F4J often portrayed on Mumsnet as well as to highlight the fact that F4J is run by a woman.

 Instead of responding in a respectful and professional manner, you made flippant and derisory comments about me (a mother of two), failed to respond to my emails and went online in an attempt to appease the very people who had written this content by making derogatory remarks about our campaign.

 Further, you have unhelpfully and deliberately set out to misrepresent the facts in this case, casting Fathers4Justice as the villains, and Mumsnet as helpless victims, disingenuously claiming no knowledge of the offence committed. A case of gender stereotyping if ever there was one.

 This is not the mature response we had hoped for from a respected CEO. It should hardly be a surprise then that given your antagonistic and belligerent response, the situation has escalated. Not because we wanted to engage in an online conflict with Mumsnet, but simply because you would not remove much of the content we complained of nor make a commitment to a policy of zero-tolerance on gender hatred.

 This is a situation which could and should have been avoided. Instead the situation has been badly mishandled by Mumsnet.

 Far from F4J saying ‘unpleasant things’ about Mumsnet, this dispute started with the following disgraceful and inciteful attacks on men on the Mumsnet forum. We have reported this content to the Police. The following is a summary for the purpose of the letter.

 Describing all men as ‘needle dicks’
 Describing fathers as ‘fascists’ and being akin to the Klu Klux Klan.
 Describing fathers ‘alcoholics, wife-beaters, women-haters, abusers, paedophiles’.
 Attacking the children of fathers as being indoctrinated and ‘brainwashed’.
 Describing men as ‘fuckwits’, ‘scum’, ‘go fuck themselves with a shitty stick’.
 Describing Fathers4Justice content as ‘porn involving children’
 Describing female supporters of Fathers4Justice are ‘Handmaidens’ (Female sex slave).
 Abusive personal attacks on men and women in Fathers4Justice .

 This is just a tiny sample of the content we have recorded from your site. By your own admission, Mumsnet removed over 60 comments after F4J brought the matter to your attention.

 This is not an isolated incident and cannot be written off as such. It indicates a systemic hatred of men and boys by some users of Mumsnet who are using your organisation as cover for extremist views. It is exactly this type of extremism and discrimination which has led to the separation of children from their fathers in the family courts and contributed to a fatherless Britain.

 Mumsnet needs to decide if it is a forum for reasonable discussion funded by advertising, or a forum of hate funded by nobody and run by apologists for gender hated. As a woman and mother, it is profoundly disappointing to see an organisation like Mumsnet allow itself to be hijacked by an extremist element whose sole objective is to unleash a hateful stream of bigotry and abuse against men and boys.

 Your failure to address this situation professionally and reasonably is illustrated by your flippant ‘irritating like toddler’ comments about F4J, even when you must be aware that you risk damaging the reputation of Mumsnet in the eyes of advertisers and the public.

 Because you failed to enter into a discussion about the situation, the matter escalated. With Mumsnet failing to respond, we felt we had no other option than to bring this matter to the attention of your advertisers.

 We are running our second Mumsnet/M&S advert on Tuesday 20th March, reproducing content direct from the Mumsnet site. It is a shocking advert, linking screen grabs taken directly from Mumsnet with your advertisers logos. Until Mumsnet undertake to address this issue seriously and commit to a zero tolerance approach to gender hatred, then regrettably, our campaign will continue to escalate.

 We wrote to Marks and Spencer’s lawyers on Friday stating that our campaign will continue until they suspend all advertising on Mumsnet and investigate our claims. We are now writing to other advertisers asking them to do the same.

 We will be announcing full details of the next stage of our campaign later today. I have addressed each of the points made in your statement beneath.

 Your sincerely

 Nadine O’Connor
 Campaign Director, Fathers4Justice
Hopefully I will be able to get hold of that video when it is released and I will give it plenty of exposure here. Surely this type of behaviour is not acceptable or be justified. It is time those blatant obvious hate groups were given ultimatums as well as those hate generating people involved..

The RadFem Hub contribution to equality..
Just when you thought that you have seen it all. That saying about "nothing being new under the sun" may be in for a readjustment..

We have exposed RadFem Hub as a site that espouses the destruction of all men, either via mass murder or eugenics (manipulating DNA), whichever works the best. We have exposed their participation, promotion and organising the SCUM Manifesto Conference in Perth, WA Australia. We have also shown you some of the hate speech that SCUM document espouses (Society for Cutting up Men). We have shown you in their own writing, how one site admin, organiser of the SCUM conference, would like to throw a young boys through a closed window and that was just a mild example as to what they have in mind for boys and men in general..

Now one would wonder that if one associated themselves with that hate site, one would indeed be shown or demonstrated to be in sympathy with their cause. They would be seen to promote that vile, male hating site that promotes mass murder via terrorist activity, bombing Men's sheds and killing off male children as the preferred option. One would imagine that being the case, right..

But apparently not the SPLC. That organisation's claim to be representing justice, honour and truth must and has come into question, especially with their assocation with a hate site like RadFem Hub..

Radfem Hub Promotion of SPLC..

Anyone wishing to donate money or other resources to the SPLC can donate now” through their website, or by mail or telephone.
Please note that you may make charitable contributions to the SPLC and specifically earmark the funds toward individual projects, including the one monitoring the MRAs.  Just make a note of the project for which you wish to earmark your contribution at the time you make the donation.

So we have a hate site that has been exposed, cataloged on the web, demonstrated clearly to wanting to kill all men and boys. Promoting and cheering on the actions of the  the actions of the SPLC..

RadFem article includes the following..
 The SPLC’s approach to monitoring, and toppling, hate groups is three-pronged, with the SPLC tracking the activities of hate groups and domestic terrorists across America and launching innovative lawsuits that seek to destroy networks of radical extremists; using the courts and other forms of advocacy to win systemic reforms on behalf of victims of bigotry and discrimination; and providing educators with free resources that teach school children to reject hate, embrace diversity and respect differences.
Ah yes, incredulously as that may sound, it is actually coming from the mouth of a radical feminist who wants all men and boys dead. Maybe you can explain the hypocrisy and denial but I simply cannot..

The Non-Violent Females that are continually denied by radical feminists..

A few months back when Agent Orange located an excessive amount of information from one of the radical feminists sites, it gave way for Kyle Lovett to do some more research on the people involved on that male hating site. Betty McLellan turned out to be one of those radicals who not only visited and wrote articles for the site but also attended the SCUM (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto Conference in Perth Western Australia in September 2011. She was also tracked to Queensland where her vitriol is still being exposed in the media today, with very little response from the public..

That was the case until Greg decided he had had enough and promptly responded in a way that makes us all proud. Well done Greg, splendid effort. Here is the information I came across that was exposed in one of Queensland's Country Newspapers and we finally have the deeds and actions of this radical feminist on public record. One entry that will haunt her endlessly and hopefully not the last..

This is what it's all about. Exposing those radical feminists is and should be our ongoing goal, let the public know what nasty human beings these women really are and let them also know that they are living amongst them while they are plotting to destroy their lives, their families and their society, purely for their own selfish reasons and for their own benefit..

I am not going to expose that article that McLellan wrote as basically I did not think it necessary to expose that here as it contained the usual vitriolic nastiness that we have come to expect from male haters like McLellan. But here is the rest of that exposed information..







Someone has coined a very appropriate term in recognition of radical feminists and their terrorist behaviour. Their exposed site of RadFem Hub has also exposed them to being potential terrorist as they have been planning, not only the destruction of the Men's Sheds around the world but also the annihilation of the entire male population with only a few exceptions..

The actions that radical feminists want to introduce includes the option of having to eliminate a few "negative patriarchal" females, who may carry that unwanted and despised thinking process into their newly formed imaginary Utopia. A development that originally would involve totally eradicating every building, all structures would have to go and only a few privileged Alpha males would be re-indoctrinated and used as "breeding" stock for their entirely new concept. All male children would be slaughtered at birth ofcourse, as there would only be room for those specific breeders..

The other problem they would face, according to the "thinkers", would be the re-education of females in order to ensure that their ideology would work without any resistance. That would be undertaking in special training camps, specifically designed to hold the population in place whilst their training was being undertaken..

So in all, it would appear to be a direct copy of Animal Farm and a healthy splash of "1984", in order to steer their path towards that Utopia but meanwhile, there has not been any indication concerning the feeding or transportation of the mob or accommodation to be provided as they have only rubble at their feet to contend with..

For the answer to those and many other important questions, we wait with baited breath for the next instalments. The soap opera will continue soon, as soon as they return from holidays ofcourse. One must have a break from all that planning and scheming..

Download 250Mb of data via the RadfemHub Site that includes their secret inner sanctum posts and discussions as well..

Or Direct Download from Agent Orange Site..



The standard assessment of feminists would be to have a look at their rantings and behavior over the years. You know, the poison they sprout automatically, like an automaton, fixated like a broken record. It requires tunnel vision and a deep, natural loathing plus it helps to be a lesbian..

We have, in the past, demonstrated clearly, what feminism is basically all about and it definitely is not about the best interest of women or children for that matter. They have poisoned so many people's minds and one already knows what happens. You cannot erase that poison regardless how hard you try. You can't hide it, override it with positive experiences. The memory still festers, it simmers and it only takes one minute incident for that poison to surface. That is exactly what happens when you spend your life fighting for a cause that demands you concentrate solely on negatives and ignore everything else..

It takes a conscious and controlled effort to reduce that vitriol, that burning sensation, that has been roaring at a rate that continually smolders,  that only rage inducing information, can calm..

We have shown you what feminists are all about and we have also shown you what lesbians are all about and in both cases, the sum of the two can only produce a woman of such intense hatred, that one may well wonder how they get through the day without physically harming someone. That is how intense their hate is. Nothing could or can or is, able to change that process after being involved in it for so long..

We have Julie Bindel, a feminist lesbian, which should already indicate that she is going to be a male hater. Contradicting the standard feminist claim that they are not all lesbians. But once again they are caught in that lie they foster and promote so well..

Why I hate men

Link..
Bindel is the epitome of the current cadre of seething feminists, including the hate they project, a prime example of what they are really all about and yet we have feminists in their myriads of variations, trying to claim that "Hating Men" is NOT what feminism is all about. Judge for yourself..
but in the meantime, I will say loud and proud, yes, today I hate men, and will tomorrow and the day after.
So we have this male hating lesbian feminist, claiming loud and long, exactly what she is all about. She is a male hater and there is no denial of that fact, no one could claim otherwise. There it is in black and white, coming straight out of it's mouth and stated in writing in that anti-male, disgraced, feminist mouthpiece, The Guardian newspaper in England. This comment states precisely what the Guardian is all about as well, and yet it still makes sales and people still buy that trash..

Lesbianism supports and lesbians are of themselves recognised as the greatest abusers of women in the world. They had to create workshops and lecture tours to raise the level of abuse they were inflicting on their female partners. The hypocrisy is there for all to see and witness. Why are they given any credence at all is beyond my comprehension..

Lesbians and their behaviour and abuse levels..
While exclusively being a lesbian has little threat of getting AIDS, lesbians have their own set of problems. Domestic violence among lesbian partners is so high that workshops on the subject are popping up around the country. Source: The National Women's Alliance, " From Silence to Voice: A Conference on Partner Violence in Lesbian relationships," C. Nicole Mason, reported by Winnie McCory, Baltimore Gay Paper, 16 April 1999, p. A2, and " Lesbians Right Summit," National Origination for Women (NOW), Jan Collins, Denise Joson, C. Nicole Mason, Chris Mason, and Lois McKieth, "Partner Violence in Lesbian Relationships," 3:30 - 5:00 pm., 23 April 1999.
As you can see, they themselves live in a continual level of violence and abuse. Bettering the levels that applies to heterosexual relationships and yet they have the audacity to point the finger at everyone else besides themselves. It's the usual feminist hypocrisy at work and it's one they play well..
According to Grishick, many of these women read books about woman-to-woman sexual violence; they went into therapy; they volunteered at rape crisis centers. For people who are part of a small lesbian community, the social implications of speaking out against their abuser can be terrifying. Girshick reports that some women did become ostracized when they told others. " I've heard stories of individuals who say ' My friends turned against me and protected her.'" There are only a handful of groups for women battered by other women in the country. Source: R. Morgan Griffin, " Breaking the Silence: Sociologist Studies Woman-to-Woman Sexual Violence," GayHealth.com; May 10, 2000.
 It would almost appear that violence amongst lesbians is just a standard part of their relationship, for the obvious reasons as one could imagine.We have already witnessed how abusive heterosexual females are..
 Another study of 113 lesbians reported that 41% said they had been abused in one or more relationships. Source: Ristock, J., "And Justice for All?...The Social Context of Legal Responses to Abuse in Lesbian relationships," (1994) 7 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 420.
"Only 2% of heterosexual women had been in treatment for alcohol or 12-step programs, compared with 17% of lesbians - a large difference. This may be the result of prior heavy drinking among lesbians. Or it may be that lesbians are more aware of substance abuse issues than are heterosexual women. One of the questions in the survey is ' Have you ever wondered if you had a drinking problem?,' to which 47% of lesbians answered yes compared with only 14% of the heterosexual women." Source: Esther Rothblum, " Dyke Psyche - Do Lesbians Drink More Alcohol Than Heterosexual Women? ", Baltimore Gay Paper, September 16, 1999: vol.20, no.24, p. A13.
 In one study, 15% of lesbians engaged in torture for sexual fun (sadomasochism) that included "piercing, cutting or whipping to the point of bleeding" with their lovers. Source: Lemp et al, "HIV seroprevalence and risk behavior among lesbians," American Journal of Public Health, 1995; vol. 85: pp1549-1552.
There is a lot more here, but it's hidden, denied and just ignored now as lesbian feminist take over the feminist movement with their male hating vitriol as other feminists live in denial. Makes the entire feminist organisation guilty of conspiring to keep that all quite..

What fascinates me is this comment made by this male hater in her later article, a confession that she has 'Changed" it's mind, I kid you not..

I've changed my mind about men

Can you believe that. How can a leopard change it's spots at all. You may wonder just as I do. Here we have a professional male hater who has spent her life, hating all men without justification but selectively singling out the wrong doers and applying that to all men and boys as well. Being involved in everything those male haters have achieved like introducing laws that deny men their fundamental human rights and then turn around and confess that she has changed her mind. Is their some advantage to this confession. Is this radical male hating b*tch going to change those laws back so they are "EQUAL", not on your nelly, not in a thousand years..

They are pure hypocrites, nothing will change that and not even some well meant confession that this member of the human race has finally decided to make after realising the hate that she has spread over the decades as well as encouraging and promoting it has finally caused her to reassess her life and attitude.

Give me break. Maybe she should tell that to those maniacs at the RadFem Hub or would that be too much to ask or too much of a challenge. If she is sincere that would be the next course of action but I will not hold my breath.. 

 



This is exactly what we have been saying all along and finally a confession straight from the horses mouth..

 "Radical feminists seek liberation from men and their system, not equality."

Read it for yourself. Male feminists are finished, not even feminists want them involved..

Finally a confession about the real intentions of feminists and their self confessed male hating stance and assigning that to ALL FEMINISTS..

Have a read as you finally comprehend what feminism is really all about..

Note to feminists - Try Denying the TRUTH now, Lying Hypocrites..

An Open Letter Regarding A Radical Profeminist and Other Would-Be Helpers”

This is an open letter about men who claim to be feminist and to the women who believe them. This letter is directed at women who — without any analysis or criteria — believe men who claim to be feminist. This letter is not directed at anybody else, so please ensure that you are indeed a member of the intended audience before replying. This letter has been written with the cooperation of 28 radical feminists, all of whom should be familiar to those who frequent radical feminist spaces. We are rather serious today, about a rather serious harm being committed with impunity.

First, you need to know why we have a valid reason for being concerned about the behavior of self-identified feminist men within feminist spaces, and our answer is simple: We have identified the subtle mechanisms utilized by pro-feminist men to “divide and conquer”, to erase the commonality from all women within feminist spaces and whose cumulative effect results in a gross marginalization of the radical feminist position. Nor are we are the only women to notice a problem. Megan Milanese brilliantly describes most of the tactics here — yet that list does not go far enough to analyze the extent of the problem.

So why should an erasure of the commonality inherent to all women matter to anyone besides radical feminists? Lucky Nickel makes the relevant connection for us.
Self-naming and self-identified labels mean nothing. There must be substance to the label they identify with and substance to who they claim to be. Otherwise folks can insist on calling a mouse a giraffe or claim rape is really love.
What I do think important to note is that liberals, lesbian separatists and radical feminists are all flying the radfem flag these days. The problem being, they are 3 separate and distinct political groups and ideologies, 2 of whom are inappropriately waving the radfem flag. It can get a bit tricky tho with lesbian separatists as radical feminists can also be lesbian separatists. But not all lesbians are radfems and not all radfems are lesbian separatists, or even lesbian for that matter. But in Julian Real’s case, that would be irrelevant. The dude is not a lesbian or radical feminist.

What the dude is, is liberal. And what he is attempting to do is appropriate the radical feminist label in order to inject liberal ideology. Equality politics are liberal politics, not radical feminist politics. Radical feminists seek liberation from men and their system, not equality. Liberals focus on differences between women. Radical feminists focus on the commonality of women. Needless to say, these 2 different ideologies conflict and clash. Which delights men like Julian Real to no end. Cuz if he keeps liberal women pitted against radical feminist women, it keeps women from unifying, which in turn keeps the heat off of pricks like him and men in general. Slick, no?[/indent]
In talking to each other privately, we have decided to collectively communicate the following message regarding Julian Real, Hugo Schwyzer, and other men like them who claim to be feminist allies. These men do not speak for women as well as we can speak for ourselves and we ask that you give radical feminist bloggers the respect of reading our words, joining the discussion in comments on our blogs, and contributing to our own community rather than giving energy to men like Julian & Hugo who seek to divide us on points which all feminists have in common. Men exhibiting these behaviors have inserted themselves into discussions among women when their participation was insidiously harmful in nature, and we ask that you not support that behavior nor make excuses for it.

The Daughters of Feminists wondering why they should be different, you know, shave legs and stuff..
Just to increase your education just a little more regarding those radical feminists. Have a look at this rather comical set of events that every female can look forward to, with their compliments ofcourse. It has always been the rad fem's dream to remove either every single male from the planet or just keep a few drones around for mating purposes, probably those ball-less male feminist wimps who would offer no resistance..
Undercover Punk aka Bess Hungerford - I have reservations about framing “revolution” as the natural or inevitable conclusion of radical feminist theorizing. It seems generally accepted that “revolution” will cause the total destruction of all existing social institutions because revolution is only means of eliminating the “root” of female oppression. Thoughts which support revolution are therefore “radical;” everything short of that is not-radical. Not-radical thinking has no place in “radical” feminism. I’ve been turning these assumptions over and over in my mind. The belief that female liberation through “revolution” is even possible leaves many unanswered questions for me.
For example, how do feminists propose that we destroy all social institutions? With physical force? I think violence is counter-productive to feminism, but let’s pretend that women can use violence as a means to a greater end without harming ourselves in the process. I will suspend disbelief and take as given that women have also been successful in destroying all the buildings and physical infrastructure men have ever built; that we have effectively destroyed all the historical records and organizational documents of patriarchy (and that no one is secretly harboring any of them).
Now bear in mind that we are looking at RadFem's version of being polite as this blog is indeed in public view, which indicates how they believe that the public is ready to be exposed to their lunatic rantings and behaviour..

The lunatic feminist by the name of Undecover Punk(blog link) is no other than Bess Hungerford, another member of that sadistic movement and member of the Radfem Hub forum..

Hungerford also has a Facebook page which shows all of the other revolutionaries who are all apparently ready to die for the cause as those radicals are poking and prodding the methods of eliminating half the earth's population, which will ofcourse take some major effort and I will leave you to ponder those missteps in their stupidity, to contemplate. A more lunatic bunch one would be hard to find. Matching even the KKK, but making it sound nice, just like being handed a mushroom and wondering whether you would survive eating it...

According to Agent Orange, here is it's facebook page..




So we have Undercover Punk exposed as Bess Hungerford and exposed with the level and type of psychopathic ramblings it promotes. What warms me up the most is the responses to this lunatic's ramblings, you know, like, like she actually has this really good idea and I am going to like help and stuff..
More Hungerford - So, how would women eliminate these residual subconscious biases? This is my primary reservation about revolution as liberation: human minds cannot be wiped clean of patriarchal ideas. Freeing women from the tangible constraints of patriarchal institutions is a noble cause, but revolutionary results will require us to transform ideology as well.
That appear to be the major problem where Hugerford is concerned. What they would really need would be one of those mind erasing gadgets, you know those, the one that girls keep discovering all the time. And here I am fixing their problems, again..
Sargasso Sea - How would we solve problems and distribute resources? I simply don’t have faith in human (read: female) “nature” to magically work-it-out.
Freeing women from the tangible constraints of patriarchal institutions is a noble cause, but revolutionary results will require us to transform ideology as well.
This is indeed getting trickier all the time. After murdering every man and boy on the planet, with the exemption of Hugo, Manboobs and Flood (been given their little room and a test tube), they would have to have a close look at each other apparently, as there may be some residual "patriarchal" thinkers among them and they might gum up the path to invoked Utopia, which is even further down the road than initially anticipated, like the next county..

I have another suggestion though, how about George Orwell's 1984, it could well supply the answer. They, the Matriarchy, could connect every, erm, erm, cave (with nice curtains) to the erm, erm, citizen broadband radio system as soon as someone reinvents it and have those propaganda sessions just like in the book..
Likewise and that’s why I like the idea of “Resolution”; it’s resolved, for instance, that a “revolution” would end with a whole lot of revolutionaries who still see through patriarchy-warped lenses.
It’s a resolution of each and every woman’s moral intellect we’re really after, I think. Then things could be really, really different. Maybe. I hope.
Ooh, Ooh, oh, I know, pick me, How about they just wipe out all those females who they think may or could possibly be or may some time in the future, think about that other "archy" and just take them outside and just shoot them as well. It should be easy as they have just wiped out them other Patriarchy members without blinking..

Easy peasy, problem solved..

....Will you stop helping them,.....idiot!!..




Radical feminists are the driving force behind the feminist movement. Those radicals as can be seen here, are the integral part of the promotion of that hate movement's activities against males, as they promote female superiority and supremacy, steer it's course. If there are still people in doubt, have a look at the link above and that will demonstrate precisely where those male loathers are at and are all about..

The "pretend" feminists of all colour, shapes and sizes, live in complete ignorance and denial about these radicals, their function in that hate movement. Those same "rosy" feminists still choose to claim that feminism is about equality without realising how rediculous they are spouting that dream. The Radical Feminists put the "nazy" into feminazy, giving it relevance and meaning..

Radical feminists demonstrate clearly why they are not even remotely interested in equality. If one has a look at any book or article produced by these radicals, you will never see any mention or resolvability or acceptability or even one single specific effort for equality, this is ofcourse not their intention, aim, goal or outcome. They demand and strive for supremacy at any cost and any price, as they know they are the not the one who is going to pay the price..

Below is a small list of these radicals at work in Australia at the moment, trying to introduce and have already in cases, manipulated legislation to ensure that women only benefit from any new laws introduced. This is how they work. They produce their own statistics, introduce false information via biased studies and peddle them off to politicians as real evidence. They ensure that if any politician, either male or female, does not toe their sickening timeframe and refuses to ensure their biased male hating legislation is passed, will be labeled as a women hater and or a misogynists, often both. That is the tactic they have used for years and it has worked well. The inject fear into anyone who dares go against their feminists zietgeist, in order to achieve their undeclared outcomes..

Another detailed list of the National Plan’s sources can be found here.

The Greater circle of Australian Radical Feminists
One little known portion of the website Radfemspeak.net, which is the site that hosts the Radfem forums, is a series of pages that they call ‘The Fury’.[10] The amount of information that is on The Fury is not large, but what is on there is very telling about Australian radical feminism and how the site’s members are connected outside of their small circle. On one of the pages, there is a list of names and short biographies, which the site considers to be radical feminists of note inside Australia. There list includes,Diane Bell, Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys, Renate Klein, Jocelynne A. Scutt, Mary Lucille Sullivan, Denise Thompson, Bronwyn Winter and Betty McLellan.[11]

[10] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/
[11] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/aust-radfems.html

Two names come specifically to mind and that is Renate Klein and Susan Hawthorne. Two radical feminists who have already declared their membership to the inner chamber, the inner  of the hte chamber, a sanctum where all that hate generation, blossoms..

Here is an article by those two frauds..

Tankard Reist: Sugar would not even melt in her mouth..
The authentic feminism of Melinda Tankard Reist
Link..

As her publishers at Spinifex Press, Australia's only feminist publishing house (and secular), we take issue with these portrayals of Melinda Tankard Reist. It is easy to try to dismiss someone by smacking on a "fundamentalist" (whether Christian or Muslim, Hindu or Jewish) label and thereby dismiss the arguments that a person makes. What is less easy, but more ethical and intellectually rigorous, is to examine Tankard Reist's views - which are shared by many feminists and other advocates for social justice and human rights - and to see what the factual arguments for those views are.
Tankard-Reist, I am told is something else besides being one of them (being a conservative religious fundamentalist). That her principals and writing cannot be aligned with that hate movement's aims and goals. But you are judged by the company you keep and from the look of it, she has wallowed into the atrophying behaviour and thinking processes that those radicals find reason to comment about. Claiming that she is one of them and her efforts are in tone with their own thinking. I for one am not convinced that she is a blameless individual or an innocent bystander as she edits books for that feminist ( Even a cursory examination of her writings and the books she has edited for Spinifex Press) press as well as producing books on emotive topics and articles to ensure that she gets exposure and recognition. She has also chosen to take the same path as radicals by ensuring that her input is regarded and seen to push their male hating agenda, producing emotive information about the porn industries and prostitution, both of which will guarantee access to government subsidy and largesse. Radical feminists have used both those issues to germinate the male hating legislation that is now on the legislation books and designed solely benefit women only at the cost of men's basic human rights..

Never have any of these radicals ever considered any other point of view other than their own slanted, doctored purview, never would they ever have considered that a male prostitute or porn actor could be there due to coercion or force just like females may be (in most cases they have been demonstrated that they are not, but in it for the money or confess that 25% porn users are women) but that would never be considered..

Feminists were never about equality..

Tankard Reist could be a devils advocate but I am not going to go through her ponderings, her books and articles to find out and will leave it to others who already have. But her input has found it's way into the feminists hegemony database of malice and misinformation, for future use. You can if you like go to the radfemhub blog(link to download,top r/h corner) and load your mind with the vitriol and malice those radical feminists have produced and etch their poison into your mind for the rest of your life and wonder how easy women can take the low road and be influenced by something that is so distorted and incomprehensible as allow it to contaminate their action and words to such a degree.It will find them being loathsome and devoid of any humanity at all. That effort will change your own attitude towards the opposite sex, forever. Believe me, it is not worth the effort to be that sickened to the stomach by their verbal and mordant behaviour. Best to not want to know(in reference to the 250Mb Agent Orange download material on the RADFEM Hub R/H sidebar)..
But in the end, Tankard Reist has thrown her lot in with them and that is where she is and will stay unless convinced otherwise..

feminist Obama..

Obama and the group of feminist female assassins he placed in the White House will no doubt ensure his re-election is definitely not guaranteed. One is supposed to show some level of respect for leaders especially one in charge of a superpower nation. But one just cannot find the appropriate reasons or examples or character or dignity or honour that would normally demand respect. In this example, it appears to be totally and completely absent..
When Obama's hench-women introduced the new rules applicable to bonking into Colleges and Universities, where the onus of proof was placed on the accused and not the opposite way around, as has always been the case (innocent until proven guilty, you know, that one), they knew precisely what the consequences would be but all it did was demonstrate that ALL radical feminists want is to jail, kill or remove as many men from the planet as possible. If in doubt refer to Radfem Hub posts on this site)

Rape/sexual assault on Campus stats, someone had a look and guess what ?
Not 1 in 4 but..

One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven



This way, they can stand back, for the cowards they are and claim innocence as well as achieving an outcome to a drama they have introduced themselves (the delusional claim that "women are being raped at a rate of 1-3,1-4,1-6", take a pick) and it's in plague proportions, but only in the minds of those feminists ofcourse. The one single factor that feminists failed to grasp is that they need to tell women they were raped, even though the so-called victims deny it themselves. The 1 in 4 proportions would actually mean that over 30 Million women would be raped, I mean really, .. Really. How can those delusional, blatant liars ever make that type of claim and then be rewarded by being placed in the White House ?

See what I mean about those re-election chances..

..And another issue that the politically correct universities have installed is starting to back them right where it hurts the most..

Marquette University Threatens Academic Freedom

Liberty Alerts, TheFIRE.org
Over at the blog Marquette Warrior, John McAdams provides a good example of how unwarranted investigations of campus speech can cause a deeply problematic “chilling effect” at a university. Universities must not pursue investigations of protected expression just because someone submits a complaint; as soon as it is clear that the expression in question is protected speech, the inquiry must end, even if there are other factual disputes. Prolonging the investigation tells everyone on campus that the university will pursue charges against you no matter how frivolous or malicious the complaint. The likely result is that people self-censor and keep their mouths shut rather than risk such investigation and a possible punishment.
It seems that Marquette University, where McAdams is a professor, made just such a mistake this month. According to McAdams, his introductory course in American politicsdiscusses alleged media bias and takes an anti-feminist perspective:
Ambiguous sexual encounters, often fueled by alcohol, are defined as “rape” by feminist researchers, but not defined that way by purported victims.
We point out that feminists insist that if a women consents to sex under the influence of alcohol, she has been raped. [...] Often, some guy who hasn’t yet learned that, in academia, he’s not supposed to question any feminist claim, will raise his hand in our class and ask “suppose the guy has been drinking too? Why didn’t she rape him?”
We always respond, sarcastically “you’ve got to look at this from the feminist point of view. Males are the oppressor class, and women the victim class. So of course the guy is responsible.”
We typically add “if you wake up in the morning and ask ‘what in the world did I do?’ you haven’t been raped. If you’ve been raped you feel violated. If it requires a feminist political activist to explain to you how what happened was rape, you weren’t raped.”
In response, someone complained using the “Ethics Point” hot line Marquette had set up for people to privately report illegal financial activity (which this classroom discussion certainly was not). The complaint (as reported by McAdams) was that the material in class was “demeaning to rape victims” and that “rape is a serious problem on campus, and thus we [in the course] were engaging in ‘harassment based on gender.’”
Marquette has no basis, consistent with free speech and academic freedom, to punish anyone for making a vigorous argument in class, even if some perceived that argument as “demeaning to rape victims.” Nevertheless, Provost John Pauly directed McAdams’ department chair to pursue the investigation. McAdams writes:
Faculty have a right to disagree with any political movement – including feminists. And social science faculty have a right to debunk bogus social science statistics. … [T]he complaint should have been dismissed immediately. Taking the complaint absolutely at face value, we did nothing but disagree with feminist claims about date rape, something clearly protected by the canons of academic freedom.
That’s quite right. Marquette, like most private universities, promises students and faculty members that it is the kind of university that supports free speech and academic freedom. Marquette’s Student Handbook, for instance, notes:
It is clearly inevitable, and indeed essential, that the spirit of inquiry and challenge that the university seeks to encourage will produce many conflicts of ideas, opinions and proposals for action.
Yet by pursuing this investigation, Marquette is letting a single student entangle a professor in disciplinary proceedings simply due to protected classroom expression. How many professors at Marquette are now going to steer clear of sensitive topics just to avoid an Ethics Point investigation?
Marquette has had free speech failings in the past, too, such as when it required a graduate student to remove no less than a humorous Dave Barry quote from his office door: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.” At Marquette, this language was deemed so “patently offensive” that it could not be posted on the door. (Here’s Dave Barry himself speaking about it in a FIRE video.)
Once again, it seems that Marquette draws the line at offensiveness in a way completely at odds with what academic freedom and free speech should and do permit.


Oz Brick Wall

A path to Australian apartheid

(The first part of this series on Australia can be found here)
Tanya Plibersek, Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women in the Rudd Labor Government, wrote in 2002;
“At the weekend, the National Party voted against special measures to increase their number of women parliamentarians. The ALP and the Liberals, in contrast, want more women, but can’t agree on the best way to get them. This should be good news for the feminists who fought to make it happen, yet some – like the former federal MP Susan Ryan – ask whether it was worth it. After all, we haven’t defeated patriarchy. Yet.”[1]
Seven years later, Plibersek played a critical role in championing Australia’s new ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’. Plibersek, along side Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, put together a consortium of academics and domestic violence experts, to spearhead a team which would go on create the national report that became official policy. Since the early 2000′s, Plibersek never made it secret that she strongly supports feminist and even some radical feminist ideals. Indeed, in 2005, when Sheila Jeffreys came to Sydney to make a speech, it was Plibersek that introduced her with warm welcoming remarks.[2]
In April 1999, Plibersek gave an interview to Peter Lewis, during which she spoke about these ties of the Labor Party to the feminist community:
“I think that our historical relationships with groups outside the Labor Party like the peace movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the environment, the feminist movement. Our links with community feminist organisations have been about promoting grassroots activism around sexual assault services, domestic violence services; that sort of activism within the community and collective responsibility..”
She went on to weigh in about giving help to families with disabled children, but also clarified that she felt families are strictly women and children, and that any of their responsibilities should become the state’s responsibility;
“But it is also fair to say that the State owes a responsibility to those kids and their parents. We don’t want to return to a situation of voluntarism where individual parents may not have the skills or the patience or the time or the financial ability to look after their children in the ways that would benefit them the most. And I don’t know if it’s an ideal situation to necessarily throw the responsibility back on them. I don’t want to go back to a situation where families — and that means women — are being told its their responsibility all over again.”[3]
Plibersek’s special hand-picked legal advisor to the council was former Tasmanian Attorney-General Judith Jackson. Jackson, who labels herself as a “committed feminist,” has had a career filled with controversy. In the 2004 Tasmania Family Violence Act, [7] she was roundly criticized for her insistence that people accused of domestic violence not be granted bail before trial unless a series of nearly impossible steps were taken by the judge. When Jackson was criticized for attempting to bypass the Justice system, and for violating the human rights of men, she lashed out at her critics;
“How can anybody say that somebody should be let out on bail, so they can go back and re-offend and commit a crime again, and that’s what you’re saying and I find that disgusting.”[4]
But despite the fact that the data used as justification for the bill was based on very poor research, which according to many human rights advocates and several of her critics, never examined how often men were battered in similar circumstances, the bill was passed into law. The ramifications of the law went on to see hundreds of Tasmanian men spending weeks, many times months in prison before trial, for being accused of crimes like ‘economic’ or ‘emotional’ abuse. Ms. Jackson, when confronted about what the law was doing in practice, appeared quite amused and replied:
“We do have some of the best legislation in the world for protecting women and children,”[5]
The reality of the ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ is that it was promoted and shepherded through Australian government by Plibersek, a woman that admittedly was heavily biased towards a hardline feminist perspective that entailed a goal of destroying what she saw as a patriarchy and  associated with radical feminists like Sheila Jeffreys.  Plibersek also believed that women and children are the only parts that constituted a family and felt that the parental responsibly of raising disabled children lies solely with the state. Plibersek hand chosen, as her legal expert to the National Council, Judy Jackson, was a “committed feminist” who has openly disregarded due process of law for men, ignored compelling data or research when drafting radical legislation and has been often accused of “incessant sexism” by her fellow colleagues. [6]
It is not known exactly how the Rudd Labor Government choose the 11 members of the National Council in May 2008, but their members were: Libby Lloyd AM (Chair),Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair), Moira Carmody, Dorinda Cox, Maria Dimopoulos, Melanie Heenan, Rachel Kayrooz, Andrew O’Keefe, Vanessa Swan, Lisa Wilkinson and Pauline Woodbridge. [8][9] The council in conjunction with Plibersek, Jackson and Macklin, sought the help of several other academics, domestic violence experts and other individuals that the report refers to as “critical friends” to complete and finalize what became known as ‘Time for Action: the National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021‘.[19][20][27]
The Sources of New National Policy
The sources of data, research and analysis that were gathered and referenced by the national council and used as justification for their plan were formally acknowledged in the Government’s press releases in early 2009. Those sources were:[24][25][26]

The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA)
The Women’s Services Network (WESNET)
Women, Domestic Violence and Homelessness: A Synthesis Report
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence (NASSV)
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
were also used, but only as the information they provided was delivered via other research papers and analytical reports

Another detailed list of the National Plan’s sources can be found here.
The Greater circle of Australian Radical Feminists
One little known portion of the website Radfemspeak.net, which is the site that hosts the Radfem forums, is a series of pages that they call ‘The Fury’.[10] The amount of information that is on The Fury is not large, but what is on there is very telling about Australian radical feminism and how the site’s members are connected outside of their small circle. On one of the pages, there is a list of names and short biographies, which the site considers to be radical feminists of note inside Australia. There list includes,Diane BellSusan Hawthorne, Sheila JeffreysRenate KleinJocelynne A. ScuttMary Lucille SullivanDenise ThompsonBronwyn Winter and Betty McLellan.[11]
Several of these names were attendees of the 2011 Perth SCUM conference, including Hawthorne, Jeffreys and McLellan. Bell, Klein, Scutt, Sullivan and Thompson are also part of this close knit group of radical feminist authors, speakers and/or professors, each of whom have been published through Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press.[14] Two of these are of particular interest to this story for the moment; Dr. Bronwyn Winter, an Associate Professor at The University of Sydney,[12] and Dr.Betty Mclellan, who was the principle founder for ‘A Coalition for a Feminist Agenda‘.[13]
Dr. Winter has been a frequent guest speaker at several feminist and radical feminist gatherings, three of which were hosted or organized by Dr. Betty McLellan. [15][16] Dr. Winter also wrote an article in November of 2006 in support of White Ribbon Dayfor the website Online Opinion. [18] White Ribbon Day is an event that was created from the White Ribbon Foundation, which was founded in 2003 by a woman named Libby Lloyd. Lloyd is the current Chairperson for the National Council’s Violence Against Women Advisory Group. [17] More interesting however, is the end of the article, in which Dr. Winter and Ms. Green list who they feel are other leading voices for women. Most of the names are from the organization known as WESNET, but they also name a few other individual women’s rights advocates in Australia.
“Written by Bronwyn Winter, University of Sydney, and Betty Green, domestic violence advocate, on behalf of WESNET (Women’s Services Network): peak body grouping 380 women’s domestic and family violence services across Australia); Pauline Woodbridge, Coordinator, North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service; Julie Oberin, Manager, Annie North Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service; Marie Hume, National Abuse Free Contact Campaign; Veronica Wensing, Executive Officer, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre; Beth Tinning, Facilitator, Domestic Violence and Family Law Support Action Group, Townsville; and women’s rights advocates Desi Achilleos and Julieanne Le Comte.”
Many of these names will reappear again, including WESNET and its role in Australia’s ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’, but what is of primary note here the last name mentioned in the article, a women’s rights advocate named Julieanne Le Comte. I did an extensive search for a women’s rights advocate under that name in Australia, or indeed, anyone connected with a domestic violence or battered shelter group, and found nothing except some links to some very old internet list servs about feminist science fiction.
According to the AO files, Julieanne Le Comte is the person who is also known under the alias Rain Lewis. Rain is the owner and the main administrator of the Radfem Hub and forum, and she was also a speaker at the 2011 Pert SCUM conference.  [19] Dr. Winter is also public friends on Facebook with Rain Lewis, as well as the organizers of the Perth SCUM conference Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher. Does this mean that Dr. Winter is saying that Le Comte is an Australian women’s rights advocate leader because she runs the Radfem hub and forum, which as we all know, often discusses things like violence against men and infanticide?
WESNET, Political Action and Patriarchy
Dr. Betty McLellan has been on the Australian feminist scene for some twenty years, and has written several books published under Susan Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press. [20] McLellan has also hosted or chaired several conferences and gatherings of mostly radical feminists, including the 2002 Townsville International Women’s Conferenceand the 2007 International Feminist Summit. [15][16] Her Feminist Agenda coalition was also co-founded in 2002 by Dr. Joanne Baker, a Senior Professor at James Cook University, Chantal Oxenham, who works for the Australian Department of Human Services in the Northern Queensland Service Zone as a Regional Manager and Coralie McLean. [21][22][23]
The 2002 Townsville International Women’s  5 day conference hosted about 50 different feminist speakers from 15 countries. Over a dozen panels and workshops took place as well, several of which took place in women only sessions. From the  Australian speakers, a large portion of them were some of the same radical feminists we’ve seen above; McLellan, Jeffreys, Winter,Scutt, Renate Klein, Hawthorne, Sullivan, Baker and Oxenham.
What stands out was the large contingent of WESNET board members, who were part of four different panels. Over the past decade, WESNET has had only about two dozen board members, the most prominent two being Pauline Woodbridge and Julie Oberin. WESNET describes itself as:
“Established in 1992, the Women’s Services Network (WESNET) is a national women’s peak advocacy body which works on behalf of women and children who are experiencing or have experienced domestic or family violence. With almost 400 members across Australia, WESNET represents a range of organisations and individuals including women’s refuges, shelters, safe houses and information/ referral services.”[29]
While having individual speaking assignments, here are the four panels in which WESNET board members were involved. (WESNET board members in bold)
  • Panel – “Many Pieces Make a Whole – Providers of Anti-violence Education (PAVE)” Members - Jennyne Dillon, Ines Zuchowski, Joanne Baker, John Brown, Catherine Bessant, Jo Stewart, Shirley Slann, Jane Collyer, Pauline Woodbridge
  • Panel -”Joined Up Responses to Violence Against Women – Townsville Women’s Services Collaboration” Members - Lindy Edwards, Morgan King and Pauline Woodbridge
  • Panel – “Domestic and Family Violence Peak Round Table – Reflections, Future Directions/Strategic Directions for Advocacy and Lobbying” Members - Julie Oberin, Pauline Woodbridge, Shirley Slann, Ara Cresswell, Maxene Schulte
  • Panel – “National Strategy for Family Law Act Reform” Members - Julie Oberin, Ara Cresswell, Pauline Woodbridge
Obviously the focus of much of the conference was on consolidation of feminist groups within Australia,  to lobby and advocate for new laws and new programs on a national level. Indeed, less than two years latter, in March 2004, five members of the 2002 Townsville Feminist conference (under the banner of the Feminist Agenda Coalition)went to the capital Canberra and met with several Labor Party leaders.[30] They discussed their idea for a blueprint of a national plan, which basic concepts were laid out in Townsville. Interestingly enough, many of the same 2002 Townsville plan basics were incorporated into the 2007 Rudd Labor Party platform, which led to the ‘National Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’.
This topic will be addressed further in the next article, but two items are very important from this 2004 Canberra trip:
  • Only one of the five Feminist Agenda delegation that went was a WESNET representative. The other four were into differing degrees of radical feminism and were led by McLellan.
  • The politicians the delegation met with are some of the politicians who were directly involved with the 2009 national plan, including Tanya Plibersek and Jenny Macklin.
At the 2007 International Feminist Summit, which was a far more radical feminist conference than 2002, saw Woodbridge and Oberin of WESNET take a much larger role individually. They both even gave back to back speeches:
Pauline Woodbridge – “Challenging Patriarchy in Men’s behaviour Change Programs”
Julie Oberin – “Perpetrators of domestic violence: Can we? Should we?”
Less than 6 months after this conference took place Rudd’s Labor party won the election and took power. And less than 10 months after the 2007 conference Pauline Woodbridge would be appointed (from all indications by Plibersek) to the National Council chaired by Libby Lloyd. Woodbridge and Oberin, under the banner of WESNET, would go on to play a crucial role in the analysis and direction of the National Council. In fact, not only is WESNET listed as one of the main sources for information, Woodbridge and Oberin, along with the WESNET organization were recognized and used extensively as references and analysis in the 2008 Flinders University Synthesis Report; another of the Council’s primary sources.
From Woodbridge and Plibersek  past speeches and remarks, and by the policies outlines in the report,  much of what was recommended  seemed to draw heavily from the feminist theory of Patriarchy. Furthermore, if the 2007 International Feminist Summit was any indication, WESNET’s top two people were increasingly moving in radical feminist circles, including interaction with people like Jeffreys, McLellan, Winter, Bell, Sullivan, Hawthorne, Klein, Catharine MacKinnon, Melinda Tankard-Reist, Ryl Harrison and Beth Tinning.[16] The question is if they did become radicalized, how much? And to what extent did their influence with the National Council’s sources and analysis moved in a radical direction?
Other question remain, which we will examine in the next article:
  • Who were the other members of the National Council and what is their story? Were any of them less than friendly to Feminist ideology than Plibersek, Jackson or Woodbridge?
  • What exact data and statistics were used? Was the data accurate and factual? Was the information used honestly and in context?
  • What did the 2004 Feminist Agenda delegation to Canberra produce, and how much of McLellan’s agenda did the Labor party buy into?
  • What other feminists and radical feminists were used as sources for the study?
  • What role did the White Ribbon Foundation play?
  • What exactly is the plan, and how does the Australian government intend to enact it?
  • How does this fit into the already extensive Australian governmental agencies dedicated to women?
  • Have any men’s groups or father’s rights groups had a say in the plan?
  • How much more marginalized will men become in Australia because of these actions?
This subject is complex, but hopefully many of these connections are a little more clear to everyone. I’ve been as detailed and thorough as possible  to avoid any confusion, and to stay away from generalized accusations. The men’s rights movement is, for me,  at its root about equal protection under the law. Much of Feminism has been about changing the way government operates to further their ideology, often with radical feminists leading the way. It’s happened in Sweden and I hope our research here shows how it is happening in Australia.
[1] http://evatt.org.au/news/womens-suffrage-100-years.html
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ausnews/message/7160
[3] http://workers.labor.net.au/9/print_index.html
[4] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1245028.htm
[5] http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/news/200411/s1252626.htm
[6] http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2005/s1517030.htm
[7]http://www.safeathome.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/27585/Family_Violence_Act_2004.pdf
[8]http://www.dvirc.org.au/UpdateHub/FACS_37004_Violence_Against_Women.pdf
[9] http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/newdelhi11/lloyd.pdf
[10] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/
[11] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/aust-radfems.html
[12] http://sydney.edu.au/arts/french/staff/academic_profiles/winter.shtml
[13] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/
[14] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Authors/
[15] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/history/tiwc/list_of_abstracts.htm
[16] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Summit/detailedProgram.html
[17]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx
[18] http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5212&page=0
[19] http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-scum-connection/
[20] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/author/id=1/
[21] http://www.rural-leaders.com.au/programs/arlp/course-18-participants/488-chantal-oxenham
[22] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/aboutUs.htm
[23] http://www.jcu.edu.au/sass/staff/JCUPRD_016477.html
[24]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/acknowledgments.aspx
[25] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/research/Pages/default.aspx
[26]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/nat_plan_2010_bibliography.aspx
[27]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx
[28] http://www.wwda.org.au/natviolplanrept1.pdf
[29] http://wesnet.org.au/about/
[30] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Canberra%20Report1.html
Other links
(ADFVC) – http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/
(AIC) – http://www.aic.gov.au/
(WESNET) - http://wesnet.org.au/
Synthesis Report –http://fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/synthesis_report08/Pages/default.aspx
(NASSV) - http://www.nasasv.org.au/
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)