Latest Posts
Showing posts with label radical feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radical feminism. Show all posts

Concordia from Space.


That liner hitting the ocean floor was always going to be controversial, apart from the fact that the majority of the passengers survived, well over the 4000 mark and yet we have this ongoing finger pointing just because a couple of females failed to comprehend that they caused that whole "chivalry" thing to disappear and thereby encouraging alternative behavior to replace it..


Personally, I think the majority of people on board that ship helped each other out as much as possible and the odd few got their noise in a twist because they were not treated the way they assumed they should have been..

For feminists and those left wing lunatics to run around now and claim denial or any responsibility indicates their typical cowardly behaviour. They refuse to comprehend or admit or confess to making anything worse as they are actually of the opinion that everything now is a whole lot better or could be improved. Those same morons are in and included with feminists and their brainless, mindless deconstructionalist malarkey that they have dreamed up.

Reconstructionist Theory..
Let deconstruct a human being, set about to destroy his/her own sense of self and self-worth, then let's replant them with something else.........

Erm.. We're not quite sure what that will be yet, but I am sure we will think of something later..


They are answerable to no one and yet they are allowed to continue.
There should be a court set up to handle those destroyers of society..


What Hath Radical Feminism Wrought?
January 18, 2012
Link to That Mr G Guy's Blog..
Smitty of The Other McCain made an observation this morning after quoting Cassandra from Villainous Company;

I’m far more in agreement with Cassandra over at Villainous Company, emphasis original:
Wow. Just wow. Six dead and 29 missing in a tragic accident that (so far as I can see) is attributable to the cowardice, negligence, and poor example of the captain and crew – note carefully: to *some* men, not *all* men – and the reaction is, “Up yours, feminists/women – you got what you deserved”?
If a little boy is elbowed aside by an able bodied man and drowns as a result, has he “reaped what he sowed”? Alternate form of the implied argument is, “It’s not the man’s fault – those horrid feminists and their mind control rays made him do it!” Allow me to riff on the ubiquitous Heinlein quote:
Any society that allows morality to be defined down to the lowest common denominator will not long survive.
The morality of the crew members is between them and the Almighty. What is going to matter is that they have behaved unethically in abandoning their duties. The Admiralty Court, affectionately known as “the long green table” is one of the closer brushes you can have with the judgement seat of God while continuing to draw breath. They’ll build a timeline and rake those Italians over coals in slow motion, pointing out every single error of training, maintenance, and judgement. Or not; maybe the Italian court is as capsized as the Costa Concordia herself, but I doubt it. The amount of money involved in crewing, maintaining, and operating ships is such that they are Just. Not. Fannying. About.
I also especially like this paragraph;

In contrast to the radical feminists.
We enjoy tossing the entire Postmodern exercise in idiocy that is radical feminism under the bus around this blog, and then backing up over it several times, just to test the steering. Radical feminism is so risible that it really serves no use other than mockery. Trying to hang any sort of excuse on these bimbos is an act of auto-beclownment.
Here is a comment by Pathfinder’s Wife that pretty much sums it up. Read especially the last sentence and think about it;
It wasn’t just the feminists that created this mess — sorry, but a lot of men were more than happy to go along for the free love and the no commitment thing (after all, that’s a young man’s dream isn’t it? being a man is a responsibility and work, and sometimes you fail and get called on it — this released them too, now didn’t it?).
Women were stupid to have let this go from “equal in the eyes of our Creator, equal in the eyes of the law” (which is the only amount of equality anyone is lucky to get) to this other crap;both men and women sold their souls to have a little dirty fun (aka. we don’t have to act like adults all the time anymore, yippeee!).
Now both are bitching because it has essentially ruined the society they live in, ruined them personally as well, or their families. But instead of being rational about it, many are just swinging back in the opposite direction — sheer reactionary will and passions; it won’t turn out well.
We owe our children many apologies, and we do not deserve any forgiveness for what we have done to them (and are still doing).
Then the resident radical feminist basher of TOM, Stacy, jumps on the band wagon and expounds a little further;
A deference to feminism has taken hold that is almost never noticed: Anyone who writes about feminism except to praise it is presumed to be ill-motivated, and even most critics of feminism feel obligated to soften their crtiticisms by including disavowals of any intent to condone “discrimination.” But if we cannot discriminate between men and women — if we cannot say that male and female are distinct qualities involving differences significant enough to deserve recognition and accommodation — we are forced into maintaining the pretense of a phony “equality” that exists only in the minds of ideological fanatics.
And what no one can ever say is that feminism is an ideology of selfishness, which tells women that their ambitions, their desires and their grievances are more important than those of men. By embracing feminism, a woman becomes entitled (at least in her own mind) to deferential favoritism, with an entire political/legal movement standing ready to unleash hell on any poor bastard who dares dispute her “right” to anything she covets.

And then, the piece de resistance of the article is the last paragraph;
The appropriate answer to this ridiculous ideology is not a counter-ideology; we do not need a “man’s movement.” Rather the appropriate answer is to expose feminism as the dangerous folly it is, and to show courage in doing so. Too many men are afraid to denounce feminism directly and comprehensively, and the scent of fear only incites the feminists to more furious attacks. But let us acquit ourselves as men, and not abandon ship like Capt. Francesco Schettino.

What a fine screed against the scourge of Mankind, radical feminism.

Before I married the love of my life, I used to date a feminist,( I know, what the hell was I thinking, right?), and she used to get so upset at the littlest things. One thing that always set her off was when I’d open a door to a building or her car door for her. “I’m perfectly capable of opening the damn door myself”, she’d say. That lasted about six months…thank God I came to my senses.

Why do some women get so pissed off that a man would treat them like a lady.

Update; Bob Belvedere of TCOTS has a much better take on the story than I. Here’s an excerpt;

He was inspired to write the essay after reading Smitty’s post of early this morning on the same subject, wherein he seems to be saying that, if the Captain and part of his crew are to blame, it is through their individual failings as Human Beings [please correct me if I'm wrong, Chris].
I do see these cowards as symbolic. They are the products of Leftism and their actions are the result of a lifetime’s worth of constant indoctrination into Leftist Thinking. And Feminism, which is a subset of Leftism, therefore, is only partly to blame.
The Triumph Of Leftism via it’s successful marches through all of our institutions has led to the men of The West spending their whole lives being told in every venue that they are not positive contributors to Society, that they are inherently Evil and possessed of a strong desire to impose patriarchy, that they contribute nothing unique to Society ― this is the Feminist part of the Triumph. The other factions of the Left have also been at work, telling both males and females that there is no Absolute Truth, that we may have evolved, but we have never overcome being ultimately animals, that individual Human Life does not mean much because the Collective is all, that Free Will is probably a myth [that one's getting pushed more and more these days], that Traditions mean nothing, and that Reason is definitely a myth.
The Captain and those of his men who failed to do their duty must be punished to the full extent of the law [one hopes that Italy will hang the Captain], but we must also recognize that they are the products of the vile disease called Leftism which has devastated more lives than all of the outbreaks of The Black Plague through-out history combined.
Interesting comments as we witness the rage increasing against feminists, feminism as a whole and also radical feminism which I with quite a few other have exposed. That monster is now being assessed and identified. It not be long before we find the right tolls to bring it to it's knees and delivery the death blow. Hopefully sooner than later..

H/T to Mr G Guy..

GWW (Girl Writes What) states some very important points in relation to Systemic Gender Violence. That entire mentality that has been instituted by feminists into every walk of live, soon it will be in every society.
Only female comfort is important and men's anything is totally irrelevant..

Having exposed the lunatic rantings from the RADFEM Hub and the ongoing exposure of radical feminists, denied and ignored by supposed "fun" feminists, even though they support that movement in every fashion. Be it financially, legally and morally, including white knighted males and ignorant enablers, who prefer to ignore the violence that feminism introduces across our entire society.Those supporters should to be held just as accountable as those radical feminists..

Their support ensures those anti-male laws are excepted and legalised. Their efforts are on par, as they live in denial, but still claim that there is no bias or male hate promoted. Those people are the result of feminist doctrinal training that ignores anything that does not support one sex and thereby ignores and blatantly introduces sexism and discrimination against the other. They still refuse to accept that obvious and blatant fact..

 One comment made in relation to this video apart from it's expose of the feminist hate movement and it's mindset. "Is this video too little,too late", to even slow the systemic bias and hate introduced. Unless politicians and political parties are informed or are told to stop ignoring men's issues maybe we can stop those radicals from completely destroying society and turning every nation into another Sweden..

 I would urge all viewers to use the links to this site and the RADFEM Exposed site to spread the message whenever and wherever you can. Unless people are informed, they will never be aware of the monstrous actions of this movement, that feminists and their enablers are taking under the guise of equality, when it is blatantly obvious that it has never been the case or their aim..



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)

I do occasionally come across some rather idiotic and useless blogs and this is definitely one of them..

I Blame The Patriarchy

Obviously, the delusional can be found just about anywhere. But this little number does have an issue that is flavour of the Month at the moment..
This is a feminist blog. It discusses feminism from the point of view that the value of the liberation of women from patriarchal oppression is not itself a matter of debate. In order to be considered suitable for posting here, your remarks must proceed from within a framework of radical feminist theory. Thanks!
It would appear that I have accidentally (ahem) stumbled onto another one of those feminastie radical site. So lets have a poke about and see if we can find anything remotely interesting..

Now do bear in mind that I did not make this up or have I changed anything in any manner shape or form.. I didn't have to. This is just another one of those looney radical feminist sites that waxes lyrical and wanders into fantasy and their own version of utopia..

Well gee, just imagine what the world would be like without a single male left on the planet. What would I possibly want from then onwards. And she actually answers the question, I kid you not. The only problem ofcourse would be a small issue of reproduction but don't mention that and don't say anything about growing old and you know, dying. As that is not on the menu either..

No honestly, they are almost rational in some other ways, really!!!




What this blog is for

What is this thing?

In an effort to accommodate the exploding demand for more, more, more radical feminism on the Internet, Spinster Aunt HQ brings you I Blame the Patriarchy, the patriarchy-blaming blog that expresses the radical feminist views of award-nominated spinster aunt Twisty Faster. Aside from all that, and in addition to providing Twisty with a platform from which to practice writing run-on sentences, IBTP is a port in the storm for women who have had it up to here. Many advanced blamers find IBTP useful for stimulating, non-dudeliocentric, troll-free discourse. The Blametariat includes some of the most hilarious and insightful feminist voices on the Internet.
Other topics frequently addressed on the blog are atheism, natural history, science fiction, and bonobos.
Why blame the patriarchy?
Patriarchy, which invisibly persists as the world’s most popular social order, is a really bad scene based on an oppressive paradigm fetishizing dominance and submission. Benefits in this culture of domination are accrued according to a rigid hierarchy at the top of which are rich honky adult males and at the bottom of which are poor female children of color. Within this hierarchy, women, regardless of race or any other status markers, constitute a sub-human sex class. I Blame the Patriarchy endeavors to expose to feminist scrutiny and critique the many schemes and gambits — legislation, adjudication, media, medicine, culture, religion, Oprah, tradition, etc — through which the dominant culture controls the sex class and sustains the global humanitarian crisis that has ensued as a result of its ceaseless violence.
Women will never enjoy fully human status until patriarchy is dismantled.
Then what?
The Twistolution envisions a post-patriarchal order free of male privilege, rape, misogyny, femininity, theocracy, corporatocracy, gender, race, deity worship, marriage, discrimination, prostitution, exploitation, godbags, the nuclear family, reproduction, caste, violence, the oppression of children, the oppression of animals, poverty, pornography, and government interference with: private uteruses, non-abusive domestic arrangements, drug habits, lives, and deaths.

The Men's Movement has only ever and will only ever, work for the good of society, as greater minds and everyone involved in it over the centuries has determined it to be. The only problem with society is what radical feminists and feminists as a whole, determine those problems to be..

They are just delusional..

The entire problem with society is that feminism has been allowed to fester and infect society to try and destroy our normal existence and turn it into some loathing cauldron, which it is not. Radical feminism is the by product of marxism and their rampant hate for all is now coming to light. This is what they are teaching your children, they are teaching your children to hate everything and everyone..

Is this the world that you want to raise your children in ?


feminine-agency-as-opression

The destructive logic of radical feminism

I decided that before I got really deep into the long breadcrumb trail of radical feminists working towards changing laws and policies inside Australia, I wanted to take a moment to discuss radical and mainstream feminism at its base level. At the bottom of the page, I’ll list out several popular books by radical feminists that discuss what their ideology is all about. But I’ve noticed a lot of discussion here on AVFM and other sites questioning just what radical feminism is and if there is any difference to mainstream feminism. I thought it important to give at least my take on feminist and radical feminist theory, as I think it is important to understand what exactly these people are talking about, and what they are so motivated to accomplish.
And, please don’t take my word for it, if you have the stomach, I suggest that you read what this movement’s ideology is, and the very bizarre thought process behind it.
Before I address the condensed list of radical feminist bullet points, I think it is important to touch on leading rad-fem writers position on individual choice. The quick and dirty is that the overwhelming majority of radical feminists don’t believe women have true individual choice. Instead, they think that women who are uneducated on radical feminist theory have no agency over themselves or their actions. According to doctrine, the individual choices of a woman regarding her own body and sexual practices, and even her own actions in life, are a tool of oppression and the patriarchy. No, seriously, they really believe this.
Shelia Jeffreys in her book Beauty and Misogyny (2005 2nd ed) explains this concept in detail:
“I suggest that beauty practices are not about women’s individual choice or a “discursive space” for women’s creative expression but, as other radical feminist theorists have argued before me, a most important aspect of women’s oppression. The feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye has written incisively of what makes a theory feminist, and why it is not enough to rely on women’s individual assurances that a practice is OK with them and in their interests” (p2)
Radical feminist Denise Thompson, in her 2001 book “Radical Feminism Today” expands on this idea of the harm of individualism a bit more:
“The ideology of individualism depicts ‘humanity’ as a set of isolated selves […] Desires, needs, interests, beliefs, actions, feelings, attitudes and behaviours, are perceived as personal properties intrinsic to each individual […] If relations of domination and subordination are interpreted as nothing but properties of individuals, they cannot be seen as relations of ruling at all. They become simply a matter of preferences and choices engaged in by discrete individuals who have no responsibilities beyond their own immediate pleasures and satisfactions. In this libertarian discourse, politics vanishes. If only individuals exist, political critique can only be seen as personal insult or annihilation of the self, and disagreement becomes assertion of the self against threatening and hostile others. ‘Freedom’ is reduced to the absence of constraint, either on the part of the self or of others.”(p43-44)
In other words, Thompson is saying that she believes individualism and individual choices of women are part of the collective oppression of the patriarchy. In Janice Raymond’s 1995 book, “Women as wombs: reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom,” she takes it a step further; that a women’s body is the reproductive agent of the patriarchy.
“The assumption that any reproductive means should be a constitutionally protected procreative liberty ignores the real means used to bring about the desired end. Procreative liberty is not an abstract end, separate from an evaluation of the means. The central fact is that women’s bodies are the reproductive means to others’ reproductive goals.”(p78)
Did I warn you all that this was some very messed up logic? These people have doctorates for God’s sakes. And yes, just a warning, it gets worse.
Like any ideology, views vary greatly from one person to the next. However, these are the basic tenets, some more popular than others, that are seen frequently in radical feminist academic papers and other publications. As we have seen with Sweden, and now other countries devolving the system of laws to fit radical feminist ideology.
  • Heterosexual relationships and marriage are deemed to be at the root of the Patriarchy, and therefore are shunned by almost all radical feminists.
  • What radical feminists call PIV (Penis in Vagina) intercourse, or basically all heterosexual sexual activities, are seen as a tool of oppression and violence towards women.
  • Homosexual relationships are seen as the only route out of their idea of an all encompassing male dominated oppression. (Important: this theory has nothing to do with the rights of LGBT people, and everything to do with literally viewing the male penis as the most oppressive tool of the patriarchy)
  • As discussed above, radical feminists feel that women are not able to make individual choices for themselves that will enable their liberation from men, until they fully understand the theories of radical feminism. They believe that a normal woman’s agency is an illusion. According to this doctrine, while women think they have choice, any choice they make upholds the Patriarchy.
  • All forms of prostitution are seen as both violence against women and as an agent of patriarchy and oppression. Hence, why in Sweden, the laws were crafted so prostitution was only a crime a man could commit. Men are seen as the only side of the transaction with real choice, since in radical feminism, women’s individual choice is actually just the choice of her oppressors, and therefore men should be the only party criminally charged.
  • Almost all spectrum’s of feminism believe that “gender” is learned and not biological in any manner. Transgendered people are seen as deviants, not because they believe it is morally wrong, but because they are either seen as attempting to be a traitor to their sex and join the patriarchy in Female-to-Male cases, or are attempting to infiltrate women only spaces in Male-to-Female cases. It is almost impossible to describe the violent hate that radical feminists have towards transgendered people.
  • Pornography is seen as violence against women and another tool of oppression. Radical feminists believe pornography is not morally wrong, but rather as a show of male deviancy derived from the Patriarchy. Some Radfem’s do create their own pornography, which is obviously lesbian porn, preformed by feminists for the sole intended use of other feminists.
  • Any suffering that men incur during their lives is a product of Patriarchy, and is nothing to be mourned. Indeed, many radical feminists have stated that increased suffering in men is a good thing as it may begin to show them how the Patriarchy hurts them too.
  • In radical feminism, and indeed some more moderate versions of feminism, it is impossible for men to be oppressed. To them, there is no such thing as sexism or bigotry towards men, because men are the ultimate benefactors of privilege, therefore and hatred or animosity towards men simply because of their sex is seen as a positive fight against their oppressors.
  • Radical feminists believe that there should be no difference as a matter of state law between private lives and public lives. They argue that the Patriarchy continues to oppress women in untold numbers behind closed doors.
  • Sexual jokes or crude humor, heterosexual scenes played out in the media and even romantic advances toward women by men is seen as violence against women by radical feminists.
  • As we have seen in the last couple of weeks, some radical feminists believe that the male sex is a biological accident, and that the Y chromosome should be considered a type of defect. (Of course these people ignore the rest of the animal kingdom, and the biological differences between the sexes in other species)
  • Destruction of the “male” gender (not sex, though many have advocated extermination of the male sex) is seen as the ultimate way to freedom.
There is more, a lot more, but I think I’ve conveyed the gist of their ideology. When you start to read these works of radical feminism, which by the way are a lot more popular than almost any ‘mainstream’ feminist, the amount of victimization they place upon themselves is beyond disturbing. You begin to see a pattern quickly emerge, that ultimately attempts to justify any bad action that a woman does as a product of patriarchy, but immerses the reader into desensitizing trance that ignores any harm or suffering that occurs to men or boys above the age of puberty. This model of patriarchy is what is being taught in almost every gender studies class around the world, and has seeped out into the mainstream conscious that men are expendable cogs of oppression.
The big ideological difference between radical feminism and mainstream or liberal feminism, besides the obvious fact that most mainstream feminists completely ignore what absolute vile hate merchants radfems really are, is this idea of choice and free will. While many mainstream feminists believe in both the notion of the all encompassing oppressive patriarchy and also believe that they have real choice in their lives that can do harm or do good, radical feminists think that the proposition for excepting both as true is impossible. What never occurred to either of them is that this myth of patriarchy might just be total horseshit, since it backed up by neither empirical evidence nor statistical data. Furthermore, radical and mainstream feminists are all guilty on some level of marginalizing the suffering of men and boys as something that is less than human. I’ve heard the saying “the patriarchy hurts men too.” I’ve got a new one for them; ‘feminist ideology hurts everyone’.
I think I need a week or two off after writing this, as I don’t think I have encountered so much stupid hatred and ignorant and dehumanizing rhetoric, that not only goes ignored by the majority of our society, but also gets justified by “fun-fems” as just harmless banter. Do they really think that these hate mongers that are in positions of power and prestige, don’t or haven’t influenced law to conform to their agenda? Perhaps they need a trip to Sweden…and maybe Australia soon as well.
Then again, maybe they secretly agree with them.
References for those with a high tolerance for crazy (I refuse to link to any of their books)

Spinster and Her Enemies, Sheila Jeffreys
Politics of Reality, Marilyn Frye
Sister/Outsider, Audre Lorde
Life and Death, Andrea Dworkin
Feminism Unmodified, Catharine MacKinnon
The Whole Woman, Germaine Greer
Female Sexual Slavery, Kathleen Barry
A Passion for Friends, Jan Raymond
Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals, Marilyn French

Spread the word and make it go viral..


Helping the Agent Orange Files Go Viral

I have gathered, for your convenience, some contact information that will help in spreading the word about the Radgate Wikileaks. First, here are the top ten newspapers in the USA, by circulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation


Before discovering the resource linked above, I had gotten specific addresses, firstly for the New York Times. . .
executive-editor@nytimes.com
nytnews@nytimes.com
publisher@nytimes.com

. . . and secondly for the Washington Post:
postnow@washpost.com


All right, here is a list of hundreds of newspapers in Australia:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/australi.htm

And some Newspapers in New Zealand:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/nz.htm

Newspapers in Canada:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/canada.html

Newspapers in the U.K.:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/uk.html

Newspapers in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India#English_language


I guess it doesn't hurt to let politicians hear about this. That way, they can't pretend they don't know. First how to get ahold ofgovernment critters in the USA:

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

And now, MPs in the UK:
http://www.parliament.uk/

MPs in Canada:
http://www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html

MPs in Australia:
http://australia.gov.au/directories/contact-parliament

MPs in New Zealand:
www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/GetInvolved/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm

MPs in India:
http://www.indiademocracy.org/index.php/electedofficials/stateList/type/MP


Now, here are some well-known journalistic entities that I looked up -- and I was not over-particular about political orientation, in case anybody is wondering. What counted was, that I thought these individuals were potential megaphones. Yes...publicity is good!


Matt Drudge:

http://drudgereport.com/
(Use the contact form at lower right, where it says "send news tips...".)


Phyllis Schlafly:

eagle@eagleforum.org


Michelle Malkin: 

writemalkin@gmail.com
(Note: Michelle says, "if you have a news tip, put TIP in the subject line".)


Rush Limbaugh: 

ElRushbo@EIBnet.com


Glenn Beck:
me@glennbeck.com
Glenn Beck himself.

stu@glennbeck.com
Exec producer and head writer for Glenn Beck.


All right, remember that publicity is good, and also that redundancy is the meat of the matter. So if these entities get plenty of mail on the same subject, it will boost the odds of them taking it seriously.

Bernard hits the "MRA's are the enemy" scenario, reaching for the fourth estate, all four dimensions of it. Fascinating how gay men are of the opinion that they are seen as humans where feminists are concerned. I am not quite certain how many more times we have to demonstrate that feminists loathe gays, with a passion, the male type ofcourse, not the lesbobo version..

Check the RedFem Hub site for confirmation, if you can handle the sheer nastiness and vitriol, that is..

Feminists have jumped aboard the Gay Rights Movement in order to spread their own male hating message. A message that the Gay Community appears to ignore. When feminists call for the removal of all men, the Gay man is definitely not exempted, I cannot understand how they can be in denial of  that fact, that certainty..
Feminists are only concerned about destroying marriage and families and the Gay community can help there as well by demanding that marriage should be renounced as null and void. It's worked very well for feminism as most are totally convinced that they actually give a damn..


Feminists should stop stitching up gay designers


This theory has never been challenged, becoming the sole socially acceptable line in homophobic thought. But it is not acceptable. It is simply bile hawked up from the darkest cavity of feminism's lungs. Why then is the argument such pernicious nonsense?
Feminism and feminists only support lesbianism as most of the radical feminists are lesbians and they possess sufficient toxicity and male hate in order to spread their anti male loathing. They attached themselves to any movement they think they will have some advantage or benefit to spreading their elitist, sexist message..

So we have delusional male imitators like Rudolfo, another twisted, delusional member of the gay community who requires some cold hard facts just like we have had to show other feminist manginas..

Ignore these warning at your own peril. Feminists will dump you faster than typhoid when they have achieved their own outcomes. It's that simple..



Womyn's Stuff apparently..
On numerous occasions, the RADFEM Hub feminist members speak of a festival called the 'Michigan Womyn's Music Festival', a popular occasion, their Mecca, amongst lesbian feminists and strictly off  limits to transvestites ofcourse, as they hate them with a passion, as they are not "real" women as far as they are concerned..



As a matter of fact, even being (or have been at any time in the past) in a heterosexual relationship has your browny marks reduced to zero. That would be contamination as far as they are concerned. Those radical feminists, who is part of the Feminist Movement, are really just an inevitable response of a movement that promotes hate and malice to anyone outside their own sex..

In order to witness the sickening loathing and hate they generate, one would not have to look long at their endless rantings. Part of their mindless programs begin with the total annihilation of an entire sex which one wonders if that is not self-destroying and self defeating, but that has escaped their mindless raging as they continually discuss methods of completing that task..

Bare in mind too, that Pamela O'Shaughnessy is a member of this group under the guise of Karma. Her maniacal lecturing and support for the extermination of all males is not restricted to adults as she includes the introduction of eugenics (just like that dictator did) into her many and varied recommendations and long term goals..

There would not be a site or forum on the net that would surpass the deep seated hate and maniacal loathing of these women, these feminist females have for the opposite sex..
Here is a sample of the deep seated loathing that "pretend" feminists ignore and deny..
 Disrespect is crucial. Disrespect for the cultures, values and institutions of male domination is the very foundation and sine qua non of feminism. Since religion is crucial to the construction of cultural norms in every culture, disrespect for it should be the natural amniotic fluid of feminist thought and activism.Sheila Jeffreys is an academic and writer, originally from London, who teaches in Australia. She has been a rad fem activist for 38 years.
So moving on, we have Hugo Schwyzer organising "Slutwalk LA" for the simple reason of having  plenty of young, nubile, willing females on hand, for him to practise (as the feminist call it, PIV- penis in vagina) sex with them. An accusation he has not only verified himself but blatantly brags about on his blog. What a great example for an almost "human being"..
Here is an article penned by one of the lunatic fringe members at RADFEM Hub called " Steering the Sluts", apply named I thought..

Steering the Sluts: Prof. Hugo Schwyzer Organizes Los Angeles SlutWalk
self-identified feminist man and fun-fem darling hugo schwyzer reports on his blog that he is ”proud to be a part” of the steering committee organizing the los angeles SlutWalk, scheduled to take place june 4, 2011.
according to professor schwyzer, “We’re marching to reclaim a word, we’re marching to declare zero tolerance for harassment and sexual abuse, we’re marching in defense of the basic notion that whatever women wear and whomever they sleep with,



And for those who are of the opinion that Schwyzer has any scruples at all..
FCM (Hello Mindy).... hugo admits on his blog that he “used to” have PIV with female students (including on his professorial-office desk) during what he euphemistically refers to as his “acting out years.”  what a rebel!  a college professor, teaching womens studies and womens history to women, acting out his aggressions and dysfunctions on the bodies of his female students by having PIV with them,
A great example of pure hypocrisy. Schwyzer is in it for the sex (PIV) and female attention, just like most feminist men are..


Lesbian separatist feminism at Michigan Womyn’s music festival

  1. Kath Browne
    1. University of Brighton, UK, k.a.browne@brighton.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper attends to the 35 years of learning From Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. Questionnaire, interview and focus group data from the 2006 festival are used to examine: the physical and social creation of feminist separatism at the site of the festival; lesbian cultures, and the lessons and learning of Michfest, all of which create contemporary womyn’s space. The paper thus offers insights into some of the positive contemporary manifestations of lesbian feminist separatisms ‘on the land’ and concludes by contesting oppositional positioning of lesbian feminisms and post-feminism.