Misandry Review - Latest Comments

Re: DA who kept innocent man in jail now running for Senate

amiraultwasguilty — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:48:57 -0000

This article is wrong.

Amirault was found guilty. There was physical evidence of abuse, and his victims as adults stated he abused them.

http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/day-...

http://web.archive.org/web/20010719201703/http:...
Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL (J) 02/24/95
The three Amiraults — Gerald, Violet and Cheryl – were convicted after two trials before different judges and juries almost one year apart. They were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts....
in Amirault, the majority of the female children who testified had some relevant physical findings, as did several female children involved in the investigation who did not participate in the trial.

“All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way…The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse. Some of the children testified that they were photographed during this abuse, describing a big camera with wires, a red button, and pictures which came out of the camera. The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse….The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testified…She made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls.”
http://abusearticles.files.wordpress.com/2007/1...

http://web.archive.org/web/20010807011330/http:...
Mass. Victims Fight Commutation Plea By Leslie Miller, Associated Press Writer
Phaedra Hopkins, 20, said at an emotional news conference. “So many times, Mr. Amirault hovered over me, touched me and hurt me and committed many disgusting acts of abuse.” Those children, now adults, stood by their testimony Thursday.

“This family raped me, molested me and totally ruined my life,’’said Jennifer Bennett, who was 3 1/2 years old when she started at Fells Acres. “We weren’t coaxed. We weren’t lying. We’re telling the truth and we always will,” said Bennett, 22. “I was there. None of you were there. We weren’t coaxed, nor were we ever ever ever brainwashed.”Brian Martinello, 21, said he was sexually abused by Amirault.

Re: Study: Testosterone Leads to Fairness in Women

Porky Domesticus — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:39:44 -0000

So much for the idea that the economy tanked because of all those testosterone-filled Gordon Geckos!

Re: France to ban ‘psychological violence’ in marriage

DoctorPsi — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:53:03 -0000

The law is ok as it is written, but my worries come when we have to talk about practice. Sometimes, you can't prove domestic violence and that has always been the problem. My opinion is that we should think of howto improve education and not creating laws that don't help people in the long term.
_______________________________________
Save Marriage

Re: Idealizing student-teacher sex

westernbedding — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:05:12 -0000

this always happens but students don't complain - just not to get embarassed themselves... :D

Re: My Job Stimulus Plan: How to Grow a New Army of Ethical Entrepreneurs

NickThacker — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:08:21 -0000

Hmm, interesting points. While I am fully supportive of "ethical" entrepreneurship--and your definition is spelled out clearly enough--defining ethics alone can be a dauting task. What about outsourcing? What about immigrant labor? What about both at the same time? These are questions that come immediately to mind.

When you mentioned the teaching of entrepreneurship in the classroom as a possibility, however, I think you hit the nail on the head--this is ADAMANT for our nation's youth to be properly educated. We are finally moving quickly away from the false "security" offered by working for a major corporation, and need to stress that entrepreneurship is a great alternative!

Good post, Marty! Keep it up!

Re: ONE IN THREE CAMPAIGN – MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

facebook-100000272454316 — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:18:00 -0000

The "1 in 3" campaign is misleading, because it implies that 1 in 3 victims of intimate partner violence is male. In fact, at least half of all IPV is perpetrated against males by females. It's all in the way that you define victimization. The 1 in 3 statistic is accurate only if you define IPV as attacks which cause injuries. In terms of attacks alone, there is gender parity; the phrase being used should thus be "1-for-1."

Re: ‘SNL’ Criticized After Airing Tiger Woods Domestic Violence Skit While Rihanna On Show

facebook-100000272454316 — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:00:27 -0000

The reason that it was awkward with Rihanna being there is because in her situation, she was the instigator of violence against her male partner, just like Tiger Woods' wife. In both cases, the woman used violence against the man because of suspected infidelity by the man.

Only in Rihanna's case, her victim fought back -- excessively. Tiger Woods didn't fight back.

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

Porky Domesticus — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:05:43 -0000

"End of the day they just want two things -- the same things everybody wants: to be recognized as human beings instead of treated like property, and for people to behave towards them like human beings instead of animals."

What a load of garbage. Feminists want special treatment for women, and thats all there is to it. They want 42% of the US's new jobs despite having lost only 20% of the old ones, they wanted, and got, a white house council on women and girls despite the fact that by most measures they already do better than men and boys, they wanted, and got, a sexist, racist cow on the Supreme Court just because she's a female cow. etc etc.

As for the idea that the rhetoric of the 70s was a response to such attacks on women, where is the male equivalent of Valerie Solanas Scum manifesto or Sally Miller Gearhart's, "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" Come on, where are the male documents calling for women to be wiped out? They dont exist.

Feminists don't get a bad rap, they actually get a good rap, they get treated as if they have a just cause when what they really have is the female equivalent of the crap you find on Stormfront

Re: What the F^&k now??

zPoznania — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:37:22 -0000

Trash anti-culture.

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

Dace — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:42:56 -0000

In all my years I've never heard anybody make such a blatantly sexist remark. Of course, things may be different in Australia.
When you get right down to it, people like that department head are the (Apparently) non-vocal minority. It's so rich when you hear things like "The radical notion that women are human beings." - If that notion is radical, then what the devil defines a human being?
Feminists these days are pushing(The ones that actually push for something, that actually cause their self definition to be relevant) for something a little more than equality, and it is so obviously not motivated by egalitarian ideals that it's painful. Read the recent backlash over Men's Groups?
It may be difficult to define something so varied, but when you have completely silent, passive members of a collective who apparently are 'Just along for the ride' and a significant number of vocal, active members, there being a variety of bodies among this number, the indifferent majority, if not academic as far as defining the collective goes, seem complicit in the vocal minority's efforts.

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

figleaf — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:22:32 -0000

Um. This is actually cool. I believe the accusation of "late-hitting thug" was leveled fairly frequently on sports pages at the time... mostly by people who a) were fans or players of opposing teams b) people who only listened to fans of opposing teams. Oh, and maybe c) people who read news reports based on opinions of fans or players of opposing teams. I quit drinking when I turned 21 but I'd be happy to have a cup of coffee and a piece of pie with Madden, Stabler, or any of those guys... and I'm sorry Lyle Alzado isn't still around to say something to either. The Raiders were a solid, winning team for most of the decade and it sounds like you agree they got a bad rap.

My point being it's the same with feminism. Feminists get a bad rap. End of the day they just want two things -- the same things everybody wants: to be recognized as human beings instead of treated like property, and for people to behave towards them like human beings instead of animals. And same as anybody they get ticked off any time someone says they can't have those two things.

As for the 1970s comparison, I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but the extreme rhetoric from feminists back then was usually in response to equally extreme rhetoric going the other way.

Someone telling someone with an advanced degree in refractory-metals engineering they can't have a job they weren't just qualified for but actually hired for because the department head said "the only position for women in this lab is on their backs," as happened to a friend of mine, would make anybody angry. Being told that legally there wasn't a thing she could do about it didn't exactly make her day either. Then Rush Limbaugh goes and calls people like her Nazis for trying to change that.

And you know what? Just like John Madden or Lyle Alzado she'd be great to sit down and have a beer with too, if you drank, or pie and coffee if you don't.

Point is when it comes to the Raiders you made my point for me. And by extension you made my point about feminism too. They get a bad rap.

Just saying.

figleaf

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

davy — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:05:22 -0000

Double-dare you to confront John Madden with the term "thug". Or how about Kenny "the snake" Stabler. No,No, wait... Otis Sistrunk. Go over there to Oakland and look up Otis and call him a thug to his face. [think he lives near Lake Merrit] If you survive any of those meetings, I'll buy you a beer.

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

Bob — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:18:03 -0000

"It wasn't feminists who cheered when Lorena Bobbit castrated her husband. Most were horrified."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, sure they were. I haven't seen any articles from any feminist that treat sexual mutilation of males as anything other than hilarious at best, or not really a crime, at worst.

"The point here being that yeah, there are women who hate men... but not because of feminism."

Here, I agree. The male-hating is not BECAUSE of feminism,per se, the feminism is because of, and lends "legitimacy" to, the pre-existing hatred of males. The same way the ancient greeks made up an ethos to explain the "sparks" coming out of a "mountain", and speculated that it must be because the god Hephaestos was in there forging stuff, when it was,in fact, an active volcano.

So have the feminists made up an "ethos" (i.e. patriarchy) to explain and justify their hatred of males, which will probably later be discovered to be a pathological condition related to psychosexual disorders, just as mighty Hephaestos' forge was discovered to be nothing more than ordinary tectonic activity taking place under a live volcano.

Feminism fails Occam's Razor.

What is the simplest explanation for the human behaviors that feminists have posited as being due to "sexism"?

That men all over the globe are working in a secret millennia-old conspiracy to keep women barefoot and pregnant? Sounds laughable on the surface of it.

Or that there are innate differences between the sexes in mating, business, and survival strategies?

Can't have that,can we? Ignore the mountain of evidence that say that women leave men who don't earn more than them, ignore the female preference to "marry up" observed throughout all of history spanning every recorded civilization,ignore the studies that say that men with more money cause women to have more orgasms.

Keep chasing those phantom patriarchs, you'll get some proof of that worldwide patriarchal conspiracy some day,just be sure to have your tinfoil hat at the ready, as their mindrays have managed to convince even women from tribes of people who rarely interact with western civilization that money and resources= sexy.

Re: Medical evidence shows circumcision is effective in battling HIV

apostleshadamishe — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:11:37 -0000

THE CURE for HIV/AIDS.......AMBUSH

THE IDEA that AMBUSH cures AIDS
is being proven by the more than 400 individuals who have taken a dose of 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. The result is that AMBUSH 'KILLS' the virus by causing the protein envelope to rupture and the viral particles are discarded by the white blood cells. AMBUSH is able to 'KILL' the virus that are 'hiding' in the lymph system by its 'natural radioactive' properties. This process allows the body to 'return to normal health' with a corresponding immunity to that or those strains of the virus.

What is AMBUSH ?
AMBUSH is a radioactive isotope of uranium that is found in the 'palm' plant of which there are more than 3000 species. When ingested, AMBUSH causes the body temperature in the trunk area to rise to about 102 degrees when the individual is sleeping. The preparation takes four hours per batch, which is then given to the individuals for consumption 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. AMBUSH is a herbal preparation in this form but it contains an active ingredient which is a 'NEW' crystalline substance, a drug from the 'palm plant' similarly to ASPIRIN originating from the willow tree bark

RESULTS:
After 21 days on AMBUSH, ALL the individuals experienced a decrease in viral load to undetectable, an increase in cd4, increase in RBC, an improvement in general health such as more color to the face, decrease in Buffalo hump, an increase in gluteal muscles, a decrease to having no joint pains whereby individuals can bend to touch their toes, and walk up steps are but a few examples. There is also a dramatic increase in their sexual appetite beginning after the first week of therapy

DISCUSSION:
In any plant concoction such as percolated 'tea', there are 30-40,000 compounds, whi ch would take the scientific community twenty years to isolate one particular ingredient if they knew what they were looking for. The LORD GOD has given me seven steps to isolate the active ingredient, which is soft and metallic in nature and has a carbon- uranium-sulfur-(classified)-phentolamine configuration or structure. This is similar to Federick Kekule and the discovery of the benzene ring where he dreamt the structure.

As an antiviral and 'natural radioactivity' producing agent, AMBUSH is also effective against leukemia, lupus and HPV. Here I am saying that I have 'GIVEN' AMBUSH in the same 'strength' and dosage to patients with leukemia, lupus and HPV. A 35 year old male with HIV found it difficult to impossible to urinate was put on 'green tea' and water while the doctors contemplated prostrate surgery. One of the doctors gave him my number , I sent him a supply of AMBUSH an d he has not been given any more ARV's, since taking AMBUSH 18 months ago, is in 'good' health and has expressed a willingness to be examined by HIV investigators like many others who have taken AMBUSH.

I have sent this 'IDEA' to most HIV research agencies, scientist of the field, universities, hospitals, clinics, politicians and news agencies to which it is REJECTED because the name of THE LORD GOD is mentioned. He has steered me scientifically through the processes such as which plant and how to produce the active ingredient. What are the odds of a Florida Pharmacist picking a plant would contain the CURE for HIV/AIDS ?
I have never charged any of the people for their supply of AMBUSH but a life saving has been spent on the project with NO renumeration from any sources because AMBUSH falls outside the walls of modern medicine and research.

PROPOSAL:

My proposal is that I PROVE that AMBUSH CURES HIV/AIDS by giving it to a number of END-STAGE or DRUG-RESISTANT people and the scientific community watches their recovery. This proposal addresses the problem in that I have already outlaid the results to be obtained.

This IDEA is unconventional in that the scientific community has rejected AMBUSH because I say it is GOD given. Secondly if I wrote it according to certain standards, then it might be peer reviewed. However, THE LORD GOD has also shown me that there are five enzyme systems associated with the virus, reverse transcriptase, protease, fusion and two more of which causes the virus to be AIRBOURNE. This means that without DIVINE intervention mankind and ALL warm- blooded mammals will be extinct in a number of years.

The PROOF of what I am saying is found in scientific papers wherein it is found that when the protease cuts the viral strands, it cuts it at DIFFERENT lengths EVERY time, to which it should always be a valine at the end but is a different amino acid every time. This is why it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce a VACCINE.

Since this is NOT a hypothesis but there are about 400 individuals who have taken AMBUSH, here lies a vast area in which to check, recheck and confirm that AMBUSH CURES AIDS. Let it be mentioned that during the HIV reproductive cycle, reverse transcriptase converts viral RNA into DNA compatible to human genetic materials. Thus the human DNA has been 'hijacked' and since each person has a DIFFERENT DNA, then the new viral copy is unique to that person which shows that each individual has a DIFFERENT STRAIN of the virus. Consider two HIV positive people swapping viral strains and increasing its complexity with multiple partners.
It can also be proposed that they be revisited as proof that the strain or strains that they had were 'killed' at the time of taking AMBUSH considering that a person can catch as many different strains as there are people who are infected by HIV.
I am also willing to work with the scientific community in identifying those individuals who took AMBUSH and wish to be identified with this process notwithstanding that some are stigmatized while others are jubilant,

Once AMBUSH is verified as being able to accomplish that which is aforementioned then the next stage might be the natural and artificial synthesis of the substance.

Finally, if this is accepted or not, believed or not, THE LORD GOD always wins and this is the heavenly truth to which AMBUSH was divinely given to mankind for the CURE of HIV/AIDS and it will be here forever. Apostle Shada Mishe.

apostleshadamishe@gmail.com

Here is a video taped presentation that I gave at t he Martin Luther King library in Washington

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V53D1w__Po
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPwuwlVBOV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZejptOwMTzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqcTgIAhrhc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7HPKcT_iwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iQfgiYAnw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RzRS6tJDM

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

zPoznania — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:04:08 -0000

""...their men are far fewer and are almost completely useless."

Seriously? Talk about misandry! Also, speak for yourself."

Misandry because I think feminist men are weak and useless...hmmm...that makes about as much sense as robbing a donut shop. Speak for myself? I thnk I'll let that one slide (makes about as much sense as the former statement).

The rest of your post is incomprehensible babble. I don't know what you're trying to prove here. You mean feminist men are GR-RRREAT, or some unfortunate, miserable, manipulated bunch of spineless worms? I think more of the latter.

Re: Holiday Presents, Bah, Humbug! (There’s a Better Alternative)

Porky Domesticus — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:13:28 -0000

Great idea. More useless presents cluttering up the attic is something nobody needs.I myself am going to promote Oxfam's goat-giving program on my own site later this month.

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

figleaf — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:00:38 -0000

"...their men are far fewer and are almost completely useless."

Seriously? Talk about misandry! Also, speak for yourself.

Finally, what's wrong with feminism? Even if you manage to be crap in bed, sullen, and anti-social if your wife is free to earn as much as you do you don't have to worry about alimony when she divorces you. Oh wait, that's right. Anti-feminists think men are such disgusting life-forms that women won't have anything to do with them unless they're socially and economically forced to trade sex for financial support. And the misandrists in that scenario would be...?

Or maybe by "their men" you're talking about those Sensitive New Age Guys and NiceGuys(tm)? Nah. Feminists don't generally have any more patience with them than you or I do.

figleaf

Re: Holiday Presents, Bah, Humbug! (There’s a Better Alternative)

hzugman — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:34:27 -0000

Marty, I read this article in theDecember 2009 issue of the San Francisco Regional Mensa Intelligencer.

I don't always agree with you but often do. In this case I feel that you have hit an absolute Home Run!! The charity vs. another unneeded gift is a no brainer. (Unfortunately, too many of the overindulged will read it as anti-Christmas - particulary those with finaancial interests in the retail business.)

The doing the most good by giving directly argument rings as very true to me. (No need to subsidize the superinflated salaries of most charity "CEO"s.) That is also why I'm a big supporter of www.kiva.org.

Keep up the great work. I thorougly enjoyyour fresh point of view on most subjects.

Re: The down-low on circumcision

zPoznania — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:45:34 -0000

Especially Islam? How about Judaism, which gve us that stupid cheek-turning carpenter cult?

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

zPoznania — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:35:25 -0000

Feminist is "sexist" because it excludes all feminist men? Ahem, isn't this site in part about NOT being politically correct? Last I checked, "sexism" is just the complaining woman's term for being rejected for: a) education, b) job, c) anything else (like free candy). Aside from that, feminist men are a minority and usually sound linke they've been abused their whole life, namely by their mother. I don't see the point in: a) using the term sexist in reference to anyone assuming that a feminist is automatically a woman, since they usually are (are you trying to scare ArgusEyes into political correctness or what?) b) including men when criticizing feminists, since they're rarely of any note whatsoever, they're almost always white-middle-class-guilt-ridden yes-boys (the VERY rare few are a part cause of the spread of feminism though).

Fact is, since generalization and abstraction are one of the primary reasons humanity has developed science and technology, we can generalize all we want, anytime we want, about anyone or thing we want, wherever we want, and so on. This is the process used in creating theories. If Newton hadn't generalized the Law of Gravity, someone would have done it for him. If people don't generalize about others based on common behavior exhibited by others, you'd be stuck trying to create a new theory about how to interact with others each time you met with someone, and you'd go nuts if you wouldn't just give-up and generalize. Fact is, we generalize to survive. So yeah, we CAN generalize feminists as women, namely because their men are far fewer and are almost completely useless. So don't try to use politically-correct terms to fight one of the absolute staples of political correctness: feminism, I believe it's called shooting yourself in the foot.

Further, you did state correctly that "feminists" like the responder (who you seem to be adressing, but who is more likely than not, not reading this site) should be aware of the fact that feminists extemists are what men have been using to generalize feminism, since they're the ones that are responsible for the gender mess we have today. She should of course not only keep at distance from them, but in effect be openly critical of them (although I bet, as a woman, she'll probably have little to no effect on eliminating this form of extremism, we'll probably have to do it all ourselves AGAIN, though this time we'll have to be loud and annoying about taking credit for it).

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

figleaf — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:46:30 -0000

Talking about nebulousness as an excuse for ditching terms like “feminism” is all well and good, but in the absence of that I don't see why the only alternative would be pointing to the least-favorable examples and saying "there you go." Especially when you're doing something like pointing to the Oakland Raiders of the 1970s and generalizing that to "yeah, everybody in football today is an unprincipled, late-hitting thug."

Actually some people do point to the 1970s-era Raiders and say they proves football's bad. We tend to look at the calendar, say gee, that was an extreme example from more than 30 years ago, and call them out of touch morons.

I don't know. Most people look at the middle of the current bell-curve to make generalizations about groups, not the fringes and not from decades ago. If I was going to make generalizations about feminism I'd probably want to do that, not cherry pick stuff Andrea Dworkin or (crizzakes!) Valarie Solaris said back before half the U.S. population was born.

---

My big turnaround on the whole feminism business came when I realized that while yeah, some feminists really are angry separatist lesbians they've got nothing on your average anti-feminist when it comes to hating, fearing, and wanting to cripple or control men.

The worst thing you can say about 99% of feminists is they're sick and tired of the way they're expected to give up agency and ambition just so society can dangle their asses in front of men to keep them in line.

Seriously, it's not feminists who say men should have to work for sex. It's not feminists who want to stone women to death for breaking the rules and (gasp!) having sex when they want to instead of when the right man earns it. They're not the ones spreading the stories that men want women only for sex and women want men only for their wallets.

It wasn't feminists who cheered when Lorena Bobbit castrated her husband. Most were horrified. As a women's-study professor put it in a class I took a couple years ago, if she'd had the first clue about feminism (having been raised to be a "good girl" she didn't) she could have used any of dozens of other non-violent ways out of her relationship. Heck, it's not even feminists who dreamed up, or who continue to push for, punitive divorce settlements against men. Most actual feminists prefer no-fault statutes. And not to put too fine a point on it but a lot of the social benefits feminists do push for -- like daycare, flex time, parental leave, and pay equity -- are godsends for single fathers with sole custody. And feminists are fine with too.

The point here being that yeah, there are women who hate men... but not because of feminism.

And we won't even start talking about the misandry you run into from other men. Who regularly ascribe crap to themselves and other men that would make the average (middle of the bell-curve again, right) feminist mad to hear it.

In fact you want a good place to start? Check out any guy who says feminists hate men and ask him how he feels about letting his daughter go out on a date. Know what you'll hear? What you'll hear is every single nasty thing that's ever been attributed to the angriest, most radical, most lesbian, most separatist, most previously-victimized feminist you ever heard of. And worse. Much worse. And you and I both know they were already saying crap like that about men before Betty Friedan was a gleam in her parents eyes.

Anyway, I think it's great that there's a site that tracks and calls out misandry. There's a lot of it. Some of it even comes from feminism but by and large I think feminism gets a really bad rap. And posts like this that unload on feminism like it was biggest... the only source of misandry are a lot like the bull charging the cape instead of the matador. Spectacular for the crowd, maybe, and maybe temporarily satisfying for the bull, but seriously mistaking the source of his torment.

Re: US promotes circumcision to fight AIDS worldwide

Porky Domesticus — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0000

Right wing or left wing, there's nothing American politicians love more than telling the rest of the world to do things the American way. I would wish for their wieners to fall off, but its obviously too late for that to happen.

Re: UK: School children give ‘thumbs up’ to domestic violence education

Porky Domesticus — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:06:35 -0000

Who cares what a bunch of kiddies say about this? They're kids, they don't have the sense to make important judgments, that's why they aren't allowed to vote or get laid or drink, so why ask them to play sociologist?

Re: Indian wife abuses husband in front of son

zPoznania — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:54:53 -0000

Alot of Indians are more English than Anglos, they've been cultivating this for a while, no surprise at all, in fact, they've been known to be more puritanical than the English who brought it over to them.

Re: Can we generalise feminism?

Davy — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:19:46 -0000

Generalization. The word "feminist" is a sexist word. It excludes all men, and the attitude of those you refer to as psychofems has been mainstreamed and is now being legalized. Thus the radical views of the most hateful women are being acknowledged as the widely accepted views of all women. If women such as yourself do not stand and resist, your reputation shall continue to suffer, as men and women have no other openly distributed viewpoints from women. It's well past due for righteous women to speak out.