WOMEN ARE GIVEN POWER TO KILL

HOW INDIVIDUAL WOMEN ARE GIVEN MORE POWER TO KILL THAN THE ENTIRE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Taken together, the twelve female-only defenses allow almost any woman to take it upon herself to "exercise the death penalty." The government is not allowed to take it upon itself to kill someone first and declare him or her an abuser later - only a woman can do that to a man.

"Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: The Twelve 'Female-Only' Defenses" Excerpted from "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

1) THE INNOCENT WOMAN DEFENSE

I am starting with the innocent woman defense because it underlies all twelve defenses. At first I had called this the "Female Credibility Principle" because of the tendency to see women as more credible than men because of being thought more innocent. However, even when women admitted making false allegations that they were raped or that their husbands abused them, for example, their admission that they lied was often NOT believed. Therefore the belief in the innocent woman ran even deeper than the tendency to believe women.

2.) THE PMS DEFENSE ("MY BODY, NO CHOICE")

In 1970, when Dr. Edgar Berman said women's hormones during menstruation and menopause could have a detrimental influence on women's decision making, feminists were outraged. He was soon served up as the quintessential example of medical male chauvinism. But by the 1980s, some feminists were saying that PMS was the reason a woman who deliberately killed a man should go free. In England, the PMS defense freed Christine English after confessed to killing her boyfriend by deliberately ramming him into a utility pole with her car; and after killing a co-worker, Sandie Smith was put on probation - with one condition: she must report monthly for injections of progesterone to control symptoms of PMS. By the 1990s, the PMS defense paved the way for other hormonal defenses. Sheryl Lynn Massip could place her 6 month old son under a car, run over him repeatedly, and then, uncertain he was dead, do it again, then claim postpartum depression and be given outpatient medical help. No feminist protested.

3.) THE HUSBAND DEFENSE

The film "I Love You to Death" was based on a true story of a woman who tried to kill her husband when she discovered he had been unfaithful. She and her mom tried to poison him, then hired a mugger to beat him and shoot him through the head. A fluke led to their being caught and sent to jail. Miraculously, the husband survived. The husband's first response? Soon after he recovered he informed authorities that he would not press charges. His second response? He defended his wife's attempts to kill him. He felt so guilty being sexually unfaithful that he thanked his wife! He then re-proposed to her. She verbally abused him, then accepted.

4.) THE "BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME" DEFENSE, AKA LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

Until 1982, anyone who called premeditated murder self-defense would have been laughed out of court. But in 1982, Lenore Walker won the first legal victory for her women-only theory of learned helplessness, which suggests that a woman whose husband or boyfriend batters her becomes fearful for her life and helplessness to leave him so if she kills him, it is really self-defense - even if she has premeditated his murder. The woman is said to be a victim of the Battered Woman Syndrome. Is it possible a woman could kill, let's say, for insurance money? Lenore Walker says no: she claims, "Women don't kill men unless they've been pushed to a point of desperation." Ironically feminists had often said, "There's never an excuse for violence against a woman." Now they were saying, "But there's always an excuse for violence against a man... if a woman does it." That sexism is now called the law in 15 states.

5.) "THE DEPRESSED MOTHER" DEFENSE: BABY BLUES AND TERRIBLE TWOS

Remember Sheryl Lynn Massip, a mother in her mid-twenties who murdered he 6-month old son by crushing its head under the wheel of the family car? Massip systematically covered up the murder until she was discovered. Then she testified that she suffered from post-partum depression - or "baby blues." Her sentence?? Treatment. Mothers do, get the baby blues. As do dads. Were the husband to kill his baby, as Sheryl Lynn did, it is unlikely that we would just treat him for baby blues or Save the Marriage Syndrome. Why does her version of baby blues allow her to receive treatment for child murder, when he would receive life in prison for child murder, with or without baby blues? The Terrible Twos Josephine Mesa beat her 2-year-old son to death with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger. She buried the battered baby in a trash bin. When scavengers found the baby outside her Oceanside, California apartment, she denied she knew him. When the evidence became overwhelming, she confessed. The excuse? She was depressed. The child was going through terrible twos. The punishment? Counselling, probation and anti-depressants. She never spent a day behind bars.

6. THE "MOTHERS DON'T KILL" DEFENSE ITEM.

Illinois. Paula Sims reported that her first daughter, Loralei, was abducted by a masked gunman. In fact she murdered Loralei. But she got away with it. So when her next daughter, Heather Lee, disappointed her, she suffocated her, threw her in the trash barrel, and said another masked gunman had abducted her daughter. It wasn't until the second "masked gunman" abduction that a serious search was conducted. Only the serious search led to evidence. Might Heather Lee be alive today if mothers did not have a special immunity from serious investigation?

7. THE "CHILDREN NEED THEIR MOTHER" DEFENSE ITEM.

Colorado. Lory Foster's husband had returned from Vietnam and was going through mood-swings both from post traumatic stress syndrome and diabetes. They had gotten into a fight and he had abused her. So she killed him. Yet, even the prosecutor did not ask for a jail term. Why not? So Lory could care for the children... Lory was given counselling and vocational training at state expense.The most frequent justification for freeing mothers who kill their children is that their children need them. Moreover, if mothers were freed because "children are the first priority," then fathers would be freed just as often. But they are not. Even when no mother is available.

8. THE "BLAME THE FATHER, UNDERSTAND THE MOTHER" DEFENSE ITEM.

Ramiro Rodriguez was driving back from the supermarket. His daughter was sitting on his wife's lap. As Ramiro made a left turn, a van crashed into the car and his daughter was killed. Ramiro was charged with homicide. The reason? His daughter was not placed in a safety seat. Ramiro explained that his daughter was sick and wanted to be held so HIS WIFE DECIDED to hold her. Yet only Ramiro was charged. The mother was charged with nothing. Ramiro was eventually acquitted after protests over the racism. No one saw the sexism.

9.) THE "MY CHILD, MY RIGHT TO ABUSE IT" DEFENSE

A million crack-addicted children since 1987, but only sixty of the mothers have faced criminal charges. One was convicted. That conviction was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court. 3 percent of infants in Washington D.C. die from cocaine addiction, but no mothers go to prison. The right to choose means the right to kill - not a fetus but a child. Should the mother who addicts her child to crack have any more rights than another child abuser or drug dealer? How can we give a normal drug dealer a life sentence but claim that a mother that deals drugs to her own child should not so much as stand trial? If we feel compassion for the circumstances that drove her to drugs, where is our compassion for the circumstances that drove the drug dealer to drugs, the child abuser to abuse, the murderer to murder?

10. THE PLEA BARGAIN DEFENSE

Once a woman is seen as more innocent, her testimony is more valued, which leads to prosecutors offering the woman a plea bargain in crimes committed jointly by a woman and a man. And if a District Attorney is up for reelection, the Chivalry Factor allows him to look like a hero when his office prosecutes a man or a bully if he should put a woman behind bars.

11.) THE SVENGALI DEFENSE

A beautiful woman dubbed "The Miss America Bandit" conducted an armed robbery of a bank. Federal Sentencing guidelines called for a minimum of four and a half to five years in federal prison. The federal judge gave her two years because she told the judge that she was in love with her hairdresser and he had wanted her to rob the bank. The judge concluded, "Men have always exercised malevolent influence over women, and women seem to be soft-touches for it, particularly if sex is involved...It seems to me the Svengali-Trilby relationship is the motivating force behind this lady....the main thing is sex." [Svengali is a fictional character said to have hypnotic qualities of persuasion over the innocent Trilby.]

12.) THE CONTRACT KILLING DEFENSE...DEFEND SELF BY HIRING SOMEONE ELSE

When I did the first review of my files in preparation for this section on contract killing, I was struck by some fascinating patterns. First, all of these women hired boys or men. Second, their targets were usually husbands, ex-husbands, or fathers - men they had once loved. Third, the targeted man usually had an insurance policy significantly larger than the man's next few years income. Fourth, the women often were never serious suspects until some coincidence exposed their plot. Fifth, the women usually chose one of three methods by which to kill: she (1) persuaded her boyfriend to do the killing (in reverse Svengali style); (2) hired some young boys from a disadvantaged background to do it for a small amount of money; or (3) hired a professional killer, thus usually using the money her husband earned to kill her husband. Dixie Dyson tucked in her husband for his last night's sleep. She had arranged to have a lifelong friend and a boyfriend pretend to "break and enter," then rape her, kill her husband, then "escape." She would collect the insurance money. At the last moment, the lifelong friend backed out, but the boyfriend and Dixie managed to kill Dixie's husband after 27 stabbings. They were caught. Dixie "cut a deal" to reduce her sentence by reporting the boyfriend and his friend who backed out got 25 years for conspiracy. Deborah Ann Werner was due one third of her dad's estate. She asked her daughter to find some boys to murder him by plunging a knife through his neck. Diana Bogadanoff hired two young men to kill her husband on an isolated nudist beach, while she watched. After he was shot through the head, she reported the killers but produced no motive for the murder - no money was stolen and she was not sexually molested. Diana did not become a suspect until an anonymous caller contacted a nationwide crime hotline. The caller coincidentally heard about the murder on the radio and remembered a friend describing just such a murder he had refused to do... on an isolated nudist beach while a woman named Diana watched. Without this tip, Diana would never have become even a suspect.

1. Marriage in America is a crapshoot, with at least half of all marriages ending in divorce.

2. Men are RAPED in family court, losing their bank accounts, their homes, their businesses, their children, their self-esteem, and more…..

3. Marriage rates are FALLING in America…. with the trend expected to continue as women find fewer and fewer SUCKERS who are willing to sign on the bottom line…… and put themselves at risk.

4. More and more men are questioning whether any benefits actually exist for them, with respect to marriage.

Let the marriage boycott continue - men and women continue to have sex out of wedlock. No reason to run extraordinary risks for those negligible benefits in marrying.

DV Law is a Feminist Scam

Women's concept of Equality

Women's concept of Equality

The Recurring Pattern, Of Modern History

Step 1: Men invent a new industry or technology.

Step 2: As soon as the new industry or technology becomes super-safe to use and/or glamorous enough to be trendy, small numbers of women (brave "pioneers"!) become interested in it.

Step 3: Brave pioneering women start to discover the new field isn't a bowl of cherries.

Step 4: Brave pioneering women get their feelings hurt and complain that men have developed the industry/field to suit themselves and have unfairly shut women out of their private little boy's club.

Step 5: After court papers are filed, men start to create special programs to lower standards and advance the number of women to top positions in the field while paying less attention to such irrelevant things as qualifications and ability.

Step 6: After women achieve a number of high-level positions in the field, they begin gloating that men have lost their edge and no longer have what it takes to compete in this brave, new world of 'ekwalitee'.

Step 7: Repeat.

The Titanic and what men are like

By Denise Noe

Atlanta’s Civic Center currently has an exhibition of Titanic memorabilia. April 15 is Titanic Remembrance Day, making this a good period to review to lessons from that catastrophe.

Late on the night of April 14, 1912, the supposedly unsinkable Titanic hit an iceberg. By next morning, the ship was on its way down.

Excerpts:

"The tradition grouping women with children is arguably “fair” because the physical differences between men and women mean that the former have a greater chance of swimming to safety. However, those chances can be minuscule. The rule means men must die so women can live."

"All too often, men as a sex are judged by the worst actions of some: the rapist, the batterer, or the child molester. While individual men may be credited for the good they do, the positives are, unlike the negatives, rarely used to show “what they’re like” as a gender. However, the truth is that men have criminalized and punished the worst that some men do. They have sometimes mandated the best. Warren Farrell in his groundbreaking book, “The Myth of Male Power” pertinently asks, “If men make the rules, what does it say about men that they make rules demanding that they put the lives of women before their own?”"

Full article

County to Let All Women Prisoners out of Jail

Speaking of the female sentencing discount, La Crosse County, Wisconsin has decided to let all of its female prisoners out of jail.

Supervisor Keith Belzer, one of the architects of the policy, says that women who are in jail are almost always there "because of some kind of relationship with a man." Wow.

To write a Letter to the Editor, email letters@lacrossetribune.com. The Opinion Page Editor is Richard Mial (608-791-8232). The reporter, Reid Magney, can be reached at (608) 791-8211 or rmagney@lacrossetribune.com.

Army castrates heraldic lion

Protests from female soldiers have led to the Swedish military removing the penis of a heraldic lion depicted on the Nordic Battlegroup's coat of arms.

The armed forces agreed to emasculate the lion after a group of women from the rapid reaction force lodged a complaint to the European Court of Justice, Göteborgs-Posten reports.

But although the army was eventually happy to make the changes in the interests of gender equality, the artist who designed the insignia was less than pleased.

"A heraldic lion is a powerful and stately figure with its genitalia intact and I cannot approve an edited image," Vladimir A Sagerlund from the National Archives told Göteborgs-Posten.

Sagerlund blasted the army for making changes to the coat of arms without his permission.

"The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown," said Sagerlund.

Releativism of DV

No-one actually knows the true figures for domestic violence. The
official figures are virtually meaningless in that they derive mostly
from incidents that would paint us all as 'domestically violent'.

The legal reality, however, is that domestic violence is now largely
defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she claims to be
experiencing at the time. And the problem with this - apart from the
sheer unfairness of it all from the point of view of the man - is that
her attitude is not something that is objectively definable, and neither
is it 'fixed' - in the sense that a woman's attitudes can change and
fluctuate almost as much as the wind.

Indeed, in the USA, some 20 million women experience clinically severe emotional disturbances every single month through PMS, and about 5 million have significant
personality disorders.

Feminist Thinking

“I think girls should be treated exactly the same as boys. …
Except when they wanna be treated better, because they’re girls!”

Phallus or Trailer Hitch by Marc Rudov

Dollar Signs in Her Eyes

There’s a bottom-line question every man must ask himself about the woman in his life: Does she view me as a phallus or a trailer hitch? If you’re on the fence about it, allow me to suggest a test query: Will she be in your bed tomorrow if you stop wining & dining her? Now, if you stop having sex with her and she remains in your bed, it means, Mr. Trailer Hitch, that her phallus sleeps across town.

When you began dating her, you acted like a trailer hitch, bragged about being a good trailer hitch -- showing her photos of your cars, plane, yacht, summer home, ski chalet, and private jet -- and now you’re shocked to realize that she’s been along for the financial ride from the start? Didn't you see the dollar signs in her eyes? Give me a break. As I explained in my book, Under the Clitoral Hood, women are aroused by men, not money. Never mistake avarice for arousal.

How many times have I heard women proclaim themselves strong, tough, and smart -- and not in need of men’s money -- only to admit a few breaths later that they are receiving alimony? More than I can count. Perhaps that’s why so many of them carry Louis Vuitton bags: they need space, expensive space, to hold all their double standards.

The Greater Good

There exists no better example of a woman hitching herself to a man for a financial ride than Heather Mills, soon-to-be-ex-wife of former Beatle Paul McCartney. Heather wants $100M from Paul in a divorce settlement. She’s entitled to this much money why? And, to epitomize hypocrisy, Heather said the following to justify her avarice:

“Sadly, you have to mix at a certain level of people to raise the level of funds you need to bring about the greater good,” she said. “Because people are very snobby. These people who have lots of money, they’re either snobby or they’re stingy. If you have lots of money, you have to be stingy — because why would you want that amount of money?”

The greater good? Heather is referring to her own greater good and is, of course, totally full of it; everybody can see that. But, when you think about it, is Heather Mills that different from many women you enounter? Not really. It’s simply a matter of scale, determined by how much you earn. Heather Mills is greedy only because so many trailer hitches fuel her greed -- in her social life as well as in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

When a woman at a bar expects you to purchase her drink, why is she behaving this way? Because she sees you as a trailer hitch. If you oblige her, she is correct. When a woman presumes that you’ll foot the bill for dinner, simply because she’s a woman, she sees you as a trailer hitch. And, if you choose to hook up, you’ll have no one to blame but yourself when your “travel expenses” escalate. The Estrogen Express is an expensive ride, but boarding it is a choice.

When you call AAA to pull your vehicle, you must pay for that haul. Why, then, does the typical man pay a woman to haul her? Because he’s insecure and knows nothing about the female libido. Wouldn’t AAA go bankrupt operating this way? Bingo. It’s no coincidence that marrying is called “getting hitched.”

How she sees you is directly connected to how you present yourself to her and what you’ll tolerate from her. So, are you her phallus or trailer hitch?

What Women Don’t Want by Marc Rudov

The Vaginal Parachute

Women don’t want penalties, or disincentives, for their Miss Behaving. And, judging by our overwhelmingly profemale reproductive, civil, workplace, and marital laws, women have prevailed.
Whether observing the behaviors of individuals, companies, or governments, one can conclude that economic incentives and disincentives are at the root of almost all decision making.

Governments go to war to prevent destruction and loss. Companies leave states and countries with unfavorable taxes, low living conditions, and uneducated workforces. People pay their taxes on time to avoid penalties.

Yet, if a married woman becomes pregnant with another man’s child, she faces no penalties, which is why she willingly chooses such an immoral path. In fact, the “system” rewards her with child support from either the biological father — if she tags him with paternity — or her unsuspecting husband, who eventually will discover her infidelity, divorce her, and be forced to provide her a lucrative “vaginal parachute” for her soft landing into singledom. What a country!

Even a mouse has to navigate a difficult maze to earn a piece of cheese. For a woman in America, in contrast, the marital maze consists only of two adjoining doors — entrance and exit — and the cheese is freely available in exchange for zero effort. Congratulations to the male lawmakers who have built this marital maze and its lopsided incentive system.

Now comes the New York Times, with its latest slicing and dicing of the 2005 US Census data. The NYT’s new conclusion is that, on average, only 49 percent of American women are married and living with their spouses — a new low. Breaking it down by race, this 49 percent average is: 30 percent of black women, 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women, and 60 percent of Asian women.

The article goes on to say that, despite the picture for married women, 53 percent of men are married and living with their spouses. But it does not segment these men by race, as it does for women, and it does not explain to whom this majority of men are married.
Sam Roberts, the article’s author, proudly quotes “independent” women who feel liberated by removing the shackles of marriage. Sadly, it mentions nothing about the deleterious effect of marital decline on children. Roberts should have included a sidebar about the growing trend of teenage girls beating the crap out of each other, videorecording said beatings, and posting the videos on the Internet for all to see. Could there be a correlation between such MissBehaving and a society that devalues men and marriage? I’ll bet the “progressive” policy wonks never considered that unintended consequence.

In essence, the marriage rate is declining because both men and women no longer have the same incentives or desires to commit to “happily ever after,” as they once did. From everything I can see, there are zero benefits to or incentives for men to be married. But, the same isn’t true for women. Because there no longer exists a social stigma for being divorced, women see matrimony and alimony in the same mental picture, as both words have the same ending: mon[e]y. Accordingly, the main reason for a woman to marry is to have legitimate children and a means to support them … and herself.

The policy wonks aren’t out of the woods, though. For the 37 percent of American children born out of wedlock, these progressives must construct DMV-style socialized programs to parent and feed them. What we all need, for a healthier society, are more government programs, higher taxes, and kids in therapy. Right?

NoNonsense Bottom Line
I have little use or patience for endless discussion and theorizing. I continue to see the professional and financial progress of “independent women” (read “Women to Rule Men by 2010″), and I am one of the biggest supporters of female achievement — which is why I constantly rail against entitled women. So, I propose the following steps that our misandric state and federal lawmakers, mostly men, can take before the next US Census:
• Abolish alimony
• Abolish child support — for divorced and unwed mothers
• Abolish presumed child custody for mothers
• Financially penalize wives who become extramaritally pregnant
• Make Roe v. Wade constitutional — give men the equal right to opt out of parenthood.

If the aforementioned five goals become reality, our entire society will change, and the next US Census will reflect those changes. Will this happen? Never. Always follow the money. Matrimon[e]y. Alimon[e]y. Always follow the money. Politicians want votes, not change — unless that change jingles. It turns out that women don’t want change, either, unless it jingles.