Hillary Lies Twice in One Senence

Hillary Clinton was able to include two lies in one sentence Tuesday night as she criticised John McCain in her speech to the Democratic National Convention. She said, "And in 2008, he still thinks it’s okay when women don’t earn equal pay for equal work."

Lie number one is that John McCain believes that it is OK that women don't earn the same as men do for the same work. McCain may not support affirmative action programs that give women an advantage in education and employment, but I really doubt that he supports pay discrimination against women.

Lie number two is her assumption that in 2008, men actually do earn more than women for equal work. Her lie is based on a study that shows that working women, on average, take home less money than working men. Factors, such as seniority, education, and the difficulty or the scarcity of workers, are not considered in the study. Careful analysis of the study has shown that there is really no wage discrimination against women when all these factors are considered.

As Warren Farrell has written so eloquently in his book "Why Men Earn More," "Why would anyone ever hire a man, if he/she could get a woman to do the work for the same money."

Will YOU Elect GynObama & VAWA Joe?

I was thinking of voting for obamma (reluctantly) because I didn't want
4 more years. 

But now i'm stuck between two feminazi guys and a verteran who doesn't
know how many houses he has (when many of us are losing our ONLY one)
and thinks rich people make more than 3.5 million a year. So McCains
"middle" class tax cuts will be for those between 100/200K and 3.5
million. What about those under 100K which I think is most americans.

I may not vote. I'm between a rock and hard place

See Article

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727) and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

What Do Domestic Violence Figures Reflect

Most of the calls from women made to domestic violence services every year come not from women in need of protection, but from women who are actively aggressing against their male partners. 

As such, the domestic violence figures reflect mostly the amount of violence being directed at men

"A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. 

For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'domestic violence'. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion. 

She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong. 
Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. 

If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future - and this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his."

How many incidents of DOMESTIC violence against women would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all their male partners?

An enormous number, one would imagine.

But, here in the West, they are the terms and conditions for their male partners!

Is it really surprising to find, therefore, that the incidence of 'domestic violence' against women has hardly decreased in 20 years?

I say 'hardly decreased', but 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.

And sometimes, of course, a woman's real attitude isn't even 'observable' - such as when she's exaggerating, lying, or 'confused', perhaps through drink, drugs, medicines.

No Room for Men at the Abuse Shelter, but Fido can Tag Along

Carey Roberts

No Room for Men at the Abuse Shelter, but Fido can Tag Along

Some persons find it incomprehensible that a woman would maim or murder her husband or boyfriend.

That thought may have crossed the minds of the persons who watched in horror as Debi Olson repeatedly stabbed her ex-husband, Mauricio Droguett at a Des Moines, Iowa shopping mall. Olson was charged with first-degree murder for the July 3, 2008 attack. “It’s a classic case of rage, of hate for someone – it’s very personal,” explained Capt. David Struckman. “She definitely stalked this man.”

Two weeks later, Cynthia McKay, 52, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the gruesome murder and burning of her boyfriend Anthony Fertitta of Millersville, Maryland. One prosecutor described McKay as “the most devious defendant this court will come across.”

And on August 1, Tomasz Matczak of Issaquah, Wash. died of a single stab wound to his chest. The assailant, his 19-year-old girlfriend, openly admitted to the deed.

In all of these cases, early intervention might have averted the tragedy. But where were these men supposed to turn?

All around the country abuse shelters have been established to help persons battered by partner violence. But with a handful of exceptions, these shelters maintain a strict “Men Not Welcome” policy.

Some openly advertise their gender-exclusion policy. Guys, if you live in the Chicago area, here are your options: Women’s Counseling Center, Sarah’s Inn, Latin Women in Action, or the YWCA.

And if Hillary ever lays cougar-tracks on your face again, Bill, you can turn to My Sister’s Place or the Westchester County Office for Women. I’m sure they’d be happy to help.

Other shelters are more discriminating in their manner of discrimination. They wait until a man in dire straights actually arrives on the premises.

A former employee of the Another Way shelter in Lake City, Fla., shared this account:

“Around November or December 2007, a man came into the office. He was crying, and his arms were bruised, seeking assistance,” the woman revealed. The intake worker “took him into her office. Then to my amazement I heard her tell him that Another Way doesn’t provide services or assistance for men…My heart went out to this man because it was evident that he was truly a victim of domestic violence.”

The appalled woman wrote, “This is discrimination and violating men’s rights. There are men with children that are being victimized. It takes courage for men to come forward and admit they are victims. Then when they do, we revictimize them all over again.”

So how do abuse shelters get away with these shameful practices?

Some shelters insist they provide equivalent services to men, like giving them a voucher at a local hotel. What have these people been smoking — do they really believe a hotel stay would have protected Mauricio Droguett, Anthony Fertitta, and Tomasz Matczak from their vindictive assailants?

But the most common reason is simple: battered men don’t make the cut. As the head of Rainbow Services in southern California once explained, “We have limited resources and it’s all we can do to try and keep up with the demand for services for women and children.”

That’s a hoot! Here’s the dirty little secret of the multi-million dollar shelter industry: the great majority of women in so-called “abuse” shelters have never been battered or suffered physical harm at the hands of their abuser.

A woman who volunteered at the YWCA Crisis Center in Enid, Okla. for three years revealed, “In all of that time, there was one woman admitted who I was sure had been severely physically abused. The rest of the women and kids who came and went were playing the system to the hilt!”

That’s right, most shelter residents have perfected the art of bamboozling the system, knowing that being certified as a battered woman entitles you to oodles of government hand-outs!

But wait, there’s more to the story!

Some of these same shelters that turn away battered men are now telling their “abused” women, “And remember to bring Fido!”

That’s right, the American Humane Society has recently launched its “PAWS” program – Pets and Women’s Shelters, get it?

So gals, if you need a place to dry out and want to take along your pooch, go to the Center for Abuse and Rape Emergencies in the Tampa Bay area. The dedicated C.A.R.E. staff has established a “foster pet parenting program” just for you!

Or head over to Quigley House in Orange Park — they have a kennel right on shelter grounds. Its canine center features a dog bathing area, benches to accommodate family visits, and of course a waste containment station.

So men, if Quigley House can’t help you with your rolling pin-wielding wife, rest assured that at least Rover will be well-fed and well-bathed.

Fairy Tale

Elizabeth Edwards is no victim

By Jeremy Snitkin

Among the very real truths concerning the differences between men and women, a significant one that the public got to witness once more last week is the truth regarding the sexual imperative - a truth that most people inherently know on some level, even if many refuse to acknowledge it. That truth, oversimplified and cogently expressed by Billy Crystal in the movie, "When Harry Met Sally," is this: Sexual accomplishment (conquest) is infinitely more significant to the ego-drive of men than it is to women, just as outward appearance is more significant for women. Put another way - women are judged by their youth and beauty; men are judged by their ability to attract women of youth and beauty.

In the case of Sen. John Edwards, we once again see a relatively powerful, successful middle-age man succumbing to the temptations of a younger woman. As a culture, we like to identify the women involved (often both cuckold and concubine) as victims (seduced and/or abandoned) and the men as perpetrators (seducer/abandoner). In art and literature, the theme of the weak, easily manipulated, somewhat pathetic older man, from "The Blue Angel" to "Double Indemnity" to "Body Heat," is common. In the real world, we don't like to think that our national leaders can be so easily manipulated by a mere girl. Being the perp is so much more macho.

The American cultural imperative that pressures women to look young and men to need to sleep with those women is oppressive to all involved. The feminist movement, while essentially progressive and sexually liberating, has also often emphasized the victim nature of womanhood and served to strengthen a double standard that, in this case, demonizes masculinity in general, and powerful men in particular.

Little has changed since Sigmund Freud noticed that people, as a rule, are pretty mixed up, repressed, confused and neurotic about sex. These stereotypes are damaging to women as well as men. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards are not victims. They are strong, accomplished and enlightened women who, perhaps, are able to see their partners, relationships and family holistically and have been able to include forgiveness in their hearts and vows. They should be heroes to the family values crowd.

Lesbian child custody battles and heterosexual divorce

By Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks
© 2008

At the National Organization for Women's recent national conference, NOW declared that there is a "crisis for women and their children in the family law courts." According to NOW, fathers often "aggressively litigate against mothers" and "use family court to stalk, harass, punish and impoverish their former partners and children." But what happens in divorce and child custody matters when there's no man around to create problems?

It can be ugly. Very ugly.

There are now many publicized cases of lesbian custody disputes. While NOW blames fathers for contentious litigation, lesbian custody cases are strikingly similar to heterosexual ones. When a lesbian mother breaks up with her partner, she often tries to drive her partner out of their children's lives – just as some heterosexual mothers do.

Moreover, lesbian mothers often employ the same tactics. These include: denying visitation or access to the children; making dubious abuse claims; moving the children far away; and denigrating the breadwinning parent's bond with the children.

For example, in a recent Canadian case, English lesbian mom Connie Springfield employed the tactic of permanently moving the children to another country under the guise of taking them there to visit.

According to the Canadian National Post:
Ontario Superior Court Justice Jennifer Mackinnon ordered Springfield to return to England with her two daughters, Kita, 8, and Freda, 6, whom she adopted with her long-time partner Sarah Courtney six years ago. Ms. Springfield had spirited the two children to Canada late last year in what the judge called a 'long thought out, deceptive method of her removal of the children.'"

In another current Canadian case, two former lesbian partners, L.K. and C.L., are fighting over custody of a 5-year-old identified only as "J." In 2002, the co-habiting couple agreed that C.L. would be artificially inseminated via an anonymous sperm donor.

The couple split up when the child was only 9 months old. Afterwards, C.L. employed allegations of abuse against L.K. to successfully scuttle the joint application for adoption that the couple had signed when they were still together.

In A.H. v. M.P., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against A.H., a lesbian social mother who had been the primary breadwinner for her partner, M.P., and their young son. After separation, M.P. sought to minimize A.H.'s role in the boy's life, arguing that since A.H. was not the child's primary caregiver, she should not receive joint custody of the boy. A.H. had been actively involved in their child's life, but the demands of her breadwinning role left her less time with the child than M.P.

Fathers & Families penned an amicus brief in defense of A.H., fearing that the case could set a precedent that would marginalize parents to whom children are deeply attached simply because they are breadwinners.

Some lesbian mothers are so determined to purge their former partners from their children's lives that they will employ laws against gay marriage or gay adoption in order to do it. In one Ohio case, Denise Fairchild (the birth mother) and Therese Leach agreed that they would share custody of their son, who they both parented since his birth in 1996. In order to protect Leach's relationship with the boy, in 2001 the two women signed a joint custody agreement of the type approved by the Ohio Supreme Court.

When the relationship soured in 2005, however, Fairchild decided to exclude Leach from the boy's life, arguing that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage is grounds for denying Leach shared custody.

In the Wheeler case in Georgia, Sara Wheeler, a one-time gay rights activist and advocate, argues that it's her "right" to drive her former partner out of their son's life. According to the Associated Press:

"Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. …

"Sara and Missy Wheeler had split by July 2004, and Missy was fighting for joint custody of the boy. … [Sara Wheeler is] now doing something she once would have considered unthinkable – arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children."

Similarly, in Jones v. Barlow in Utah, Cheryl Pike Barlow and Keri Lynne Jones agreed to have a child together, raised the girl together as a couple and gave the child both of their surnames. After they split up, Barlow, the birth mother, refused to allow Jones to have contact with their now 6-year-old girl and moved the girl from Utah to Texas.

Having renounced her former sexual orientation, Barlow argued that Jones should not be allowed contact with their child because she is gay. The Utah Supreme Court ruled in her favor last year.

When mothers drive fathers out of their children's lives after divorce or separation, people often assume that the ex-husband must have harmed her or done her wrong, so "no wonder she's angry." These lesbian cases contradict this, and instead buttress the fatherhood movement's claim that mothers sometimes try to drive decent, loving fathers out of their children's lives.

Kelly Jordan, a Toronto lawyer who is the former chair of the family law section of the Ontario Bar Association, says cases like the Springfield/Courtney dispute and others are "all very new."

Actually, for dads, there's nothing new about them.

"

One in five fathers wrongly identified by mothers

DNA testing: One in five fathers wrongly identified by mothers in Child Support Agency claims

Story here. Excerpt:

'Nearly one in five paternity claims handled by the Child Support Agency end up showing the mother has deliberately or inadvertently misidentified the father, figures show.

Since DNA paternity testing figures began to be collected in 1998-99, 4,854 paternity claims have turned out to be false after DNA testing.

Under child support legislation it is a criminal offence to make a false statement or representation, and to provide false documents or information.

However, according to the CSA, there has not been a single prosecution of a woman for making a false claim. The figures showing the number of false paternity claims have been compiled using freedom of information legislation.'

Woman murders son, commits suicide to spite estranged husband

Story here. Excerpt:

"A hateful mother killed her five year old son to spite his father before taking her own life, an inquest has heard.

Emma Hart, 27, force-fed Lewis Dangerfield a lethal cocktail of pain killers and antidepressants at their home then fled to her mother's flat nearby and slashed her wrists.

In a note to the little boy's father, Shaun Dangerfield, which she left by his body, she wrote: 'I told you I would make you pay, enjoy your life now, nothing is stopping you, ha ha ha. Just remember it's your fault.
...
Her mother told the inquest: 'She is not a horrible person, she was a loving mum.'"

Comment:

You have to be a bit deranged to want to kill people - regular people just don't go around killing. Does that mean she wasn't evil? Hell no! Being deranged is not an excuse.
Having a vagina is not an excuse.