And I heard again this morning from George Will.  I expect better of him.

To wit:

“Immigrants who sneak across the border and do `Jobs American’s Won’t Do’ .”

The FULL truth is:

“Immigrants who sneak across the border and do jobs American’s won’t do at two dollars an hour.”

Get it right, dammit.

By the RINO’s here for “Undocumented Workers.”(Not Illegal Aliens)

Let’s also discuss Amnesty for:

Unauthorized Fornicators (Not Rapists)

Unlicensed Executioners (Not Murderers)

Undocumented Guardians (Not Kidnappers)

Unsanctioned Pugilists (Not Batterers)

Unapproved Loan Recipients (Not Bank Robbers)

Unofficial Drivers (Not Car Theives)

I mean - we could continue the list - they all make about as much fuckin’ sense.

I am getting some major overhaul on my domicile, in the form of expansion and upgrades.

Hence, for maybe - MAYBE - a week here, posting will be sparse - I’ll be working off a laptop, and not having a lot of time.  Rule one - if you hire an expert to do something, get out from underfoot and let him do his job, because it is costing you a shitload of money to begin with, and you can only slow him down and make him charge you more.

Which would be, like, oh, I don’t know - STUPID?!?!?!

So - Well, like I said.  Not gone.  Just maybe only posting every couple days or so.

And after Tomorrow - I wouldn’t count on finding anything new here till Monday.  Which probably means things will get interesting.  Dammit.

A reader sends me a long and overly verbose letter asking me - from here and from reading me elsewhere - who it is that I exactly rail against, who is my enemy?

Okay.  If you believe that the traditional family is at best merely “just another” arrangement for raising children, were a political enemies.

If you believe that men, fathers, are fungible, easily replaced, and bring not intrinsic or innate value to raising a child, we are enemies.

If you believe that a marriage should be easily dismissed, and divorce is not the last and worst option, and that men who get accused of things like abuse, molestation, and rape should not get due process - because of the “seriousness of the charges” - then we are enemies.

If you believe that when false allegations (of anything) are made, that false accusers should at most get a slap on the wrist, or not prosecuted at all - because of the “chilling effect” - then we are enemies.

I could go into more detail.  But that about covers the major points.

Re: This Piece of Crap

Attend;

NOW NYS has always favored primary caregiver presumption legislation to ensure stability and continuity of care for children. If a person is not involved in the lives of his or her children during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce? Therefore, we oppose court-mandated joint custody and oppose changing the terminology to shared parenting.

The usual shit. Problem here is that couples tend to divide labor in such a fashion where there is a primary wage earner, and a primary caregiver, and guess who it is that get’s stuck with the money-earning load? And guess who usually initiates a Divorce? And then wants the courts to make him - er, the primary wage-earner - hold up their end of the deal while the woma - er, the primary care giver - gets to break their end?

Primary caregiver presumption would cut down on the abusive practice by the moneyed spouse (usually the husband) of coercing the non-moneyed spouse (usually the wife) to make monetary concessions rather than risk a custody battle before a biased court.

Heh. What it would do, rather, is make parasitic women who are NOW’s constituency go get a job.

This threat of a fight for custody is the fear factor that leads mothers to make financial concessions in exchange for the chance to give her children a stable life. One attorney has acknowledged that he often gave that advice to male clients. When he became chief justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals in West Virginia, he was responsible for the passage of a primary caregiver bill.

Yeah, I can throw out ancedotes too. Gee, an unpricipled attorney. Who’d have thunk? Tell me - was he lying then - or is he lying NOW?

NOW NYS would like to set the record straight. It is a lie that mothers are awarded custody in 95 percent of divorce cases, as fathers rights advocates would have the public believe. Only 1 percent of cases are litigated so mothers get custody by agreement of the parties, whether or not the agreement is coerced as we describe.

The problem is, it is coerced, but it coerced by the mother who usually informs the father “Give in to my demands, or you will never see your children again.”

Let us learn from the experience of others. In California, a report prepared 15 years after divorce reform legislation, found that one-third of joint-physical custody arrangements were indistinguishable in practice from the sole-custody visitation arrangements. After seeing the harmful effects on children by court-ordered joint custody, California ended its presumption in favor of joint custody awards in 1989.

A study which was sponsored and cherry-picked, then lobbied for by women’s groups. Yes, ma’am, we know already your bullshit has much pull with liberal legislatures. NEver mind that the original California plan was designed - or modified in committee - to fail.
Joint custody establishes rights without responsibilities. There is no way under current law to enforce visitation. There are no penalties for failure to visit. There is nothing in this bill, or any other joint custody or shared parenting bill, to enforce compliance with a parenting plan.

BINGO! And there is nothing in current law to force you bitter old sows to ALLOW visitation. And that is just the way you like it. What this law is telling you is that “You interfere with custody, and it will gain you nothing.” And that is what galls you, is if you go claiming that “He doesn’t visit” the burden of proof will be on you, that the “Automatically believe the female” pussy pass is going away.

The term parenting time suggests that all non-custodial parents take an active, positive role in their children’s lives. Reality shows us that many parents who are granted visitation choose not to be involved in their children’s lives. Change in terminology does nothing to enforce parental responsibility or involvement. Opponents feel that the term visitation carries a negative connotation with respect to non-custodial parents, stating that visitation is associated with visiting relatives in prison.

What the fact is, madam, is that many men are locked out of their children’s lives, and eventually get up, or run out of money to fight you. The law proposes changing this to level the playiong field. You see your favorite tactic going away, so now you wish to cry “Foul!”

This is clearly a ridiculous argument. People visit family members and other people in many and varied relationships. If parents want to take an active role in their child’s life, why would terminology make a difference? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Yet you object to it so strongly… Hmmmm… wonder why?

“Pay no attention to the lying skank behind the curtain!”

NOW NYS believes the actual motivation for this change in terminology is to require the court to equate the parenting plan or schedule with actual parenting responsibilities, financial and otherwise. Arguments have been made by non-custodial parents that the costs of spending time with their children should be deducted from their child support obligations, ignoring the fact that it is the primary caregiver who is responsible for the day-to-day expenses of the children. This newly proposed legislation lays the dangerous groundwork for the courts to decrease child support awards based on a change of terminology.

Like I said - makes mothe - er - “custodial parents” get jobs, by removing the financial reward for custodial interference. There is recourse within the law to make a claim of failing to live up to the parenting plan - you just have to prove it if you claim it. If it is true, it should be easy.

It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the non-custodial parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their children.

You’re right - the father -er - non-custodial parent usually carries half or more of the custodial parent’s financial load, and when “visiting” tend to cram all the visiting and attention onto the child they can, plus the hidden costs. Plus often winds up shelling out of their pocket for things that the CS is supposed to cover.

The basis for this strong battle of the fathers’ rights groups is totally financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors that a common complaint of children of divorce is that they don’t see their fathers,

The usual cause of this being “Malicious Mommy Syndrome.” But we leave that out. But you have no financial motive at all, do you? It’s not that yopu are in a panic because the “Free Lunch” wagon is closing up shop, are you?

and it is not unusual for children to complain about the inequities of material advantages they often observe when their father acquires his new family.

Which usually results because when mothers acquire THEIR new family, the child from “The Asshole” is usually treated as a fifth wheel, and neglected at their “primary residence,” kept only because they are a source of income Forgot to tell the whole story here, too, didn’t ya?

This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship between children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in the best interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to advance the welfare of the children of New York.

Well, it does once you get past the sexist notion of “Child’s Needs=Mommy’s Wants.” But you’l get over it.

By the RINOs in the Senate Again

You know - screw it.  If I am going to have liberal democrats controlling the senate, we should just vote for liberal democrats.

I say it is time to take the law into our own hands - and no, I am not talking posses or a MexiKLAN.

Stop patronizing places which hire Mexican Invaders.  Stop hiring them.  And if one comes up before a jury - guilty.  If one comes up complaining against a real American - vote for the American.  It is time to let these illegals know they are not welcome, and not wanted.  Stop renting to them, and  - in old (Blue State) New England style - “Them groceries ain’t fer sale.”
For Americans - everything.  For foreign invaders - nothing.

Until the “Abuse Excuse Card” gets played?

Overcoming shooting someone in the back is going to be a neat trick of moral gymnastics.  Of course, it will be his fault, somehow.  Running away from the scene will mean nothing.

You need to stop pandering to your CEO buddies.

Let me tell you about Luis.  Luis is a local fix-it guy, who repairs everything from cars to small appliances.  He has a truck he drives around, with all manner of tools, and can get parts usually within a day.

Several years ago Luis applied for a visa as a resident alien.  It took a year to grant it.  Luis waited patiently, and learned English in the meantime.  He came to this country with a job ready for him, declared his intent to become a citizen, and waited the 4 3/4 years it took for him to be eligible for his citizenship test.  Luis does not call himself a Mexican-American.  Call him one, and he will kick your ass.  He is an American.  He worked hard and played by the rules to become one, and now has a Degree, speaks with only the faintest of accents, flies the American Flag, and owns his own house and business.  Is son was born here, and is currently deployed in the Middle East, and has been decorated.
His opinion of Mexico? “I have nothing against Mexico except that it sucks.  That’s why I came to America.”

Now, George - you need to talk to Luis.  Because I just called him and asked what he thought of your address on the radio.  Know what he said?  “It’s a slap in my face.  I cannot believe I voted for that man.  I played by all the rules to earn my citizenship, and right to be here.  I worked hard.  I learned English.  I went to school.  And now he wants to just give that to sneaks who creep across the border?  Screw him.  He’s no man.  They are theives, who try to steal what real men earn.  It’s not decent, and George Bush should be ashamed.”

Huh.

Well said, Luis.  Okay, George - what say you?  How do you answer Luis?  Another slap in the face?
That’s what pisses me off about the Republicans - all the damn right-wing liberals.

Wrong answer, George.  Do the right thing.  Enforce the laws.  Defend the constitution, defend the borders, and don’t cheapen what hard working Americans worked to earn.  That was your oath - live up to it.

Slain because he refused to call his mother’s lesbian lover “Daddy.”

A whole new meaning to the term “Who’s Yer Daddy?”

I guess the Dev - er, “The Patriarchy” made them do it.

Another example of how without men - there is still violence.

I love this whole “Regender” thing, found here: http://regender.com/index.html

Okay, Jeff Jacoby wrote a column today - edited and “regendered” below.

The obligation of unwanted motherhood

Mar 23, 2006
by Jennifer Jacoby

Real women — good women — take responsibility for the children they mother. If they get pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by it. They support their child. They don’t try to weasel out of a situation they co-authored. They shoulder the obligations of motherhood, even if they hadn’t planned on becoming a mother.

Once upon a time, women confronted with news of an unintended pregnancy knew what was expected of them. More often than not, they married the man who had fathered their child; for those tempted to behave irresponsibly, society devised stigma. Men, too, knew what was expected of them. They tended to be very careful about sex. If they didn’t always wait until they were married, they waited for a relationship that seemed to be marriage-bound, found alternative avenues for release, or were a whole lot more careful.

It wasn’t a perfect system and it didn’t guarantee perfect happiness, but on the whole it was realistic: It recognized that sex has consequences. It bound women to the men that impregnated them and made sure that children had moms as well as dads.

But the old code was swept away by the Sexual Revolution. With the Pill and easy abortion came the illusion of sex without consequences. Pregnancy could be avoided or readily undone. Women didn’t have to marry men when they were impregnated; men didn’t have to reserve themselves for women to whom they were committed or whose intentions were honorable. With the devaluation of sex came the devaluation of motherhood.

Women got used to the idea of sex without strings. So did men, many of whom also grew accustomed to the idea of fatherhood without wives. Government got involved, too, mandating welfare benefits for unmarried mothers, and child-support checks from fathers instead of involvement. With the incentives for marriage weaker than ever, more and more children were born out of wedlock. In 1950, just 4 percent of births were to unmarried couples. By 1980, the rate was more than 18 percent. It stands today at nearly 36 percent.

All this is bad enough. Comes now Mary Dubay with a proposal to make things worse.

A 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, Dubay wants to know why it is only men who have “lifestyle rights.” She is upset about having to involve a father in the life of a baby she never wanted. Not only did her former boyfriend know she didn’t want children, says Dubay, he had told her he was infertile. When he got pregnant nonetheless, she asked him to consent to the placement of the baby for adoption. He decided instead to “keep” his child, so instead of aborting or adopting, she elected to keep the child and he secured a court order requiring her to allow visitation, at the price of child support.

Not fair, Dubay complains. Her ex-boyfriend tricked her into having sex without protection. It was his choice not to have the child adopted. Somehow the law gives him and all men the right — the Constitutional right! — to be part of their child’s life. Dubay argues that she should have the right to be left alone by him, and has filed a federal lawsuit that her supporters are calling “Roe v. Wade II.” Drafted by the National Organization for Women, it contends that as a matter of equal rights, women who don’t want child support should be permitted, early in pregnancy, to get “a financial abortion” releasing them from any future requirements of “visitation and meddling” to the father of the baby.

Does Dubay have a point? Sure. Contemporary American society does send very mixed messages about sex and the sexes. For women who don’t want an abortion, the decision not to have one comes with the uncomfortable realization than men who they only wanted a casual relationship are now in their lives for good. Men can walk away and have no requirement beyond a check, no need to deal with her at all if they want, but if women need that check, they have to deal with men who they may not like, who are constantly interfering in their choices they make for their children. If conception takes place, a woman can be forced to accept the abortion of a baby she wants — or to spend at least the next 18 years turning over a chunk of her life to the influence of a man she didn’t want beyond a summer romance.

All true. But it is also true that predatory females have done enormous damage to American society, and the last thing our culture needs is one more way for women to escape accountability for the children they mother. Dubay wants more than the freedom to be sexually reckless — she wants that freedom to be constitutionally guaranteed. Truly she is a child of her time, passionate on the subject of rights and eager to duck responsibility.

The culture used to send a clear message to women in Dubay’s position: Marry the father and be a mother to your child. Today it tells her: Just cash a monthly check. Soon — if this lawsuit succeeds — it won’t say even that. The result will not be a fairer, more equal society. It will be a society with even more abortion, even more exploitation of men, even more of the destructiveness and instability caused by fatherlessness.

And, in some ways saddest of all, even more people like Mary Dubay: a girl who never learned how to be a real woman.

———————————–

Hmm.

Thing is, there is no need to write this column - because that is they way things stand as it is. If it were not so, the Dubay lawsuit would probably have never come to pass.

It’s real hard to convince men anymore that they should be forced to be a walking wallet for a child which they can at best be mere vistors in the life thereof, with no decision making power, or be tricked into supporting through paternity fraud. Fix that, Jeff, and you fix the lawsuit.

As it stands now, it’s only a matter of time until a judge is found which agrees with Mr. Dubay, or his ineveitable successors.

‘Nuff Said.

You have nothing useful to contribute - so I have deleted and reposted to remove your comments.

Kindly keep your word.  I’m sick of your male-hating and bullshit.

I have your IP.

And the rest of us - stop invoking her dumb ass.

Patriarchal Oppressor posits the question, and “regenders” this tripe from Andrew Fischer:

Leave Dennis Alone, Already

by Andrea S. Fischer

Last week, a Floyd county judge rejected former teacher Dennis LaFave’s plea bargain, raising the specter of a trial in the sensational case – a trial no one wants.

In case you’ve been in a long-term coma, Dennis LaFave, an attractive 23-year-old Tampa, Floyd area reading teacher, was charged in June, 2004 with various crimes, because he allegedly had sex several times with a 14-year-old girl. He was arrested, strip-searched, and his nether-regions were photographed (for necessary evidentiary purposes, of course). Saucy photos of his posing in a motorcycle magazine were discovered and posted on the internet. The story was all over cable TV, night after night. His cuckolded wife has appeared on several TV news shows, showing little sympathy. His lawyer eventually announced plans to use an insanity defense at trial, and there was no sign of a plea bargain, until….

In late November of this year, a plea bargain was reached between the district attorney’s office and his common sense-less defense attorney, who had previously been videotaped stating that Dennis was too attractive to go to prison, implying that he’d be, at minimum, figuratively eaten alive by packs of burly prison-mates. This may, in fact, be a realistic assessment, but announcing it to the world – while your pretty client is standing right there at your side – shows a severe lack of judgment. Dennis was there again by her side, smiling sweetly, when she announced the plea deal, which was almost certain to outrage his detractors. (Lightning strikes twice….)

The plea bargain wasn’t much of a bargain, in my opinion. Mr. LaFave would have had to lose his teaching license forever, endure three years of house arrest, and then seven years of probation. He would have had to register with the state as a sexual predator, and not have any contact with any children on the planet. He wouldn’t be allowed to profit from the sale of his story or personal appearances. How is this a great deal for the man? Yes, he avoids incarceration, but how is he supposed to earn a living?

The claws of cable TV’s newsmen sprang out like those of jungle cats last week, at the news of the junked plea bargain. Nathan Grace of CNN, in particular, had nothing but hysterical venom for Dennis, as if he were evil incarnate: “… This grade school teacher had a schoolgirl in the back of an SUV, having full-blown sex with an underage child. He went across the county lines from Hillsborough to Mario. OK. The Hillsborough judge swallowed the deal, again, like it was chocolate pudding. It tasted great going down. The Mario County judge said, Oh, no, no, no, no, no. No, no. This is sex with a minor. You`re not getting straight probation.”

I’m not saying that I approve of sex between an adult and a minor, but keep in mind that this minor was of the opposite gender, and well into puberty. Inasmuch as a 14-year-old can give consent, she obviously gave it. Okay, Dennis seems a little wacky, but like it or not, being seduced by a young blonde bombshell is not the same as a 300-lb. middle-aged spinster forcing himself on a timid “bookworm” type of adolescent. To me, it seems fairly obvious that your gender pretty much determines your view of this case.

Sure, Dennis made a serious mistake; he had sex with a girl. He is obviously not a sexual predator, however, and a few years of probation would be penalty enough for him. Instead, a year-and-a-half after the misconduct, he continues to be hounded, because of a little tyrant on a bench somewhere in Floyd. By the way, I haven’t seen or heard any information about the “honorable” judge. I wonder what crimes she’s committed over the years, in the name of justice or not, with the impunity provided by her black robe? Why aren’t the news media saying anything about her?

It was all settled; case closed. Then some local judge, with a bug up her butt or a Puritanical streak in her spine, decided in petty fury she wouldn’t accept the deal. This was the first time I, and doubtless other Americans, learned that judges have the power to disapprove of plea bargains. Whether or not you approve of plea bargains, I fail to understand why the judge, essentially a third party, should have any input into these commonplace negotiations. In any case, she is a fool if she thinks any jury with half a dozen normal women on it will convict Mr. LaFave.

Even the victim’s father has come out against a trial, fearing that it would hinder his daughter’s potential for a normal life going forward. So no one wants it, except some obscure, minor league jurist, sitting behind the aegis of a judicial bench (who, I suspect, secretly wants to get a look at the nude “evidentiary” photos and pound her gavel) and, of course, the entertainment/news media, and voyeurs like myself.

The only thing that can emerge from this trial, should it come to pass, is another exposé of the pathetic nature of our legal system. This would be the biggest farce since the O.J. Simpson trial, and everyone on Earth would once again see how stupid and broken our criminal justice system really is. The only way to avoid it is to leave Dennis alone, already.

——————————————-

Hmmm. Food for thought.

Check your biases.

Cynthia Asks:

I have no problems with punishing a female rapist - rape is rape.

***See below.

What I want to know is why every female child molester is so plastered on screens across the country that everyone knows their names?

Read Here. And Here. And Here. And Here. And Here. And Here.

And Here.

Read the comments starting Here for some “sympathy” for her victim. Would it be okay to say such things about a female molestation victim?

Want to know what happens when a boy is molested by a woman? Okay - let me tell you my story.

I was always large for my age, and growing up was no exception. No matter how large I was, though, my parents wisely didn’t allow me or my brother to be home alone, without supervision, for any extended period of time until I was well into my teens. Such was the case when I was 12 (Almost 12?), and my parents had a long overdue night out, where they would not be home until the wee hours, the next day. I forget the occassion - anniversary, something.

As so often happened, I wanted to read, and my brother - whom I shared a room with, whined about the light keeping him up. So, into the bathroom with my book I went. After about 15 minutes, there was a light tap on the door - the sitter, wondering what was up - was I okay?

She was a high school girl, I don’t know how old. Rather plain-janish I guess. I was flustered, being nabbed reading, if my father had been home this would have resulted in the confiscation of my book, he knew my habits well. I stammered something about “Just a minute, stashed the book, and flushed to cover my tracks - and walked out into her standing there. “You’ve been reading.” It was a statement. “Your dad warned me.” I just stood there, still flustered.

She sighed and said “Oh, it’s Friday. You’re old enough. Get your book and come downstairs.” We had a spare room downstairs - she was going to sleep in it, but I could read there, since our upstairs spare room was being used as a storage closet more or less.
I’ll make a long story short. I read for a while. Then she came in. She was going to sleep on the couch if I was still reading. She was there to “tuck me in.”  But, of course, I was a  big enough boy she didn’t need to do that.  She acted embarassed. Then she asked what I was reading. Then she had me sit up next to her. Then she asked me all sorts of questions. Then she started asking about girls. Then she asked me if I had ever kissed a girl.  Then she said she’d give me a kiss goodnight.
Then she kissed me. And not a peck. Long, slow, full tongue action.

Then she grabbed my crotch, where I was sprting a serious erection, as only 12 year old boys can have. Then she kissed me again, and grabbed my hand and put it on her chest.  (Here’s a big myth, that men can’t have erections if scared or under pressure.  Well, get me scared or under stress, and you can hang a bucket of wet sand on me to this day.)
I tried to disengage. I pushed away. She laughed at me and said, “Well, I guess I have a little fag on my hands and not a little man.” I just stared at her “She laughed again, “Well, obviously you don’t like girls. I guess you must like boys.”

I stammered “I do so like girls!”

She looked at me and said, “Prove it.” I just sat there. “Little fag, little fag, little fag.”

I said “I am not”

So she grabbed me again, and said “Then show me.” And then we had sex. Three times. She even made me do her with my mouth.  After we’d had sex.  Any time I complained about it, “little fag” got trotted out.
And then after we were done, she told me if I complained, she’d tell everyone I made her do it, and everyone would think I was queer. I hadn’t had anything bad happen to me. I’d gotten lucky.  I got more of the same the next night, too.  Ohh.  Boy, was I ever lucky.  A pre-teen flesh vibrator.  Of course, she was doing me a favor.  Showing me how to treat a woman.  I’d need this.  All boys needed this.  I’d thank her some day.
And that’s been the attitude I recieved. Women don’t molest.. You must have forced her. You were lucky. Why are you complaining - wish she was a boy?

She even watched us kids a couple more times, though nothing happened then - not enough time, I kept my brother wound up and awake. I finally convinced my mother I just didn’t like her; because I was too ashamed too tell her.  I paid for that one too - she had family in my school, and the rumors flew there.  I came on to her.  I was trying to go after my brother.  Contradictory rumors, but ones to make me out to be a little perv so nobody would believe me if I said anything, so it’d look like I was going after her to pay her back fo “telling the truth about me.”
Because “Women don’t do that.” Women are always the victim - never the perp. It’s a lie. A filthy lie. And one that needs to be debunked, and has been for a long time.  I am in my Forties now, and it’s still something that gets me shaking to recall; it’s like I have a wall in my own mind I have to look through to see it, and I can only look at it in bits and parts.  No matter how hard I try to forget, I’ll have dreams sometimes and wake up crying.  The whole weekend was a nightmare - hell, I remember feeling terrified and enbarassed as she made lunch for us the next day and made sure to brush me with her tits - “accidentally” of course - whe she was putting things on the table.

That’s the killer - it’s all  - I have a whole set of memories that is etched into my brain, which I desperately repress; every now and again a detail pops out, some innocent little thing - like being called to dinner, and her voice sounding like some harpy calling me to begin serving my sentence in Hell.  You want to forget - you can’t.  You try to remember, and your subconscious fights you; you can only remember so much at a time and keep control of yourself.

It gave me a big “thing” for older women.  Most guys my age, eighth grade, getting a little feel of some boob at the school dance was a big deal.  Not me.  I’d had it. I had to try to have sex, or I was worried they’d think I was a “little fag.” If sex wasn’t a part of the relationship, it was tame. Too tame.
No, I was not physically forced.  No gun.  No knife.  I could have overpowered her probably.  I was scared - and she was “in authority.”  I was in sitxh grade, for chrissakes.  Sixth grade.  I said “No.”  But no doesn’t mean no in that case, I guess.  I tried to go get some therapy for it one time.  Know what I was told - by a therapist?  I was “different.”  I had “power.”  How dare I compare myself to the victims of “real” rape or “real” molestation?  Because I’m male, and that’s all we want is sex.  We’re different.  We’re sons of bitches for it, but we’re different.  I was probably remembering it wrong.  I played a part in it, and I needed to come to terms with my own “accountability” for what happened.

I thought being a female therapist she’d understand - and I don’t think I have ever wanted to kill a human being more in my life by the time the “session” was over.

I bet you do feel bad about it. I bet it makes you sick of hearing about how “Women can be bad too.”

I myself have had forty years of hearing “Women can never be bad - it’s men who are the evil ones.” So I guess I have no problem with equal time. And if it takes a hundred Debbie LaFaves to change this perception, then so be it. Let them suffer. It’s about making these women no longer invisible, and disempowering them from hiding behind the false cloak of ‘women never molest.”

That’s why they need to be outed from coast to coast.
Can anyone name me a recent male molester? Anyone?

Mark Hulett.

It’s not the women who get a free walk.

***Any reputable study disagrees with you. For instance, Robert J. Shoop, professor of education at Kansas State University, has studied teacher sex abuse for 15 years and has written a book on the subject. He said his review of five years of news reports shows that male teachers are likely to get 15 to 20 years in prison, while female teachers typically are placed on probation or go to prison for one to three years.

There was a molester in my middle school - at least three girls that I know of for certain, and he’d been teaching there for over twenty years. When exposed he was quietly given early retirement, not even a comment on his record, no court trial, no publicity, didn’t even have his license yanked. Four years later in a different school district I walked into a classroom and guess who was up in front of the class?

I am going to have to call “Ancedotal” on this. While we are all well aware that the system is broken and wildly inconsistant, the general rule, as pointed out above, is far different. What you have in that instance is a what happes when you have society holding men to the standards that it generally applies to women, where they plea away to misdemeanors, keep their license, and so forth - and yes. It is enraging. Shame on your middle school, and county prosecutor, and school system.

You should name names and publicize it. I will cheerfully look into it, and get the word out here if you give me specifics.

Go after all of them - male, female, whoever.

And that is what is happening here.

So what about old Debbie?

Yeah, I’m annoyed.  The judge was right in one respect, and I thank him for pointing it out.  Women get a pass.  And she belongs in jail, hard tiime, with her cellmate Beulah breaking out the broomstick every night.  I have no understanding - no tolerance - and no sympathy.

Let’s look at it another way, though.  I almost titled this “Victory!” but I figured the femikooks would get hold of it and do God knows what.  But it is a victory.

• We have a judge on the record as declaring the pussy privilege pass in the courts.
• Debs admitted being a molester, she lost her license, and she won’t ever shake that.  When she’s old and grey she’ll be known as “Miss Youngstuff!”
• We have reinforced a precedent - people have the right to face their accusers.  Even monsters like Debbie LaFave, let alone some poor schmuck who may have been falsely accused - in that case, she will have to come into court and lie on the stand.

Even getting off is not so bad.  She still is subject to civil penalties.  But best of all - consider this - she ADMITTED it.  And she never faced the music - never payed her debt to society.

She wants to be a Journalist?  Heh.  Twenty years from now this can be slapped back into her face - and she can’t say “boo” because she never paid for it.

Make no mistake, “Debbie LaFave!” can become our “Remember the Alamo!”  It’s a retort, and squelch, to countless pieces of hardline feminista propaganda, if we but have the wisdom to use it.

By all means - hate Debbie.  Hate the whole situation.  It’s a lemon.

But make lemonade.

Don’t look below the fold.Just don’t

Stop.

I am warning you.

Well, if you must - here is a sign spring is in the air… Read the rest of this entry »

Joshua Holland. Mangina, par excellence.

With yet another article about how poor, poor, working women are so abused, and punished - PUNISHED! - because nobody will grant them special rights, or pick up the slack for the poor widdle dears, or give them everything they want with no consequence. Not fair. Not Fair! NOT FAIR! NOTFAIRNOTFAIRNOTFAIRNOTFAIRNOTFAIRNOTFAIRNOTFAIRNOTFAIR!!!!!

Puh-lease. Give me a fucking break. Hey - here’s a novel concept! Work and sacrifice for your children - you know - like GODD PARENTS have been doing for generations, you, shameless, self-absorbed, worthless parasites.

Attend, below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

At Feministing! are against self-defense for women.

Okay, so I have enough firearms to outfit a fire team, and the membership in the NRA (Not that it is perfect, mind you) to prove it. Normally, I’m packing something, even if it is only my favorite little nine millimeter. Don’t worry, liberal bedwetters - I’ve had my license to carry for 25 years and never once pulled it from the holster anywhere but the range; never had the need, never been in a situation on the street where it was worth killing someone over, though it came close once. And you’ll never see it, either, so you won’t have to sit there in the restaurant all a-twitter and feel “unsafe.”

Perusing the comments section, though, I’m grateful. emilie posits “shooting to injure.” And when are you planning to do this, emmy? While he is fleeing? It’s no longer self-defense, then, check your laws. Before he has threatened you? Well, maybe Gloria Allred can convince a judge it’s reasonable too shoot males pre-eptively because you are “afwaid.” While he is in your face, beating the shit out of you to rob or rape you? If you’re too timid to shoot to kill, what good will that do? Hell, girl, I’d take that gun and make you eat it. No, better that people like you just allow yourselves to be protected, you aren’t qualified temperamentally to do it yourself.

There are times when open carry will be of help - and times when it won’t do you a lick of good. They aren’t a crucifix to be brandished like the criminal is a vampire; I can guarantee said criminal lives around guns each day, and unless you can project authority and the sense you mean business, he will swat it aside like a fly on his way to making you the next statistic for the police blotter. When you clear it, you had best be mentally prepared to leave someone lifeless, in a pool of blood, or it’s about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

Yes, I am saying a gun is of limited utility. So is a belt sander, but when you need it, there is just no replacement. I’m also saying that it pays to know how to use one too.

I have recieved several emails on my “play like a girl” post, and it appears I have touched a nerve.  Good.  I’ve also recieved yet again a cople more emails from Tuff Women(tm) talking about their “Black belts” and how mean and ruff they are, and the Goddess have pity on ANY MALE who thinks that they are….
*sigh* How droll.  Golf claps and fruity drinks with umbrellas all around.
Congratulations, ladies.  You have mastered a sport and exercise form.  Take that black belt, and that chip on your shoulder, out for a spin.  You may even be good with a drunken lout you meet up with and pick a fight with. You’re like a lot of other “I’m a black belt!” studs I have run into, and snickered at as they walk into the dojo with their face a mess of bruises because they ran into someone who knows how to fight.  And those guys got off lucky.  They staggered into the ER for some stitches instead of the morgue.  I have a collection of “Black Belts” and fancy certiciates attesting to my badassery myself, along with some for armed forms too.  And know what I’d do if some punk waved a knife at me and demanded my wallet?

I’d fucking give it to him.  And as long as he walked away with it, he could have it. Because he only has to be lucky once.

Self defense is about surviving, not necessarily winning.  Fighting is about winning by any means necessary.  Sport is about winning “by the rules.”  Never confuse the three.  It will never go unpunished.  Someone who wants to rape or do you violence has a mindset that is alien to you; they look on you as prey, and you’d be as wise to fear them like you would a hungry mountain lion.  I know I do.
But by all means.  If you think that having that black belt makes you proof against a man twice your size, who can pick you up with one hand and toss you the length of a room, and who is mean as a snake and has been fighting - for keeps, not in a sterile dojo, under controlled conditions, or in a tournament with even more controlled conditions -  for 20 years or so - have at it.  Go out and have your Buffy moment.

What music would you like played at your funeral?