"Les philosophes admettent volontiers que l’intellect humain est incapable de trouver des réponses définitives à de nombreuses questions fort importantes pour l’humanité, mais ils refusent de croire qu’il existe une "plus haute" façon de connaître, grâce à laquelle nous pouvons découvrir des vérités cachées à la science et à l’intellect."

 

La Place de la Femme

Elle est située à l'entrée de Bobo, sur la route de Ouagadougou.
Elle est dédiée à la femme pour lui rendre hommage à travers son rôle dans la société.

Québec veut donner préséance à
l'égalité pour les femmes

 

Into the realm of the surreal

     Though many other evils exist, it is the wholesale destruction of children, families, and marriage by a false ideology that looms largest. Clearly the basic building blocks of our civilization are families and millennia of experience has taught us that children learn best, and accomplish most when raised by their father and mother in a patriarchal family. But the rise of radical feminism in the 1960's merged with the implementation of "no fault" divorce to begin destruction of children, families, and marriage on a previously unimaginable scale. As we move into the Third Millennia of the Christian Era approximately one-half of all marriages end in divorce and, as this is written, 38% of all children are born out-of-wedlock.

     Unquestionably the future is grim for most of our children as currently only about 15 out of 100 are born into and reach age 18 in an intact family.

     Since incorporating in 2001 the Equal Justice Foundation has repeatedly stated that under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child. In his popular FredOnEverything column, Fred Reed made the same point in July 2003. In a November 11, 2007, newsletter, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, again called attention to the problem, a situation our society cannot long sustain and survive.

 

No-fault divorce, or how to make lawyers rich and destroy civilization

     The best history of how "no fault" divorce evolved that I'm familiar with is Judy Parejko's book Stolen Vows. She traces the corruption of the current law to the venal behavior of California Assemblyman James A. Hayes, who was appointed chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee in 1969 while undergoing a high-conflict divorce. Hayes used his position to advantage in his divorce but began the destruction of marriage in general. Dr. Baskerville gives credit for this evil to the National Assoc. of Women Lawyers (NAWL) and those redfems also certainly played a starring role in the destruction of marriage we are now witnessing. However, the origin of this societal disease can be traced to Marx and Engels who declared that 'The class struggle begins in the family." Lenin furthered this Marxist ideology when he grabbed power in Russia and attempted to abolish marriage. But we certainly failed to learn from this historical failure in the Soviet Union.

 

Damn the patriarchy, full speed to destruction in the wake of "domestic violence"

     It is no secret that radical feminism blames all the ills and misfortunes of women on the patriarchy. Because of this belief, in their ideology all women are victims and all men are batterers, which is a requirement in order for men to maintain their patriarchal privileges. Also, their dogma claims that all "domestic violence" results from "power and control" actions taken by males in order to preserve the patriarchy. Thus, based on feminist ideology, in order to gain equality for women it is necessary to eliminate the patriarchy and "restore" a more primitive matriarchal society.

     This nonsense was sinking into well deserved oblivion until Erin Pizzey founded the first shelter for battered women in Chiswick, London, England in 1971, followed by the publication of her book, Scream Quietly Or The Neighbors Will Hear.  As no civilized society tolerates violence against women within its midst, Pizzey's pioneering work gained worldwide support, including Queen Elizabeth II in England.

      Unfortunately, radical, leftwing feminists (redfems) quickly seized the issue of violence against women for their own nefarious goals. When Erin Pizzey pointed out that women were at least as violent as men in intimate relationships, she was hounded into exile by the redfems leaving them in clear possession of the now well-known and publicized "domestic violence" issue. Hardly the first time a legitimate social issue has been usurped by demagogues for their own purposes.

 

An unholy alliance

      By the 1980s redfems had begun to form an unholy alliance with lawyers (always an easily corruptible class), legislative bodies (largely made up of lawyers), and the judiciary (more lawyers who are ready to eat their own if they don't conform) in the name of stopping "domestic violence."

     The resultant destruction of families created employment for lawyers as guardian ad litems (GALs) and special masters to protect "the best interest of the child," "family" lawyers whose actual objective is to destroy families with maximum conflict and, hence, billable hours.

     This despicable alliance also drew in, and financed an army of parasites: psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and similar ilk by the tens of thousands. These bottom feeders came in the guise of "chid protective services" (legalized kidnapping), "child support enforcement" (uses police to force fathers to pay for children stolen from them, or who might not even be their child), foster homes that have the humanity of puppy mills, child and family evaluators to ensure a family only behaves in a socialistically-acceptable manner, and administrators and teachers in politically-correct schools where children are routinely drugged and criminally charged at ages as young as 5 or 6 for innocent games children have played since time immemorial.

     While this alliance has proven to be a financial bonanza for all players, criminal domestic violence (DV), exclusive of the normal disagreements many couples have, is quite rare, occurring in only about 4 out of 1,000 households (0.4%) in a given year, and there is no evidence that the draconian DV laws have had any effect on this problem. Note that I use Prof. Don Dutton's definition of a "batterer" as someone who repeatedly strikes or kicks an unresisting victim when speaking about "domestic violence." I have discussed in detail when interactions between a couple is not domestic violence, and when violence against a woman is justified and even required by law. But today every loud argument between a couple is classified as a criminal case of "domestic violence" or abuse.

     Conversely, it is clear the laws intended to control "domestic violence" make the problem worse. There is no evidence to suggest any domestic abuse restraining order ever protected any woman.

Research has shown that "... Increases in willingness of prosecutors to take on protection order violations associated with increases in homicides of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females."

     VAWA promoted mandatory arrest in DV cases and research now shows that in the 23 states that adopted this draconian policy, DV homicides are 60% higher than in the other 27 states.

     As noted above, half of all marriages now end in "no fault" divorce. New York Supreme Court Judge Brian Lindsay stated, "There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System." But this well suits redfem ideology whose objective is to destroy the patriarchy. Certainly if marriage is destroyed the patriarchy will fall.

      Further, actual family violence is commonly associated with mental and medical problems, the cure for which are of little value to the DV industry and the "legal" system. Worse, the partner suffering the mental or medical problem is commonly the female. To circumvent these inconvenient facts, redfems and their allies have put forth an ever expanding definition of "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse" to keep their feeding at the public trough alive.

      As the definition of domestic violence and abuse expanded, and ever more draconian laws were passed circumventing even the most basic protections of English law and the U.S. Constitution, it became convenient to use DV charges and restraining orders in divorce cases. By the 1990's the DV and divorce industry that burgeoned under "no fault" laws had effectively merged. That merger was of great financial benefit to both groups and, conveniently, acts to destroy the patriarchy.

 

Domestic violence by the numbers: The basic script

      After the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 a clear pattern of legal abuse emerged so that today there is a standard script used to destroy children, families, and marriage. With variations we see the following pattern on a daily basis, and about 2 million men (and some women) in the United States go through some version of this nightmare every year:

• Woman is tired of her marriage or boyfriend, or is having an affair and wants man gone, but doesn't want to lose the kids, the house, the car, the bank account, credit cards, etc. that she enjoys as a result of the marriage or shacking up.
• She talks with an attorney, shelter worker, victim's advocate, or similar parasite, who advise her to take out a restraining order of file DV charges against her husband or boyfriend. They also tell her what to say, e.g., she is in "fear for her life," he is a "trained killer' due to his military service, he abuses her, she is suffering emotional harm, etc. Since perjury and subornation of perjury are virtually never punished, any lies will do and hearsay is admissible.
• Man is then arrested or thrown out of his home, preferably without hearing or notice, never to return.
• Since, by decree, he is branded as dangerous and violent, it is in "the best interests of his children" that he he have no, or very limited contact and visitation with them. He certainly must not have primary custody of them.
• Man naively thinks he has some rights and civil liberties and that if he tells the truth the judge will listen and things will get straightened out. Wrong again.
• His path will fork here. Most men will believe the lies the DA tells them about DV, or the restraining order violation, being simply a misdemeanor and take a plea bargain. Wrong again, and he surrenders all rights to appeal, to civil liberties, to professional licenses, security clearances, to even rent an apartment. The outcome is the same if he takes a bench trial before a judge, which is simply a long, slow way of pleading guilty.
• A few will take the very wise course of pleading not guilty and demanding a jury trial. While this almost guarantees charges against him will eventually be dropped or he will be acquitted, he is going to have to spend a lot of money on an attorney. And finding a competent attorney is searching for a needle in a haystack. His hiring an attorney escalates the conflict and she is likely to get free legal assistance, particularly if criminal charges are brought against him. Nothing excites and enriches the "legal" profession more than two feuding attorneys.
• He almost certainly loses his job (~80% chance) due to the DV conviction, all the time he has to spend in court, mental strain (PTSD is a given), loss of security clearance, loss of license, etc.
•  Any assets either he or she have probably go to legal fees or survival. He lives in his car or with relatives, or becomes homeless. He can't pay child support because he is unemployed but that doesn't stop the court from "imputing" an income based on what the judge thinks he should be earning. When he can't pay he is placed in debtor's prison as a "deadbeat dad." Many times his only way out is suicide.
•  After taking everything she can from him, she shacks up with other men, who may really be abusive either to her or any children she has. In the meantime any medical or mental problems she has go untreated as, obviously, everything is the fault of her ex and she is fine.
• The kids want Dad and become rebellious. She can't handle them and child abuse or neglect begins because there isn't any money. "Child Protective Service (CPS)" becomes involved. Of course no redfem CPS agent in her left mind would ever consider letting Dad take the kids. So, all too often, the kids end up in foster care, often a recipe for even more abuse and neglect. Don't look for many future scientists and engineers to emerge from kids who've been through this.
• With 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, the only defense an intelligent man currently has is to not marry or sire any children.

    Probably half the people who read this script will react with something like: "Been there, done that!" But despite the incredible number of men and women who go through this nightmare every year we have found it virtually impossible to get citizens or legislators to believe how debased, dysfunctional, and evil our "legal" system has become unless, and until they or someone close to them becomes involved in one of these nightmares. And I have been astounded to find that even men caught up in such a legal nightmare are still denying its existence. Their reaction, though they are destitute and convicted by their own plea bargain, is a specious claim that they are going to sue. It is no wonder the courts mock them.

     For skeptics, Dr. Stephen Baskerville has extensively documented this corruption in his recent book, Taken Into Custody.   In it Baskerville considers Freud and his theory of patricide, but ignores the much greater influence of Freud's cousin, Edward Bernays, who created the field of public relations and its offshoot, the marketing of lifestyle and consumerism. Bernay's work, and that of his colleagues and disciples, provided means for crowd control and manipulation that have been successfully used by governments, redfems, and the divorce industry. One finds clear evidence of such manipulation in terms such as "deadbeat dads" and the government bureaucracy that is built around child support enforcement.

      Unfortunately, those who work to preserve children, families, and marriage have not mastered the art of public relations or evolved the necessary catch phrases. "Shared parenting," often heard from father's rights groups, for example, contains the death of a marriage within it and inherently accepts defeat. And there is certainly no bureaucracy to carry the burden of family preservation, only to collect child support.

      The "legal" profession doesn't grow rich, nor government expand if a marriage endures and children are raised by mom and dad.

 

From prosecution to persecution

     Ever expanding definitions of "domestic violence," "sexual assault," "rape", and "abuse" created a bonanza for prosecutors and judges. Begun by the War on Drugs in the 1970s, prosecutors found they were no longer bound by such outdated concepts as providing due process, establishing mens rea (gulity mind), and proving a crime was actually committed (actus reus). A simple claim by a woman, no matter how blatantly false, became sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples of prosecutorial excesses generated by lack of such restraints abound.

     Perhaps the best current example is that of Mike Nifong in North Carolina and his prosecution of rape charges that he had to know were false. The books Dreams of Ada and John Grisham's The Innocent Man document convictions for murder of four innocent men in just the small town of Ada, Oklahoma by one obsessed district attorney.  Another disgusting example is John "Chuck" Magera, state Dept. of Social Services attorney for South Carolina. Those are hardly exceptions of headline-seeking district attorneys.

     And persecution extends to even the most petty acts. Men throwing crayons or a snowball find themselves arrested and prosecuted in the name of defending women against "abuse."

     Prosecutors now measure their success by numbers of convictions, usually measured in plea bargains, no matter how petty or outrageous, rather than by how well they serve justice.

 

Family court: an antonym

    In Taken Into Custody Dr. Baskerville documents in detail the sick, despicable, dangerous beast the "family courts" have become. Judges, who should be neutral arbiters of justice, have become the major support of divorce and DV industries whose objective is to entrap men by deceit, stealth, and surprise before they can mount a defense traditionally supplied by due process. Courts have abdicated their role in ensuring warrants were required before an arrest could be made, that prosecutors met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that property rights were honored, and to ensure that the rights of children and families to live their own lives was protected.

     Attorney David Heleniak has shown how domestic violence and family courts have become modern Star Chambers, where the proceedings are secret and virtually no defense is possible. As the Star Chamber  did in England during the 16th and 17th centuries, modern DV and familiy courts have become a byword for unfair judicial proceedings. Dean Roscoe Pound once said: "the powers of the star chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts and courts of domestic relations."

     In many cases under the guise of "the best interest of the child," courts have permitted "child protective services" to become little more than a rubber stamp for legalized kidnapping of children.

      There is no better place to lay the problems with the destruction of children, families, and marriage today than on the courthouse steps. And my condemnation scarcely scratches the surface of court corruption.

 

Torture: Abu Ghraib spreads across America

     As her humanitarian work was usurped by redfems, Erin Pizzey presciently noted that "Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags." With a current prison population of about 2.2 million men and women, we have reached that point.

     It is characteristic of the authoritarian agents required to maintain gulags that they resort to brutality and torture. As they are nothing more than "deadbeat dads" and "wife beaters" in the totalitarian view of their jailers, men are tortured and beaten with nightsticks, pepper-sprayed, punched, tasered, have the nerves in their hands damaged by improperly applied handcuffs, subjected to sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and put in stress positions familiar to anyone who saw the Abu Ghraib pictures from Iraq.

      One method of torture we have not heard of in use within the United States is waterboarding. But that may simply be incomplete data.

      Ilana Mercer documents many such incidents in her article Tasers 'R' Us.  In December 2007 the City of Chicago, Illinois, paid four former death row inmates $20 million to settle claims they were tortured by Chicago police and wrongly convicted.

    While we've heard convincing stories from men in jails all across America about all these forms of torture, the one most commonly used appears to be hypothermia. Many jails in the United States have a "cold cell" where additional air conditioning ducts are run with cold air blasting the inmates. Sometimes they simply turn down the thermostat or heat isn't provided. The temperature in these cells seems to be about 50° and prisoners have only their jump suits for warmth, as no blankets are provided. A single day observing DV court in El Paso County (Colorado Springs), Colorado, was sufficient to find one case of such treatment. Another case in Christian County, Missouri, was reported to me while writing this. The best documented case, however, is in Charleston, South Carolina, where David Bardes was kept in a "cold cell" for three days, April 3-5, 2006, and nearly died. His ordeal is documented in his book The Public Trust: Statement of Fact.

     There is little recourse and the public largely does not believe it because, as far as they are concerned, men who are being put in cold cells, tasered, sprayed, and beaten by police "must have done something wrong" to have gained the attention of the police and the courts. However, the major crime the men who contact the Equal Justice Foundation are guilty of is being a father.

 

Who is John Galt?

      Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and George Orwell's 1984 seem eerily prescient in the new millennia. The names are changed but we have the endless war, the mindless demonization of an amorphous enemy, the ceaseless monitoring of citizens, the arbitrary detentions and torture, endless and meaningless government propaganda, men presumed guilty unless and until they can prove their innocence, secret courts, decisions based on emotions and feelings rather than logic and reason, the destruction of our basic industries, etc.

     The same theme is taken up by Pat Buchanan in his new book Day of Reckoning and by Lou Dobbs in his new book Independents Day among other modern writers.

     In addition, the destruction of the patriarchy, families, and marriage appears to be succeeding at a rate even the most rabid redfem hardly dared dream of. The results of the alliance of the DV and divorce industry can be seen in any inner city ghetto as DV laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities. For blacks "domestic violence" has become the new Jim Crow and the effects of family breakdown are glaringly evident in black communities.

     Regardless of what good intentions feminists of the 1960s had, it has become a form of public welfare in which these looters obtain billions in public funds for the clear, if unstated, purpose of destroying children, men, and families. As a result, modern feminism has evolved two types of common, and readily recognizable, types of women:

Susie Looter: Susie is typically a lawyer, or in some other parasitic profession like victim's advocate (note that only women are "victims"),  social worker (CPS, CSE, or the like), but not a very good one. She has little knowledge of the law but an acid tongue and many cronies in the court. Susie probably has a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology, psychology, or, god forbid, women's studies. But it is certain she doesn't have any formal training in deductive, inductive, or symbolic logic, which are outdated methods of the patriarchy and the antithesis of her existence. And while she constantly quotes statistics she has no training or experience with quantitative analysis. One constant with Susie is a desire to destroy the "patriarchy" that she claims oppresses and subjugates women. Like all zealots, any means of doing so are justified by her ideology. Men are going to pay for every real or imagined slight she has ever received.

Julie Moocher: In theory, Susie exists to serve the needs of Julie but, in practice, Susie is often Julie's worst enemy. Julie is divorced or a single mother with a couple of out-of-control kids of questionable paternity. She has probably shacked up with a number of men who are, of course, the cause of all her problems. If divorced she likely brought DV charges or got a restraining order against her ex, who is now unemployed and a "deadbeat dad" as a result. Commonly she has a substance abuse problem, alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, which is someone else's fault, of course.  On top of the substance abuse Julie is likely to have a personality disorder or other mental problems. However, the world owes her a living, an unquestioned presumption. But she has no education or experience and no interest in getting any. No matter what happens, or what she does, Julie is the "victim."

    In the face of these conditions do you wonder why I think we have entered the realm of the surreal? And why am I asking: "Who is John Galt?" Because looters never have plans for the future, that would require logic and reason, and injure their feelings and emotions in the present. While the redfems are successfully destroying the patriarchy according to all available evidence, and supplanting it with matriarchies in our inner cities, I have pointed out that I can find no evidence that any matriarchy ever advanced beyond a Stone Age level of technology. Clearly the de facto matriarchies in our inner cities are rapidly regressing to that level but redfems will feed on the carcass of our patriarchal civilization until they have picked the bones clean. Then what? Throughout known history only patriarchal families have farmed, mined, built, and developed the technology on which our modern world rests.

    I have no easy solutions and here I only outline the problem. My only defense against this darkness is to document it. The closest individual we have today to John Galt is Congressman Ron Paul. If his campaign succeeds a mighty burden will rest on him and I hope he can bear the burden of Atlas on his shoulders.

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.

 

 

Everyone is a reactionary about subjects he understands.

Robert Conquest, a former Communist, is the author of many books on left-wing “progressive” totalitarianism:

THE GREAT TERROR

The Nation Killers

Lenin

Inside Stalin's Secret Police

Stalin and the Kirov Murder

Stalin, Breaker of Nations

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISconquest.htm

 

 

Violence conjugale et femmes immigrantes et des communautes ethnoculturelles : memoire de la FRHFVDQ a la Commission Bouchard-Taylor

En contexte de violence conjugale, les accommodements raisonnables devraient tenir compte des besoins et des réalités des femmes immigrantes et des communautés ethnoculturelles

Mémoire de la Fédération de ressources d’hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec à la Commission Bouchard-Taylor

Montréal, le 13 décembre 2007 – La Fédération de ressources d’hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec soutient qu’un souci d’accommodement est souhaitable pour éviter que les femmes immigrantes et des communautés ethnoculturelles victimes de violence conjugale se retrouvent dans une situation où elles sont doublement victimisées par la société d’accueil et par leur communauté.

Le parcours de ces femmes vers une vie sans violence est souvent parsemé d’obstacles qui augmentent leur situation de vulnérabilité. La méconnaissance du français et des ressources existantes, l’ignorance de leurs droits, la peur de perdre leurs enfants sont autant de barrières pouvant freiner leur démarche pour s’en sortir. À ces facteurs s’ajoutent la peur de l’isolement et la pauvreté qu’entraîne le rejet par leur famille et les membres de la communauté pour qui la violence conjugale reste taboue et le divorce interdit.

Les défis que pose l’adaptation des services en violence conjugale participent de la volonté de répondre plus efficacement aux besoins des femmes immigrantes et des communautés ethnoculturelles. Ces femmes partagent non seulement les besoins de la plupart des femmes victimes de violence, soit la sécurité, la protection et l’hébergement, pour elles et leurs enfants, mais également le besoin d’être soutenues, accompagnées dans leur démarche et respectées dans leurs spécificités culturelles et religieuses qui teintent le rythme de leur cheminement vers une plus grande autonomie.

À l’instar de l’Avis du Conseil du Statut de la femme, la Fédération reconnaît les valeurs collectives de séparation de l’État et de la religion, de primauté du fait français et d’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes mais en contexte de violence conjugale, l’expérience a démontré qu’un accompagnement empreint de respect contribue favorablement à l’intégration de ces femmes à la société québécoise.

Ainsi, tout accommodement, dans une perspective d’harmonisation interculturelle, devrait s’inscrire dans la lignée des principes de la politique gouvernementale de 1995 et des engagements du Plan d’action 2004-2009 en matière de violence conjugale, notamment l’engagement 58 (annexe 9) qui est de donner suite aux mesures identifiées dans le Plan d’action en immigration du Ministère des Relations avec les citoyens et de l’Immigration qui poursuivent l’objectif de prévenir et de contrer la violence conjugale faite aux femmes immigrantes et issues des communautés ethnoculturelles. Ces mesures touchent :

· l’accès aux services d’aide ou de protection;
· la sensibilisation des intervenantes et des intervenants du réseau de la santé et des services sociaux aux difficultés particulières vécues par celles-ci;
· l’élaboration d’un programme de prévention de la violence conjugale s’adressant aux jeunes issus des communautés culturelles avec une approche adaptée aux valeurs de leur communauté et de celles de la société d’accueil;
· documenter la problématique de violence conjugale en contexte immigrant et ethnoculturel.

La Fédération de ressources d’hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec invite la Commission à tenir compte de ces recommandations dans l’élaboration de son document final.
 

 

Nouvelles publications : l’impact des programmes sociaux sur les femmes a faible revenu

L’ICREF lance avec fierté un feuillet d’information et un rapport de recherche dans sa série « Nouveaux regards sur la justice économique et sociale : des femmes résistent à la pauvreté et à l’exclusion ».

L’impact des programmes sociaux : Des femmes à faible revenu racontent

Ce feuillet d’information présente divers témoignages de femmes à faible revenu avec une analyse critique et des informations détaillées sur l’impact de la dévolution des programmes sociaux. Il présente des informations concluantes qui soulignent l’importance d’écouter les femmes pour connaître les vrais problèmes auxquels doivent s’attaquer les politiques et les programmes. Il s’inspire du rapport intitulé "Integrating the voices of low-income women into policy discussions on Canada Social Transfer (CST)" **, une recherche qualitative menée en 2007 dans trois villes canadiennes avec des décideurs, des organismes de services sociaux et des femmes à faible revenu autochtones, immigrantes, réfugiées et handicapées. Des données quantitatives tirées de recherches antérieures viennent compléter le tableau.

Il existe déjà des données quantitatives sur les femmes en situation de pauvreté. Notre rapport de recherche apporte cependant des récits qui viennent étoffer ces informations, car il signale des problèmes trop souvent négligés dans ces études ou les analyses de politiques. Nos recommandations confirment celles de nombreuses autres recherches sur le même thème. Elles puisent toutefois dans le vécu de certaines des femmes les plus marginalisées au Canada qui n’avaient jamais été consultées auparavant. Ces femmes ont pu décrire comment les politiques fédérales et provinciales se répercutent sur la vie des gens au bas de l’échelle.

Notre objectif était de connaître les expériences et les points de vue de femmes marginalisées qui ont reçu de l’aide sociale à un moment donné entre 1996 et maintenant. Nous leur avons demandé de parler des politiques fédérales et provinciales qui les touchaient. Il a été surtout question des programmes sociaux comme l’aide sociale et ses modes de financement, mais aussi de l’assurance-emploi, des services de garde d’enfants et des prestations fiscales. Pour situer les propos de nos participantes, nous présentons quelques chiffres sur la situation des femmes pauvres. Nous rappelons aussi les changements qui ont été apportés à la sécurité sociale au milieu des années 1990 et qui ont mené à l’instauration du Transfert canadien en matière de santé et de programmes sociaux (TCSPS).

Veuillez visiter notre site web afin d’accéder aux deux documents : www.criaw-icref.ca

** Cette recherche a été financée par le fonds de recherche en matière de politiques de Condition féminine Canada. Malheureusement, le fonds a été aboli avant la traduction et publication du document
 

 

Jim Rogers on US Economy FED Ron Paul

 

La question du port du voile à l'école vient d'être remise au goût du jour

http://www.canoe.com/infos/dossiers/archives/2007/09/20070910-155228.html

C'est dire à quel point la commission Bouchard -Taylor a encore du pain sur la planche mais il faut dire qu'elle a tiré les lignes du prochain plan de match : la laïcité constitutionnelle. Cette laïcité est nécessaire car la gestion des accommodements raisonnable est non seulement risquée, mais aussi fort onéreuse.voire déjà le coût de la commission Bouchard-Taylor !

On se souvient encore de l'affaire du petit Sikh qui avait amené son symbole religieux à l'école, c'est à dire son poignard. Cette affaire là aurait dû normalement faire comprendre ce qui est réellement arrivé quand le petit Gurbaj Singh Multani est arrivé à l'école avec ce couteau, apeurant ses camarades.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060303/CPACTUALITES/60302067/0

Le couteau est un symbole religieux pour les Sikh. Ce jour fatidique, les ennuis auraient pu commencer pour le jeune Gurbaj Singh Multani. Il aurait pu rencontrer, qui, sait, les membres d'une bande rivale, qui elle pratique une autre religion.

Le fait est là : la guerre qui divise les gangs dans la guerre des gangs de rue a des bases religieuse ou raciales : les noirs contre les blancs, les latinos contre les noirs etc.

http://www.erta-tcrg.org/cri6224/2004-2006/gangs_tamouls.htm

Ca commence à l'école, ca finit dans la rue.

Par conséquent, amener un symbole religieux à l'école c'est plus qu'un tantinet provocateur. : c'est carrément suicidaire!

Une professeur musulmane décide d'enseigner voilée, coûte que coûte. Serait-ce là une nouvelle façon de réintroduire l'antique bonne sour à l'école, cette fois-ci susceptible de démontrer(grossesse) les preuves d'une sexualité active? Enseigner voilée serait alors un blasphème!.

La croyance est un rite qui sert les intérêts religieux, elle utilise ses symboles propres, qui n'ont absolument rien à faire sur le marché du travail. Que viendrait-elle alors faire dans un environnement structuré, comme l'école (dont le but est d'envoyer des jeunes sur le marché du travail)? Elle y détournera l'attention, corrompra les amitiés sincères pour la transformer en lutte de classe. Le sang des rixes qu'elle provoquera souilleront les pages des livres qui auraient dû servir à élever les esprits. L'histoire avec un grand H montre très bien que l'intolérance prédomine globalement sur toutes les bonnes intentions quand les croyances se côtoient.

Ce qui était anodin se transformera en drame épouvantable.

Comment par exemple, pourrait-on placer des cours d'éducation sexuelle dans cette atmosphère? Parler d'avortement ou de contraception équivaudra à se placer contre un mur et à attendre d'être fusillé. Imaginez le trac de l'enseignante débutante obligée de parler de sexualité à des religieux fanatisés. Ah! Parce que comme le montre l'histoire de l'entretien des centrales nucléaires en Russie, il ne faut pas s'imaginer que ce sera toujours au directeur à s'acquitter de cette tâche très délicate. Il n'a pas vraiment de temps à lui. Alors tôt ou tard malgré tous les meilleurs arguments au monde, il déléguera cette tâche désagréable à un autre délégateur de tâches professionnel. Et Dieu sait qu'il y en a dans les milieux de travail. Avec tous les risques associés d'escalade dans la violence entre jeunes et professeurs, et entre jeunes..
 

 

Putes soumises

Contre la prostitution

Avant de penser à lapider les prostituées, il faut penser à élargir les libertés sexuelles de la femme. Plus de femmes " non-payantes " se retrouvent sur le marché des célibataires, et plusieurs des fréquentations qui en résultent finissent en mariage. On a pas à choisir entre mariage ou prostitution, mais on vis une vie libre qui permet à aux amours et aux idées de s'épanouir.

Et il faut aussi penser à réduire en quantité et en qualité les facteurs de risque d'itinérance chez les femmes.

On se plaint que les femmes gagnent moins cher que l'homme. Les femmes se retrouvent effectivement, sur le marché de l'emploi, à occuper en majorité des emplois précaires et non-spécialisés. Comme en petite entreprise, où trop souvent la gestion du personnel se fait comme dans la lutte à l'incendie ; au jour au jour. Il est difficile dans ces conditions adverses, pour une femme de penser à fonder une famille ! Trop souvent elle se retrouve seule et vit exactement ce que les hommes célibataires vivent dans les mêmes conditions de vie : précarisation " psychologique " (incapacité d'engagement dû à un sentiment d'insécurité permanent).

Il faut changer la société : les adolescentes (et les adolescents aussi) ne devraient jamais se retrouver à la rue. S'ils veulent travailler, les respecter dans leur choix. Il y a des adolescents avec des désirs d'adultes. Ils ne sont pas pour autant débiles, et ont la capacité de poursuivre leurs études. Une combinaison travail-études devrait leur permettre d'accéder à l'autonomie souhaitée, tout en poursuivant les objectifs nationaux en matière d'éducation. Certains veulent aussi fonder une famille, dès l'adolescence (parfois 15 ans). Les adolescents sont plus susceptibles d'engendrer un grand nombre d'enfants que les autres catégories d'âge, ce qui pourrait permettre d'augmenter la natalité de façon importante. Je dirais empiriquement qu'une femme a plus de chance d'avoir plus d'enfants si elle commence tôt à en faire. Cette dynamique se retrouve souvent chez les autochtones (voir traditions autochtones). Même système à appliquer. Avantage spécifique d'utiliser le système chez les autochtones : les autochtones, adolescents ou non, font plus d'enfants que les autres canadiens.

Les jeunes au sortir du secondaire devraient aussi avoir un métier et un diplôme en poche. Que ce soit en cuisine, en menuiserie etc. Les jeunes sans diplôme, hommes et femmes confondues, seront plus tentés d'utiliser leur corps pour faire de l'argent s'ils n'ont pas de perspectives d'emplois payantes et/ou stimulantes, et si en plus ils sont endettés. La capacité monétaire de fonder une famille assagit considérablement.

En plus de donner des enfants, des travailleurs et des payeurs de taxes à la société, plus d'autonomie et de sécurité à l'adolescence permet d'empêcher des fêlés comme R. Pickton de penser qu'il est légitime d'agir comme il l'a fait.
 

 

La diffamation peut être de la violence psychologique

 

Georges Lafontaine

Attaché politique

Bureau de la députée de Gatineau

Cher monsieur Lafontaine,

La lecture de votre message m’a donné une joie délirante.

Quel déraillant plaisir que de savoir que vous, et présumément, la femme politique à laquelle vous êtes attaché, êtes pour une véritable ÉGALITÉ DES SEXES.

C’est avec une jubilation déraisonnable que j’apprends que votre cerveau n’est pas détourné et que vous croyez qu’une femme n’a aucune raison de se sentir diminuée à être l’égale d’un homme.

Il y a tellement de femmes de nos jours qui se « SAVENT » être supérieures aux hommes. Je suis aise de croire que vous, et votre députée, allez vous joindre à la grande campagne d’éducation de ces « féminocrates ».

Celles-ci, pauvres victimes de la « façon de connaitre des femmes », ont de la difficulté à saisir une idée simple, celle de

L’ÉGALITÉ DES FEMMES ET DES HOMMES

ÉGALITÉ dans la famille    les femmes doivent générer ÉGALEMENT (50%) les revenus du couple les femmes ne doivent contrôler qu’à ÉGALITÉ (50% et non pas 80%) les dépenses les femmes doivent faire la moitié des taches ménagères masculines

ÉGALITÉ SOCIALE          les femmes doivent mettre fin à toutes les discriminations sexistes « POSITIVEment » anti-males les femmes doivent assumer la moitié (50% non pas 3%) des emplois dangereux ET mortels

ÉGALITÉ FACE A LA LOI          les femmes doivent exiger l’ÉGALITÉ des peines et condamnations pour les mêmes crimes les femmes doivent exiger la sévère répression des fausses accusations, mensonges et parjures des femmes

ÉGALITÉ DANS LE DIVORCE  fin aux pensions alimentaires de toutes sortes; fin à  l’extorsion des biens du male; ÉGALITÉ (50%) de garde des enfants après le divorce ou séparation

ÉGALITÉ DES DROITS SUR LA PROCRÉATION    égalité (50%) des droits sur la vie et la mort du fœtus

ÉGALITÉ DES RESSOURCES SOCIALES       fin aux privilèges des femmes en éducation, santé, programmes étatiques de toutes sortes

ÉGALITÉ DES CONTRIBUTIONS FISCALES            les femmes doivent payer la moitié (50%) des impôts (et non pas 20%)

ÉGALITÉ FACE AU HARCÈLEMENT SEXUEL       punition équivalente aux formes féminines de harcèlement sexuel

Il y a bien sur d’autres, beaucoup, aspects de l’INÉGALITÉ DES HOMMES FACE AUX FEMMES, mais ceci est un bon début pour débuter votre campagne d’éducation des « féminocrates ».

Je délire déjà de joie à vous voir, vous et votre maitresse à penser, commencer à défendre la VÉRITABLE égalité des femmes ET des hommes.

Je vois déjà la fin de tous les privilèges sexistes des femmes et la fin de la GRANDE NOIRCEUR moyenâgeuse que nous infligent les « féminocrates ».

Défendre l’idée que les femmes n’ont pas à se sentir diminuée à avoir autant, et NON pas plus, de droits que les hommes est une position politique très, mais très courageuse.

Bravo!

Vous remerciant d’avance, je vous prie de bien vouloir agréer l’expression des mes sentiments de gratitude les plus distinguées,

Gérard Levesque

(Natif de la région de Gatineau)

________________________

Gérard Pierre LEVESQUE

Téléphone:               075  467 0561

Portable:                 090 6557 0561

Mail:                       levesque@m14.alpha-net.ne.jp

 

Merci d'avoir déliré dans notre boîte vocale. Ainsi donc vous êtes contre l'égalité des sexes? Par quel détour de votre cerveau en arrivé vous à vous sentir diminué parce que la femme serait l'égale de l'homme. Et votre voisin, homme ou femme, vous sentez vous minable parce qu'il vous considère comme son égal? Allons, monsieur soyez un peu précieux. Nous ne sommes plus au moyen âge.

Georges Lafontaine

Attaché politique

Bureau de la députée de Gatineau

 

Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

Excerpts:

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family.

…yet I cannot … urge young men to marry today.

For many men … marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail.

… I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this:

Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

… this message may … be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution.

… until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage.

The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce.

… half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them.

… you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons.

The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

… not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously.

Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons.

First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong.

Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime.

Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

… no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them.

The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children.

While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children.

With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income.

She may spend it however she wishes.

You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundred dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car.

Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs.

You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial.

… as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike": refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce.

In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families.

… the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.

If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?

Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason.

The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.

We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry…

The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract.

We owe it to future generations … if there are to be any.

 

Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws 

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundred dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial.

Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike": refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.

Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?

Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.

It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.”

We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration’s government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, has just been published by Cumberland House Publishing.

Source: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/14/do-not-marry-do-not-have-children/

Also/aussi : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Do+Not+Marry%2C+Do+Not+Have+Children+baskerville

 

 

Wal-Mart Yanks Pink 'Credit Card' Panties Off Racks

 

 

SEXUAL UTOPIA IN POWER     

 

Wal-Mart Yanks Pink 'Credit Card' Panties Off …

Suggestive pink Santa panties targeting young girls are being removed …

The panties … sold in … juniors … suggest that girls don't need money, they just need a sugar daddy … Santa Claus.

The hipster briefs — carrying the slogan "Who needs credit cards ..." on the front and "When you have Santa" on the derriere …

"There's nothing quite like telling adolescent girls that they don't need to worry about finances since they have their very own money pot between their legs" …  

…  just a cute T-shirt that says 'Just ask Santa'" …

Exactly how nice to Santa would the girl have to be in order to get stuff?"

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,316580,00.html

 

Les garçons n'auront pas de poupée cette année

Un putsch anti-jouets sexistes dans un magasin parisien

 

C'est la faute à El Niño

La diffamation peut être de la violence psychologique

 

Madame Rima Elkouri

La Presse

 

C'est très bien de votre part de poser un regard, disons critique, sur le port du hijad comme vous le faites ce matin dans La Presse. Il est cependant surprenant qu'aucun de nos journalistes, nos chroniqueurs, dont vous, n'a pris la peine de jeter un regard critique sur les propos sexistes mensongers statistiquement de la ministre de la condition féminine, Christine St-Pierre, lors du lancement de la campagne contre la violence conjugale. Étonnant, aussi, le silence de nos chroniqueurs face au clip gouvernemental montrant un homme en train d'agresser sa conjointe sans montrer le pendant féminin de ce type de violence. Type de violence pourtant birectionnel démontré par de nombreuses recherches scientifiques. 

 

Il est tout de même inquiétant que, dans notre société qui  prétend être un exemple pour l'humanité, il soit permis de dénigrer ainsi sans vergogne la moitié mâle de la population sans que nos "penseurs" interviennent. Nos médias ont accordé une place de choix au cas du gars qui a peint le drapeau de la Grèce sur sa porte de garage. Méchante nouvelle!  Ça m'a  complètement retourné les sens!...  Mais pas autant que le mépris médiatique à l'endroit des hommes hétérosexuels habilement orchestré par Christine St-Pierre, ministre responsable de l'influent lobby tentaculaire féministe qui règne en maître  au sein de l'État québécois!    

 

Cordialement

 

Jean-Pierre Gagnon

Beloeil

 

SEXUAL UTOPIA IN POWER - FROM SEXUAL ANARCHY TO SEXUAL TERROR

Excerpts:

… (a) cliché of political philosophy that the less self-restraint citizens are able to exercise, the more they must be constrained from without.

This is what gradually happened in the case of the sexual revolution also, with the role of Jacobins/Bolsheviks being assumed by the feminists.

Young women cannot be expected to work out a personal system of sexual ethics in the manner of Descartes reconstructing the universe in his own mind.

If you cease to prepare them for marriage, they will seek guidance wherever they can find it. In the past thirty years they have found it in feminism, simply because the feminists have outshouted everyone else.

After helping to encourage sexual experimentation by young women, feminism found itself able to capitalize on the unhappiness which resulted.

The feminists approve the notion of a right to do as one pleases without responsibilities toward others; they merely insist that only women have this right.

Looking about them for some legal and moral basis for enforcing this novel claim, they hit upon the age-old prohibition against rape.

Feminists understand rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fidelity, but of her merely personal wishes.

They are making use of the ancient law against rape to enforce not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims.

Their ideal is not the man whose self-control permits a woman to exercise her own, but the man who is subservient to a woman’s good pleasure—the man who behaves, not like a gentleman, but like a dildo.

. On the new view, in which consent rather than the marriage bond is the issue, the same sexual act may be a crime on Monday or Wednesday and a right on Tuesday or Thursday, according to the shifts in a woman’s mood.

If women want to be free to do as they please with men, after all, why should not men be free to do as they please with women?

Indeed, the date rape campaign owes its success only to the lingering effect of older views.

Feminists themselves are not confused about this; they write openly of “redefining rape.”

Of course, for those of us who still speak traditional English, this amounts to an admission that they are falsely accusing men.

… the only people profiting from the imposition of the new standards are the feminists who invented them.

The survival of their movement depends on a continuing supply of resentful women who believe their rights are being violated; one can only admit that the principles which buttress the date rape campaign are admirably designed to guarantee such a supply.

Feminism is a movement that thrives on its own failures; hence, it is very difficult to reverse.

The thinking behind the sexual harassment movement is that women are entitled to “an environment free from unwanted sexual advances.”

What sort of advances are unwanted?

In plain English, those made by unattractive men.

Anyone who has been forced to endure a corporate anti harassment video can see that what is being condemned is merely traditional male courtship behavior. 

Men are being denied due process, ruined professionally, and threatened with particularly harsh punishments for any retaliation against the women accusing them of a newly invented and deliberately ill-defined crime.

They may, for prudential reasons, outwardly conform to the new rules.

But it is unlikely that the traditional reluctance in foro interno to use force against women can long survive the present pattern of female behavior.

_________________________________________________________________________

SEXUAL UTOPIA IN POWER

FROM SEXUAL ANARCHY TO SEXUAL TERROR

It is a cliché of political philosophy that the less self-restraint citizens are able to exercise, the more they must be constrained from without. The practical necessity of such a trade-off can be seen in such extraordinary upheavals as the French and Russian Revolutions. First, old and habitual patterns and norms are thrown aside in the name of freedom. When the ensuing chaos becomes intolerable, some group with the requisite ambition, self-assurance and ruthlessness succeeds in forcibly imposing its own order on the weakened society.

This is what gradually happened in the case of the sexual revolution also, with the role of Jacobins/Bolsheviks being assumed by the feminists.

Human beings cannot do without some social norms to guide them in their personal relations. Young women cannot be expected to work out a personal system of sexual ethics in the manner of Descartes reconstructing the universe in his own mind. If you cease to prepare them for marriage, they will seek guidance wherever they can find it. In the past thirty years they have found it in feminism, simply because the feminists have outshouted everyone else. After helping to encourage sexual experimentation by young women, feminism found itself able to capitalize on the unhappiness which resulted. Their program for rewriting the rules of human sexual behavior is in one way a continuation of the liberationists’ utopian program and in another way a reaction against it. The feminists approve the notion of a right to do as one pleases without responsibilities toward others; they merely insist that only women have this right.

Looking about them for some legal and moral basis for enforcing this novel claim, they hit upon the age-old prohibition against rape. Feminists understand rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fidelity, but of her merely personal wishes. They are making use of the ancient law against rape to enforce not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims. Their ideal is not the man whose self-control permits a woman to exercise her own, but the man who is subservient to a woman’s good pleasure—the man who behaves, not like a gentleman, but like a dildo.

But mere disregard of a woman’s personal wishes is manifestly not the reason men have been disgraced, imprisoned, in some societies even put to death for the crime of rape. On the new view, in which consent rather than the marriage bond is the issue, the same sexual act may be a crime on Monday or Wednesday and a right on Tuesday or Thursday, according to the shifts in a woman’s mood. Feminists claim rape is not taken seriously enough; perhaps it would be better to ask how it could be taken seriously at all once we begin defining it as they do. If women want to be free to do as they please with men, after all, why should not men be free to do as they please with women?

Indeed, the date rape campaign owes its success only to the lingering effect of older views. Feminists themselves are not confused about this; they write openly of “redefining rape.” Of course, for those of us who still speak traditional English, this amounts to an admission that they are falsely accusing men. One might have more sympathy for the “date rape victims” if they wanted the men to marry them, feared they were ruined for other suitors, and were prepared to assume their own obligations as wives and mothers. But this is simply not the case. The date rape campaigners, if not the confused young women themselves, are hostile to the very idea of matrimony, and never propose it as a solution. They want to jail men, not make responsible husbands of them. This is far worse than shotgun marriage, which at least allowed the man to act as father to the child he had sired.

And what benefit do women derive from imprisoning men as date rapists apart from gratification of a desire for revenge? Seeing men punished may even confirm morally confused women in their mistaken sense of victimhood—resentment tends to feed upon itself, like an itch that worsens with scratching. Women are reinforced in the belief that it is their right for men’s behavior to be anything they would like it to be. They become less inclined to treat men with respect or to try to learn to understand or compromise with them. In a word, they learn to think and behave like spoiled children, expecting everything and willing to give nothing.

Men, meanwhile, respond to this in ways that are not difficult to predict. They may not (at first) decline sexual liaisons with such women, because the woman’s moral shortcomings do not have too great an effect upon the sexual act itself. But, quite rationally, they will avoid any deeper involvement with them. So women experience fewer, shorter, and worse marriages and “relationships” with men. But they do not blame themselves for the predicament they are in; they refuse to see any connection between their own behavior and their loneliness and frustration. Thus we get ever more frequent characterizations of men as rapists and predators who mysteriously refuse to commit.

Indeed, the only people profiting from the imposition of the new standards are the feminists who invented them. The survival of their movement depends on a continuing supply of resentful women who believe their rights are being violated; one can only admit that the principles which buttress the date rape campaign are admirably designed to guarantee such a supply. Feminism is a movement that thrives on its own failures; hence, it is very difficult to reverse.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition, lists the first recorded use of the term date rape as 1975. Within a few years we find Thomas Fleming of Chronicles, for example, employing the expression as uncritically as any feminist zealot. 4 A second instrument of the feminist reign of sexual terror, “sexual harassment,” similarly made its first appearance in 1975. In less than a generation this has become a national industry providing a comfortable living for many people. Yet again we find this revolutionary concept blithely accepted by many male traditionalists. They are content to accept without argument that there exists a widespread problem of men “harassing” women, and that “something must be done about it.” My first thought would be: What did the Romans do about it? What did the Christian Church do about it? How about the Chinese or the Aztecs? The obvious answer is that none of them did anything about it, because the concept has only recently developed within the context of the feminist movement. Is this not cause for suspicion? Why are men so quick to adopt the language of their declared enemies?

The thinking behind the sexual harassment movement is that women are entitled to “an environment free from unwanted sexual advances.” What sort of advances are unwanted? In plain English, those made by unattractive men. Anyone who has been forced to endure a corporate anti harassment video can see that what is being condemned is merely traditional male courtship behavior.

The introduction of harassment law was accompanied by a campaign to inform young women of the new entitlement. Colleges, for example, instituted harassment committees one of whose stated purposes was “to encourage victims to come forward.” (I saw this happening up close.) The agitators wanted as many young women as possible accusing unsuccessful suitors of wrongdoing.

And they had considerable success; many women unhesitatingly availed themselves of the new dispensation. Young men found they risked visits from the police for flirting or inviting women on dates.

This female bullying should be contrasted with traditional male chivalry. Men, at least within Western Civilization, have been socialized into extreme reluctance to use force against women. This is not an absolute principle: few would deny that a man has a right of self-defense against a woman attempting to kill him. But many men will refuse to retaliate against a woman under almost any lesser threat. This attitude is far removed from the feminist principle of equality between the sexes. Indeed, it seems to imply a view of men as  naturally dominant: It is a form of noblesse oblige. And it is not, so far as I can see, reducible to any long-term self-interest on the part of a man; in other words, it is a principle of honor. The code of chivalry holds that a man has no moral right to use force against women simply because he can do so. An obvious difficulty with such a code is that it is vulnerable to abuse by its beneficiaries. I had a classmate in grade school who had heard it said somewhere that “boys are not supposed to hit girls.” Unfortunately, she interpreted this to mean that it was acceptable for girls to hit boys, which she then proceeded to do. She became genuinely indignant when she found that they usually hit back.

The special character of noblesse oblige is that it does not involve a corresponding entitlement on the part of the beneficiary. On the traditional view, a man should indeed be reluctant to use force against women, but women have no right to presume upon this. The reluctance is elicited by a recognition of women’s weakness, not commanded as a recognition of their rights. Perhaps because women are the weaker sex, they have never developed any similar inhibitions about using force against men. In a traditionally ordered society, this does not present difficulties, because a woman’s obligations to her husband are clearly understood and socially enforced. But the situation changes when millions of spoiled, impressionable young women have been convinced men are “harassing” them and that the proper response is to appeal to force of law and the police powers of the state. Men are being denied due process, ruined professionally, and threatened with particularly harsh punishments for any retaliation against the women accusing them of a newly invented and deliberately ill-defined crime. They may, for prudential reasons, outwardly conform to the new rules. But it is unlikely that the traditional reluctance in foro interno to use force against women can long survive the present pattern of female behavior. Women would do well to ponder this.

Source: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf

 

Le chat d'Iran

 

Le juge Alain maintenu dans ses fonctions

 

 

Affaire Dumas

 

Al-Zawahiri: British 'fleeing' Iraq

 

Novembre mois des démarreurs

 

Il vaut mieux être déçu que d'espérer dans le vague.