Fifty Shades Of Grey Proves Women Want Male Dominance

Fifty Shades of Grey is hitting cinema screens globally this month. And feminists are fucking scared. At least 100 million people, the vast, vast, vast majority of them women, voted with their feet, eyes, purses, and credit cards and purchased the woefully-written book, which is nonetheless simultaneously a masterpiece of anti-feminism.

Now comes the film, which will only further titillate millions of middle-aged and young women, and underscore the female desire for male assertiveness and their own submission to such masculine control.

SJW’s are unsurprisingly on the move, panicking that their narrative is under attack from not only reason but also the bull-rush footsteps of a usually socially dumbed-down female population. Donations to women’s shelters and “anti-domestic violence” charities have gone up. One Massachusetts college professor, Gail Dines, initiated a “50 dollars not 50 shades” campaign to boycott the film and “inspire” cinema protests.

Her campaign and others like it are gaining huge traction within the SJW zoo. We may feel differently much of the time, but SJW’s are still a fraction of the overall, usually slumbering female masses. This time, though, the numbers are firmly stacked against them. Then what’s the moral of this story? Entrenched, quotidian feminist propaganda cannot reverse the biology of women.

 

more at

http://www.returnofkings.com/56034/fifty-shades-of-grey-proves-women-want-male-dominance

 

 

The Other Mccain: Fear and Loathing of the Penis

from  http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/13/fear-and-loathing-of-the-penis/

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality doesn’t exist and our ‘urges’ to bond with [men] emotionally or sexually aren’t natural drives but normal PTSD reactions to years of abuse and mind-programming.”
Radical Wind, August 2013

When I think back on how this project began, I recall the woman whose screed against intercourse (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) led me deep into this swamp of radical feminism. It was, however, another rant by that same blogger which made me seriously explore the ideological psychosis of which her rant was a symptom.

“No woman is heterosexual.”

That four-word sentence sent me off on an investigation of her sources, especially including Professor Dee Graham, whose 1994 book Loving to Survive theorized female heterosexuality as a response to male-inflicted “sexual terror,” akin to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Understanding this claim in turn required me to examine the sources cited in Graham’s bibliography, including lesbian feminists like Marilyn Frye, Adrienne Rich, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde and Charlotte Bunch. Graham even managed to work in a citation to “Starhawk” (neé Miriam Simos), the lesbian feminist who was the founding high priestess of a California-based pagan witchcraft cult known as Reclaiming. From such dubious sources Graham had propounded her theory of sexuality, based in a view of men as violent oppressors and women as victims suffering under tyrannical male supremacy. After several months of further research, I’ve begun to refer to this feminist worldview as Fear and Loathing of the Penis.

You see this in the counterfactual “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses, with activists at Columbia University trying to frighten prospective students — high school kids — with protests about “gender-based violence on campus.” Robert Tracinski at the Federalist examines the possibility that “rape culture” discourse represents “an attempt to create a scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.”

It is evident that these women’s dread and contempt of masculinity arises from specific circumstances. Feminism does not cause women to hate and fear men; feminism is the political rationalization of these women’s anti-male feelings, permitting them to believe that their own unhappiness is not merely personal. It is the explanatory power of feminist theory that attracts women who do not wish to consider themselves responsible for their misfortunes, disappointments and failures, offering them a convenient scapegoat for their problems: Patriarchy.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, consider this recent post on Tumblr.com by an Australian woman named Kate:

I think that most of the times I feel afraid of the world, it is because there are men in it.
Men who want to hurt women; men who don’t want to hurt women but do not realise that they are doing so anyway; men who don’t want to hurt women, but do not care when they do, because whatever they want from the situation is intrinsically more important to them.
Men who you can tell are bad just by looking at them or listening to what they say; men who you instinctively feel could be bad, but you second-guess yourself because you want to believe and trust that they are good; men who you would never guess are bad in any way — whose badness doesn’t show for years, and when it does it is near-invisible to anybody else.
Men who make you feel threatened when they don’t get their own way; men who lash out and shift the focus when they don’t get their own way; men who spin every word when they don’t get their own way; men who act like children and make you their mother figure when they don’t get their own way; men who control you to get their own way, men who take what they want anyway when they don’t get their own way.
Men who do not listen to women’s words the same way they listen to other men’s; men who turn you invisible unless they want to f–k you; men who only want to be your friend because they want to f–k you; men who call you ‘intellectually dishonest’ for using emotion and context to argue a point; men who back you into corners physically, emotionally, verbally.
Men who call you ‘crazy’; ‘hormonal’; ‘irrational’; ‘emotional’, men who will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.
Men who make you feel the most loved, safe, and cared for after they have abused you.
Men who make you question your reality by telling you with conviction that it is wrong.
Men who take away your sense of independence and self by controlling your every move, and by telling you a better way to do every little thing you’ve taught yourself.
Men who dissolve your self esteem by belittling and insulting you, and calling you names.
Men who tell you that your reasonable emotional reactions are abusive, and infringe on their rights to do whatever they want to do.
Men who do not stop whatever they are doing to you when you ask.
Men who look you in the eyes and lie to you every day to protect their double lives.
I am so tired of absorbing all of this.

Who are these men who do these things to Kate? We don’t know.

She doesn’t name them, but she is apparently surrounded by them, and we are thus unable to offer any advice or assistance to her. She is a helpless victim of men — men! men! men! — and it would seem she offers this catalog of masculine “badness” in the expectation that other women will recognize the pattern. Yet we might notice how Kate lists men’s reactions when they “don’t get their own way,” as if she can’t see that the entirety of her complaint involves her own dissatisfaction because she can’t get her own way with them. Men don’t behave the way Kate wants them to behave, men don’t say and do things the way Kate wants things to be said and done, and their failure to live up to her expectations — their unwillingness to comply with the imperious demands of Queen Kate — is proof that she is a victim of male oppression.

She is inviting us to a pity party where she is the guest of honor. If men reject that invitation, this just proves how bad men are, because they “will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.”

Why wouldn’t male contempt for her be “a valid emotional response”? Men are the way we are in part because we must be that way in order to be recognized as men, as responsible adults. Nobody wants to hear a man complain about his problems. Women can be especially merciless in their contempt for any man who expresses a sense of emotional suffering, and many women are deliberately sadistic toward men. Some women enjoy nothing better than to insult a man and then mock him as a “whiner” if he takes notice of the insult. Women who take pride in their own cruelty toward men are invariably the same women who complain when men fail to treat them with solicitude and kindness. Such women are never able to admit that they are even partially responsible for their inability either to attract good men or to sustain relationships with the men they do attract.

Fear and Loathing of the Penis — a paranoid resentment of men, characterized by irrational suspicion — is the underlying mental condition that feminism turns into a political ideology. What disturbs me, after months of studying this phenomenon, is that this madness is both contagious and incurable. Feminism is a sort of cultural virus that, once it takes hold in a woman’s mind, makes it impossible for her to relate to men in a normal manner and, because misery loves company, she feels compelled to share her hateful anti-male attitudes with other women. If left untreated, the effects of this dangerous malady are well known.

Islamic Racism: Receptionist ‘branded black slave by official at Qatari embassy

A receptionist who was allegedly called a “black slave” by a senior official at the Qatari embassy in London today said he hopes “justice” will be done after a landmark court ruling gave foreign embassy staff the same rights as British workers.

The Standard reported that Mohamoud Ahmed, 74, was seeking £100,000 damages in an unfair dismissal and race and age discrimination claim against the embassy in Mayfair.

Mr Ahmed, an employee for 20 years, claims he was referred to in Arabic as a “donkey” and a “dog” by Abdullah al-Ansari, head of the embassy’s medical department. His claims are denied by the embassy and Mr al–Ansari.

An employment tribunal was halted for more than a year until the Court of Appeal ruled in a test case whether embassies can claim diplomatic immunity against staff bringing legal actions. Three senior judges found in favour of Fatima Benkharbouche, a cook at the Sudanese embassy, and Minah Janah, a nanny at the Libyan embassy, in a ruling issued last Thursday.

The court said allowing foreign embassies to claim immunity from employment law proceedings was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The women, who had claimed unfair dismissal, and Mr Ahmed, will now be able to go ahead with their cases.

The Somali-born grandfather, who lives in Kensington, said: “This is great news for everyone who works in embassies. No longer can they use immunity to their advantage. I can now go forward with my claim. I am prepared to go all the way. Even if it has to go to the Supreme Court.”

Mr Ahmed’s lawyer, Shahzad Ayub, of Levenes Employment solicitors, said: “I am pleased that the court has recognised that foreign embassies’ ability to claim immunity from claims brought by their UK-based employees is incompatible with human rights legislation.”

An embassy spokesman said the “ruling has no bearing at all on the fact that Mr Ahmed’s allegations are unfounded and that his claim is therefore entirely without merit”.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/receptionist-branded-black-slave-by-official-at-qatari-embassy-hails-ruling-that-embassy-staff-have-same-rights-as-britons-10043460.html

 

Canada: B.C. man wins right to sue rape-accuser for defamation after he was cleared of charge

 

 

 

 

Just in time for Valentines Day. Men in Canada now have the right to sue their false rape accusers

 

B.C. man wins right to sue rape-accuser for defamation after he was cleared of charge

A young British Columbia man who claims his life was ruined by gossip about a false rape claim has won the right to sue his accuser for defamation, in a rare case of a sexual-assault complainant being held legally liable for her statement to police.

Simon Caron, who works in the oil patch as a leasehand, was cleared of the rape claim when he showed he was hundreds of kilometres away at the time, and could prove it with receipts and other records. No charges were laid. But as he describes it in his defamation claim against the complainant, who is a minor represented by a litigation guardian, the rumour mill “is still circulating.”

The gossip was merciless and long-lasting, he claims, escalating into vandalism of his vehicle and threats of violence against himself and his friends. It became so bad Mr. Caron fled his home in Vanderhoof, B.C., to go into “hiding” in Prince George. He claims he required treatment for depression and missed employment opportunities. Several months after the complaint, he filed a lawsuit for defamation and malicious prosecution.

To win, however, he would need to hold his accuser to account for what she told police about being a victim of sexual assault. That is a tall hurdle, given that reports to police are legally protected for well-established reasons, although it was not clear to what degree.

In defending against the claim, the girl argued that if she said anything about Mr. Caron to police, “it is protected by absolute privilege, being a communication made in or concerning a potential judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.” She argued “public policy demanded that such statements [to police, with an eye to criminal charges] be completely protected from subsequent defamation claims.”

A lower court judge dismissed that argument, noting that there was no ongoing investigation until she went into an RCMP detachment in November 2012, and so the privilege attached to her complaint was qualified, not absolute.

“The RCMP do not have attributes similar to a court of justice or act in a manner similar to that in which such courts act. They do not have the duty and authority to determine guilt or innocence nor the disciplinary powers to enforce sanctions,” the judge ruled. “In my view, because the RCMP are not a quasi-judicial organization, absolute privilege can only apply to statements taken by them once a court proceeding has commenced.”

Qualified privilege is a defence against libel, meaning a statement was made in good faith according to a social, moral or legal duty, such as reporting an offence to police. It fails if the statement was made maliciously. Absolute privilege, on the other hand, which applies for example to statements made in Parliament, protects everything, even malicious statements.

In a new ruling, the province’s highest court agreed with the lower court judge, green-lighting the controversial defamation case that cuts to the heart of the growing cultural interest in rape allegations and the appropriate public response. It means people who make false rape complaints may be held civilly liable if they do so out of malice.

“Statements to police prior to the commencement of judicial proceedings are protected by qualified privilege, not absolute privilege, under Canadian law,” reads the decision from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

The court also refused to expand the protections in this case, rejecting the defendant’s argument that public policy demands it.

The complainant in this case “circulated horrible rumours about a rape that never occurred, and even claimed that SHE had dropped the criminal charges,” Mr. Caron’s statement of claim reads. “At that point my life was in danger … My vehicle was sabotaged, a friend of mine was threatened to be hurt if he was to be seen in my presence. … The rumour including names is still circulating, so that my brother Adam heard of it in his welding class in Fort St. James in December 2013.”

This decision, which restrains the use of absolute privilege as a defamation defence, follows a similar ruling in Ontario that statements made by municipal councillors in a council meeting are likewise protected by a privilege that is qualified, not absolute.

National Post

Milo Yiannopoulos: The Wacky World of Wu

GamerGate is not a “transphobic” movement, as you may have been misled to believe, but there is certainly much discussion of transgenderism swirling around the GamerGate maelstrom–mainly because one of the movement’s leading feminist detractors, it can now be revealed, used to be a man.

The gender history of game developer and pathological attention-seeker Brianna Wu would not ordinarily be the subject of public interest, but Wu’s critique of the GamerGate movement has relied heavily on identity politics and her insistence that she represents women in the video games industry. (We are using “she” and “her” as a polite courtesy in this report.)

Yet Wu was not until relatively recently a woman at all, and her legitimacy as a speaker even for the transgender community is in doubt since, as we can also today reveal, she wasbanned from a transgender forum after less than a year for unacceptable behaviour–not an easy thing to accomplish in a community well-known for its aggressive online conversations.

Wu was permanently stripped of her moderator status for abusing her position, according to another moderator, in a sign of what was to come in a long internet career of dissembling, bullying, smearing and panicky deletions as Wu has lurched from self-induced digital crisis to self-induced digital crisis over a period of more than a decade.

Wu, who has been engaged in an exhaustive press tour in recent months writing op-eds in a handful of online outlets, claiming that her life is in danger and that she is standing up for women in the games industry, is in fact, we can reveal, merely an unstable internet troll with a long history of mendacity and emotionally disturbed online outbursts.

Posts from the susans.org transgender forums, reproduced here for the first time, reveal a young person in emotional turmoil and suggest explanations for what has been called unpredictable, narcissistic and occasionally wild behaviour by Wu throughout the GamerGate saga of the past half-year. The posts are spookily prescient and show a nascent troll gestating around vulnerable people, developing many of the skills that would later be used to terrorise gamers.

Contemporary college forum posts from a second site, also uncovered by Breitbart, portray a young person in the turmoil of a life transition and raise questions about Wu’s ethical positions on such fundamental interpersonal issues as whether or not to inform dates and sexual partners of one’s status as transgender. One user on the forum wrote in 2010 that Wu used to brag about not telling her sexual partners of her transgender status–a habit she has still, it seems, not broken when it comes to representing herself to her followers and to the credulous journalists who have repeated her specious allegations against the GamerGate movement.

For reasons of personal safety and respectfulness most transgender support groups and therapists advise sufferers to identify themselves to their sexual partners, in part to avoid the possibility of violent altercations.

Wu confirms this herself when she writes: “I would imagine that I would tell someone I was planning to marry, but that is it… I certianly [sic] don’t tell every man I kiss or go on a date with about this.”

 

more at

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/13/the-wacky-world-of-wu-the-tortured-history-of-gamergates-self-styled-feminist-martyr/

 

 

Harper vows to appeal court ruling allowing women to wear the niqab during citizenship oath, calls it ‘offensive’

The federal government will appeal a court ruling allowing a Muslim woman to wear a niqab while taking the oath of citizenship because it is “offensive” to shield your face at the moment you are being sworn in, the prime minister said Thursday.

Zunera Ishaq, the Toronto woman who challenged the government’s policy forbidding the wearing of facial coverings during the swearing-in part of citizenship ceremonies, said Thursday she was upset by the prime minister’s remarks but vowed to continue fighting through the court process.

“I’m not frustrated,” she said. “I’m determined.”

Just a day earlier, Ishaq, the mother of three, had expressed how excited she was at the prospect of becoming a citizen after a federal judge had deemed the niqab ban — introduced by former immigration minister Jason Kenney in 2011 ­— unlawful.

Judge Keith Boswell said the policy didn’t jive with the government’s own regulations, which require citizenship judges to administer the oath with “dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.”

But Stephen Harper told reporters Thursday that covering one’s face during the swearing-in ceremony is “not how we do things here.”

 

Harper vows to appeal court ruling allowing women to wear niqab during citizenship oath, calls it ‘offensive’

 

 

Geert Wilders: Dutch Parliament, calls on Prime minister and minister of justice to act or resign

 

Muslims forced Maryland school to ban Christmas because it insulted them

 

Australia ‘saved from an imminent terrorist attack’: Abbott

 

 

Well, Well, looks like one of the so-called “innocent” Muslim students who was gunned down had some very pro-Islamic terrorism leanings himself