Dangerous sex as state enters bedroom

Janet Albrechtsen
April 30, 2008

IF you are a man, sex got a whole lot more dangerous. Consider this scenario.
A woman meets a man in a bar or at a party. She likes the man. He likes the woman. She may not normally be a sex on the first night kind of girl. But they have a number of drinks. Fuelled by alcohol, they put aside their inhibitions. The woman goes home with the man. She says yes to sex. In the morning, the man makes it clear it was a one-night stand. The woman is deeply offended and regrets her drunken decision. She claims rape. Under new rape laws introduced in NSW this year, that man is likely to be convicted as a rapist. He is likely to go to prison.

Rape reform in NSW means that post-coital regrets can now be refashioned into rape claims that send innocent men to prison. That’s why Gold Coast Titans footballer Anthony Laffranchi is a fortunate man. He walked free from a rape charge last week after the prosecution failed to establish lack of consent. He and his then Wests Tigers NRL teammates met a woman at the Sapphire Club in Kings Cross in September 2006 and continued to party at a teammate’s apartment. The footballer said he had consensual sex. The woman, who was “significantly affected” by alcohol, claimed she was raped. Had Laffranchi met the woman after January this year, he would probably be a convicted rapist facing a long stint in prison.

Let us be clear. Rape is wrong. It is a crime that calls for imprisonment. It can destroy a victim’s life. But let us be clear about something else. Wrongful claims of rape are made. And they can destroy a man’s life. No one knows whether a rape occurred that night when Laffranchi had sex with the woman. But under the old laws of rape, the defendant’s actual state of mind was critical. If the accused had an honest belief that sex was consensual, the rape charge failed. And when the evidence became a simple contest between “he said, she said”, a reasonable doubt would lead to an acquittal. Criminal law says that is as it should be; we are talking about a serious crime and imprisonment.

Not anymore. Now the rules have changed. Now, in a contest between he said it was consensual and she said it was rape, a jury may be forced to convict the man of rape without any further corroborating evidence.

The new laws say that if a woman is “substantially affected” by alcohol, she may lack the capacity to consent to sex even if she says “yes” to sex. More disturbing, even if a man honestly believes consent was given, his state of mind is now irrelevant. Now, the man is effectively deemed to have knowledge of lack of consent if there are no reasonable grounds for believing consent was given. And it gets worse. When asked to determine whether the man had no reasonable grounds for believing the woman gave consent, the jury must ignore the fact that the man was drunk.

In other words, the fact that the woman who says “yes” to sex is drunk is highly relevant: it may vitiate her consent. But the man’s intoxication must be ignored when working out whether he had “reasonable grounds” for believing consent was given. It is a curious law that says alcohol only affects the cognitive abilities of women.

These new rape laws degrade women. They treat them as helpless victims, stripping them of the power to make decisions about sex after consuming alcohol. Down a few too many Bacardi Breezers, and the law says you are no longer responsible for your actions. Is this really the message we want to send to young women?

And for men, it’s even more serious. As the President of the NSW Bar Association, Anna Katzmann SC, has pointed out, these new laws mean that the intoxicated man will be treated just like “the true rapist, the aggressor who inflicts himself on his victim, knowing they do not consent”. There is no gradation of penalties.

Why is this happening? Lawyers point to the perfect storm. The intoxicated man is trapped between a strident but misguided feminist agenda and the law and order lobby driven by perceptions that rape conviction rates are too low.

In reality, the low conviction rates reflect nothing more than the reasonable doubt that arises when, absent other evidence about an alleged crime in private, a woman claims rape and a man claims sex was consensual.

Stephen Odgers, a senior Sydney silk who chairs the Criminal Law Committee of the Bar Association, told The Australian that, while we all want a civilised world where people treat each other with mutual respect in all walks of life, including sexual interactions, the new rape laws are a “very blunt and brutal instrument” to educate and civilise us about sexual relations. He fears that the new rape laws, in effect, can be used to criminalise those who merely treat others with disrespect after a night of sex. “And people will end up going to jail for long periods as a result.” That is why his committee, made up of almost equal numbers of prosecutors and defence lawyers opposed the reforms.

So how does a man navigate the consent nightmare? Bring a witness into the bedroom? Perhaps bring along a lawyer to guide him through every stage of consensual sex from foreplay to orgasm to ensure that the final, breathless and drunken “yes, yes, yes” is genuine consent? Similar rape reforms in South Australia led independent MP Ann Bressington to suggest earlier this month that perhaps “parliament could devise a sex contract which men could carry around in their pocket, next to their condoms”. Bressington is concerned that otherwise sensible rape reform has gone too far, leaving “very little room for a decent defence of a man who has been falsely accused”.

False accusations are helped along, says Heather MacDonald in the winter edition of City Journal, by feminist victimology and rape industrialists intent on redefining drunken sex where a bloke wants to get inside a girl’s knickers in terms of the classic case of domination rape by power-hungry men.

If you are a man, you are entitled to be frightened by the new order. While society is still committed to a 1960s model of sexual liberation, encouraging men and women to explore their sexual desires, the state is also entering the bedroom trying to educate us about appropriate sexual conduct. Unfortunately, we may discover that civility cannot be legislated by criminal sanction without innocent men going to prison.

janeta@bigpond.net.au

by David N. Bass

16 January 2004

The modern feminist view holds that if you earn nothing, you are nothing.

In her book Women and Madness, Phyllis Chesler perfectly illustrates modern feminism in her statement that, “Most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they marry and raise children.” In order to be “unique” and retain their “human self,” women must leave their homes and families for the office to work beside men. They must climb the corporate ladder, earn high incomes and exert heavy influence over others in order to obtain self-worth.

Chesler points out the fact that, at its root, feminism is a philosophy that bases a person’s value on success in the career world rather than on who he or she is as a human; on how tirelessly someone can pursue power and money, instead of on the inherent value of human life regardless of professional accomplishment. The modern feminist view holds that if you earn nothing, you are nothing.

How did such a materialist philosophy of self-worth come to be in America? Its history can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution. During that time, men left the home and migrated to the big cities to compete in the new industrial climate. Up until that point, most men had worked in agrarian settings near their wives and children, creating worth in the family homestead as opposed to worth in the corporate world. But when modern industry moved into American life, fathers left for the cities and mothers were left alone to care for the children. This was the first step toward establishing a system basing human worth on jobs and income.

When the Sexual Revolution swung into full gear during the latter half of the 20th century, a similar phenomenon occurred, one that contributed even more to American materialism and the family’s breakdown: women gradually began leaving the home. Public schooling in the form of glorified child sitting made it possible for women to leave most childrearing responsibility to the care of the state, television and McDonalds.

These two events, men leaving the home during the Industrial Revolution and women leaving during the Sexual Revolution, energized feminism’s materialistic view of human self-worth. In less than a century, a sizeable portion of society shifted its concept of human dignity-not just for women, but for men as well-from accomplishments inside the home to accomplishments outside the home.

Ideas have consequences, and the consequences of feminist materialism have been disastrous. The 2000 census reports that traditional families account for only about one fourth of American households. Like feminist Linda Gordon said, “The nuclear family must be destroyed.” Can anyone doubt that Gordon’s hope is coming to fruition? Can anyone question that traditional families are going the way of the dinosaur?

Friedrich Engels, one of the fathers of communism, wrote in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: “The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry.this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” This is the key goal of both feminism and communism. Destroy the traditional family, and Western nations will crumble.

That certainly seems to be happening. Along with the decline of traditional families has come the decline in birth rates in Western nations. In Great Britain the fertility rate is only 1.6 children per woman; in many Balkan nations the birth rate has dropped to 1.2 children; fertility in Spain is the worst of any European nation at just over one child per woman. Such statistics prove beyond a doubt that Western societies are adopting the feminist philosophy that children are a hindrance to “the good life.”

We no longer look at children as God’s blessing, nor do we view a warm and loving family as a gift. Instead, we search for fulfillment in material possessions rather than relationships, in self-indulgence rather than self-sacrifice. Feminism has ripped the traditional family to shreds, all in the name of liberating women. But instead of liberation, feminism has promulgated a belief that has dramatically wounded our society, and healing that wound is not an easy task. But it is possible.

Recognizing the problem is the first step. As Dr. Margaret Levy, a surgeon and mother with children, wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “I am not a liberated woman. I am incarcerated in a world and lifestyle far more complex and complicated than my great-grandmother, raising her eleven children in an apartment in the Bronx, could have imagined.”

Freedom or incarceration? It’s a woman’s choice, isn’t it? Our society’s future is bright if we can bury the carcass of feminist materialism and once again view motherhood and professional homemaking as the two most important occupations of the human race.

David N. Bass writes for World Newspaper Publishing and has a regular column at AmericanDaily.com, ARationalAdvocate.com, and RenewAmerica.us.

Nations

Throughout history there have existed groups of people united in a special way by kinship. Such peoples have shared a common ancestry, language, history, culture, religion and so on, which combine together to form a distinct ethnic identity.

Often such ethnic groups have existed at a tribal or regional level. However, it sometimes also happens that an ethnic group lives together in a large territory with its own political state. When this occurs, the people involved become something more than an ethnic group - they become a nation, with a distinct national identity.

For conservatives, membership of an ethnic group, and especially of a nation, is a positive feature of life. It is part of a real, historical collective identity existing between a group of people, which often becomes an inseparable part of our individual identity - of our sense of who we are.

Furthermore, a national or ethnic identity gives us a sense of connection to both past and future generations; it also encourages the idea that each individual has a respected place in society, in terms of having a role and responsibility within the collective effort; and finally, a national or ethnic tradition also strengthens the connection felt by individuals to their environment - it strengthens the attachment felt by individuals to the urban heritage or to the countryside of their native land.

Unlike conservatives, liberals have not given a very stable level of support to national or ethnic traditions. It’s not hard to understand why this should be the case. Liberals support a philosophy of individualism, in which individuals start out as “blank slates”, and are self-created through their own reason and will.

Individualism

(ii) A rejection of forms of identity and authority which can’t be shaped by individual reason or will.

cont …
Read the rest of this entry »

This is an article from an American feminist website.

by Carey Roberts

Remember that popular TV game show, To Tell the Truth? That was the program that would put three petite women on the stage - one a real-life alligator wrestler and the two others impostors. The contestants would then try to outwit the celebrity guests.

It’s now 2004 and Americans are the guests on a remake of To Tell the Truth. The object of the game is to answer the question, What is the real face of feminism?

Many people think of feminism as a movement that promotes gender equality and opportunity. And for many years, I counted myself in that group. To deny women the opportunity to get a good education and pursue a career — that seemed abhorrent and contrary to the American Dream.

Then the voices of the skeptics demanded a hearing.

As early as 1972, Phyllis Schlafly posed this question: “The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century.Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” That editorial launched the movement that eventually defeated the Equal Rights Amendment.

But I still counted myself a true believer.
Read the rest of this entry »

YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!: The Government’s Electoral Finance Bill is being called the most serious attack on democracy and free speech in New Zealand since the country was colonized. If passed, it will make newsletters like The Briefing illegal if they touch in any way on political issues. Likewise, personal emails that you send to your friends and colleagues could likewise be decreed illegal by police and you could be prosecuted. Don’t believe me? Read the submissions from the NZ Law Society and Kiwiblog’s David Farrar in the latest issue of Investigate and see for yourself just how draconian these laws will be if we let the government put them into effect on January 1 next year. There is something else you can do: the weakest links in this unprecedented grab for power are the minor parties locked into coalition with the Government, New Zealand First, the Greens and United Future. It is possible that if enough New Zealanders email them to let them know how they feel about the proposed law changes, those MPs will get the message and drop their support for the Electoral Finance Bill. If all of you who feel strongly about this new law go to the front page of the main Investigate website, http://www.investigatemagazine.com you will see two email links to send a message to politicians: one goes to NZ First/United Future MPs, the other to Green MPs. People power can change this.

Once free speech is gone, it’s gone. Don’t let it go. Do it for your children’s rights at least. It is not hard to write to a politician. They are just an everyday person like yourself. Give it a go.

It is not just New Zealand who is questioning our roles and feminism.

Support for feminism took another hit this summer with the airing of a Swedish television documentary called “The Gender War.” A wrenching debate was set off by the film, which showed militant feminism to be widespread, reaching into official circles: Ireen von Wachenfeldt, the chairman of Roks, Sweden’s largest women’s shelter organization, for one, was shown asserting that “men are animals.”

Suddenly the belief that politics, business, even private life should be reformed to allow a more equal society - a belief that has permeated Swedish politics for several decades - is being openly questioned.

“This could be a backlash,” said Yvonne Hirdman, a professor of history at Stockholm University, adding that she believed many people were glad.

There is also a feminist political party that seemed to be in a position to take 25 percent of the votes for the next election but had dropped to a meager 1.3 percent.

The Swedish feminist party wanted to ban marriage altogether and make all children have neutral names only.

Sweden and New Zealand as well as many other western countries are following an International feminist movement. Everything New Zealand is doing, Sweden has done including the allegations of abuse on the police force and free childcare. Sweden already has childcare for children from the age of one. It is unusual in Sweden for families to raise their own children.

What comes next for feminism and equality in Sweden is an open question. Some observers believe that the recent wave of criticism and introspection will die down. But others think that social reforms will start to be rolled back, and that even the belief in equality that has been the pride of many Swedes for years may be in jeopardy.

“Testing times have arrived,” said Hirdman, a history professor. “Now we’ll see how deeply rooted this really is.”

International Herald Tribune

Related link: Destroying the family - Swedish style

This is a must read and the links that are attached are also enlightening. Helen Clark loves Sweden’s ways. She states it is great for women’s rights. But do women need to have their rights as mothers taken away from them?

So, we know about ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ where men are being asked to wear a white ribbon to support women’s groups in stopping men from being violent to women. Since this has been pushed through all western countries and receives a lot of money our sons will be receiving education at school on how they are bad to females and how they can be kinder and more giving to females. Never once will females be asked to be kinder to the males as this is just another attempt to turn our males feminine.

But what hasn’t arrived in New Zealand yet is ‘Yellow Ribbon Campaign’. Now you are going to fall off your seat either in fits of laughter or in disgust that this is how far feminists are taking the idea to make women masculine and men feminine. ‘Yellow Ribbon Campaign’ is to stop men standing and peeing. It is a form of discrimination against women for men to stand and pee.

You may be aware that feminists have been using the idea that women are oppressed to men to make us equal. But what you may not aware of is the people behind the feminists who are using the feminists to achieve their agenda. Every time in history when communism has taken over or attempted to take over the men have gone to war for the freedom of the people. Turning the males feminine will stop the men from being masculine and in turn will stop the men from fighting for the freedom of the people. This will give the communists complete control for generations upon generations to come.

So what trick are these clever people using this time to take away the last piece or masculinity in males?
Read the rest of this entry »

So let’s talk about equal pay as this is something many of us are hearing about lately and wondering about. Are women and men getting equal pay? The answer is yes, and no. The yes part is that men and women get equal pay for equal work. For instance when you apply for a job the pay will be the same if you are a female or a male. Except of course if you are negotiating your pay or if you are paid extra for your education and/or experience. And then one firm may pay more than another firm.

It is illegal for employers to discriminate against you because of your gender. This is a serious breach of the law and employers would stay well away from this but if you feel that you ARE being discriminated against because of your gender, please contact the Human Rights Commission.

What we have going on at the moment is the “Wage gap” which is … all men’s incomes added together and divided by the amount of men who took part, which gives you the average wage a male in NZ earns. Add all women’s incomes and divide them by the amount of women who took part, which gives you the average wage a female in NZ earns.

These 2 amounts are compared and the women are earning less on average than the men.

Because many women work part-time another comparison is made between the men’s average income in NZ and the women who work part time. This of course shows a wider gap in pay because part time work is paid less than full time work.
Read the rest of this entry »

WHEN Erin Pizzey was a small girl she pleaded for help from a teacher, blood running down her legs from a whipping her mother had given her. Her plea was dismissed. No one would believe such violence was possible in this rich, glamorous diplomat’s family. That was 60 years ago.

In 1971, Pizzey launched one of Britain’s first women’s refuges but became disenchanted when the refuge movement was hijacked by women promoting anti-male agendas. Since then, she has been fighting a mighty battle to expose the truth about family violence: namely that girls and boys, who are exposed to violence in early childhood, can grow up to repeat what they have learnt.

She has written about her own experiences; her 193cm father was a bully but it was her beautiful, 144cm mother who terrorised and battered her family. She’s written books and articles exposing the anti-male myths being propagated about domestic violence, documenting research that shows domestic violence is often reciprocal, with men and women locked into destructive behaviour.

As she explained in her radio interview with Dads on the Air it made her unpopular with British feminists who had turned domestic violence into a million dollar industry. She received death threats and was heckled while speaking publicly in the UK and US. Yet, she continues to speak out about the failure to recognise that women can be equally complicit in such violence.

It’s not in our interests she says, for women to be continually taught they are victims. Pizzey takes a swipe at Australia’s Violence Against Women campaigns, which show a never-ending parade of violent men. There is never a hint that men are sometimes victims. “It’s a terrible lie,” says Pizzey, who has written extensively about women who behave as “emotional terrorists”.

The whims and actions of such women determine the emotional climate of the household. Pizzey makes the telling point that marital dissolution can “call to the fore the terrorist’s estructiveness”, mentioning the women who make false allegations of violence or sexual abuse, or simply cut dad out of the lives of children.

An important step towards a more balanced debate was made with the publication of Allegations of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Family Law Children’s Proceedings. The report was produced by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It examined 399 cases and found most involved allegations of violence, often from both sides. In these circumstances, where unsubstantiated allegations fly in both directions, it’s just too hard for judges to see the wood for the trees, suggest the AIFS researchers. They found it was rare for judgments to deny contact on the basis of such allegations. The report is critical of Australian research on violence in Family Court matters. The report shows much of this research relies on small, carefully selected samples to draw misleading conclusions about male violence.

This blinkered research “rarely concedes the possibility that at least some of the violence may be situational, one-off, reciprocated, or even at times initiated by women,” says the AIFS report. How refreshing to see AIFS research acknowledge that there’s a very real difference between the situational violence common in marital separation, with both parties doing things they later regret, and the more systemic controlling violence where the males are almost always the perpetrator. In the latter case, court intervention is often necessary to protect children and mothers from these dangerous men. The challenge is a court system that can properly identify them.

But what’s needed with situational violence is for men and women to be helped to calm down and look carefully at the impact of their behaviour, particularly on their children. Child-centred mediation in the Family Relationships Centres is helping people learn to stop the violence, unlike court processes, which often serve to escalate it.

A worthwhile comment on this story.

According to Ms. Arndt’s article, the feminazis have coined a new term with which to batter men. Dividing domestic violence into two categories, “situational violence”, and “systemic violence”, she readily accepts the notion that the latter is far worse, and is the sole province of males. Blaming males and absolving females has always been the ideology of the domestic violence industry. However, this flies in the face of legitimate, academic/scientific studies conducted in the US, UK, NZ, Canada, and AU. In those studies, relying on the testimony of tens of thousands of respondents, it was found that 64% of domestic violence was INITIATED by the female. That fact only includes physical violence, the kind the industry would have us believe that only men perpetrate. Totally ignored for decades, is the amount of violence perpetrated by women AGAINST women. Violence and forced sexual activity in lesbian relationships occurs at almost DOUBLE the rate in heterosexual partnerships. The obvious question is why that female violence is ignored. The obvious answer is that the domestic violence industry is dominated by anti-male lesbians, and the profits are too great to risk by telling the truth on themselves. The individuals and agencies of the domestic violence industry are not anti-violence so much as pro-profit. Political as well as monetary.
news.com.au/heraldsun
…………………………

So if all this is true then all of society needs to start listening to the researchers who are using scientific research and not women’s studies research which uses hypotheses. This is the side in NZ that is scientific and they are objecting to women’s studies research. And this is the biggest study in the world.

Domestic violence campaigners accused of bias

Infact here is another feminist that has spoken up. This one from the most powerful feminist group in the world besides the United Nations.

She was a new mum and she was a single mother because she deliberately became pregnant to her ex boyfriend. You see, she figured that he owed her a baby because she went out with him for 2 years. He didn’t want a child and he broke off the relationship. But she insists that she is entitled to a baby from him and she insists that he will pay every cent of child support that she can get from him. I guess part of her attitude is that she wants revenge. Since she was in her 30’s her biological clock was ticking by and he was just the boyfriend at the time she was fretting for a child. Poor man. And he has other children from a long term relationship. He is doomed to hell just for dating a women for 2 years.

But where is all this attitude of me, me, me coming from. I know there are many other females out there like this. Deliberately coercing our males into being fathers. Lesson for the day: Watch your sons and teach them of these predators.

Let’s go back in time to look for the answer, say … 2 generations. Men worked to provide for the family and women stayed home and took care of the family. Were women oppressed for this? I guess so. Were men oppressed for this? I guess so. But when I say they were oppressed I am saying oppression like women having to marry a guy that her parents chose and that oppression is not just for the females. The female has to marry a guy and that guy has no more say in the matter than she does. His marriage partner was also chosen for him. Both were/are oppressed to the way their society runs.

Backing up again, women did want to work and their husbands would have loved for them to be happy and if work made them happy then OK, do it. But society was different back then. If a woman worked the men and women around them would look down on the man for not fulfilling his duty to take care of her. He and she were both bound by society’s attitudes.

But then things changed. The ‘Pill’ enabled women to stop having children and the modern appliances men made like washing machines and dryers and dishwashers and so on and so on gave women time to work and as they pushed collectively along with the men, attitudes around them changed.

Now besides the Rockefellers backing this big time because they saw women working as a bonus to increase their tax intake, there became more supply than demand for workers (as there were now twice as many available) which in turn stopped wages from increasing as inflation was. OK, so it didn’t stop wage increases but it slowed it right down to where we have much poverty today. Today we are very fortunate if one wage provides for a family. So now both men and women are oppressed to the system and the Government loves it. The Government will continue to grow in numbers and will continue to have to be the ‘Daddy” of them all. All men and women are oppressed by the Government. Especially Labour with their ever increasing tax collection. But now I am off topic ….. So back to the past.
Read the rest of this entry »