Heretical Sex
« Previous Entries Next Entries »Article Summary
- I-VAWA: Why it would open Pandora’s box [2010-Mar-21]
- Los Misandry, USA [2010-Mar-21]
- Is there a sinister Labour plot to stop British troops voting in the election? [2010-Mar-20]
- French Female MP calls for Reopening Brothels [2010-Mar-19]
- A Word of Advice [2010-Mar-17]
- Quote of the Day [2010-Mar-17]
- The Great Immigration Scandal [2010-Feb-28]
- Duke Lacrosse Liar Charged with Attempted Murder and Arson [2010-Feb-28]
- The Truth about the Equality and Human Rights Commission [2010-Feb-27]
- Documentary film on Feminism [2010-Feb-14]
- « Previous Articles
I-VAWA: Why it would open Pandora’s box
Sunday, March 21st, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
General Critique:
The proposed International Violence Against Women Act represents a naked power grab to impose a radical gender perspective on U.S. foreign policy, export an anti-family agenda, and satisfy a favored political constituency – at a $1 billion expense to U.S. taxpayers.
Research shows persons who are in a stable, married relationship are at far lower risk of experiencing domestic violence. But I-VAWA provides a $1 billion blueprint to destabilize the family, the most important social and economic institution to women, men, and children around the world. This is particularly true in low-income countries that have weak social service programs, no retirement system, and no state-funded unemployment insurance.
I-VAWA would promote social disintegration by defining “violence†in the broadest possible terms, advancing the shibboleth that only men are abusive in partner relationships, providing incentives to women to make accusations of abuse, breaking up the family, and eventually forcing persons to become dependent on the welfare state.
In addition, I-VAWA would serve to trample on internationally-recognized civil liberties, including those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by undermining due process for the accused, discriminating against male victims, and providing a pretext for heavy-handed state intervention into family matters.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Makes the breath-taking assumption that violence against men is unworthy of concern. (According to the World Health Organization, 1.1 million men and 500,000 women die of violence-related causes each year. )
2. Stereotypes and vilifies men as abusers. (Research shows men and women are equally likely to engage in partner violence, and at least half of all partner violence is mutual. )
3. Ignores the fact that female-initiated violence (e.g, a slap or punch) has been found to be the leading cause of female domestic violence injury.
4. Presents a series of Findings that are one-sided, unverifiable, false, or flatly Orwellian.
5. Presents a Statement of Policy using vague language that is easily susceptible to ideological interpretation, e.g., “female empowerment†and “gender integrationâ€
6. Expansively defines domestic violence to include “psychological harm,†which in practice encompasses any marital tiff or lover’s quarrel.
7. Defines violence to encompass “violence perpetrated or condoned by the government†– a phrase that opens the door to require governments to fund abortion on demand (feminists often claim that lack of access to abortion services represents “violence against womenâ€).
8. Provides sweeping powers to the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, powers that are likely to be used to usurp normal foreign policy-making procedures.
9. Advocates that programs “shall consider the safety of women and girls as a primary concern in deciding how to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate programs.†(Section 112). In practice, this serves as a pretext to diminish due process protections for persons falsely accused.
10. Promotes law enforcement approaches such as restraining orders, which are known to be ineffective in stopping violence and routinely violate the civil liberties of the accused.
11. Funds training efforts to change “social norms†and “community attitudes.†Experience proves such programs are highly biased in their content and ideological in their purpose.
Sources:
World Health Organization. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: 2001. Table A.2.
Straus MA. Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Presented May 23, 2006 at New York University. Table 3. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41H3a.pdf
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Los Misandry, USA
Sunday, March 21st, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Is there a sinister Labour plot to stop British troops voting in the election?
Saturday, March 20th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Many of those in the Armed Forces (including those risking their lives on the frontline in Afghanistan) face the prospect of being unable to vote at the forthcoming General Election.
This is a direct result of the Government’s cack-handed and thoughtless system which governs their voting rights.
Under the Representation of the People Act 2000, armed forces personnel have a choice of putting their names on the electoral roll through the Services or as civilians.
But if they take the former route, they must re-register every year rather than being able to register once for the whole of their military career.
As a result of the requirement to sign annually, the number of service personnel registering fell from 139,000 to 21,000.
Indeed, critics of the system have pointed out the bitter irony that while troops have been fighting to help give democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, they themselves have been unable to exercise similar rights.
In order to try to highlight this scandal, the Conservative frontbench spokesman (and former SAS soldier) Andrew Robathan conducted a straw poll of British troops in Iraq in 2005 and found that not only were eight out of ten not registered to vote but they also did not have any idea of the rules.
In fact, only a relatively small perwascentage of the Armed Forces voted in the 2005 General Election.
Now, with a General Election barely seven weeks away, the same thing seems likely to happen again.
Disgracefully, Labour ministers were warned that the law discriminated against servicemen and women. Douglas Young, of the British Armed Forces Federation, published a brilliant document called Silence In The Ranks, which revealed the scale of the problem.
Then, in November 2005, the Tory MP Andrew Tyrie proposed that every member of Armed Forces should be given the automatic right to vote. However, the idea
rejected by the Labour government, which made one concession: the law would be altered so servicemen would only have to register once every five years. This change was an improvement but failed to deal properly with the problem.
To be fair to the Government, Justice Minister Michael Wills set up a ‘working party’ to examine the problem in January.
But this was much too late — for with just two weeks before the election is due to be called, the group has yet to report its findings.
The truth is that if Gordon Brown’s government had shown any real interest in making sure the rights of British troops were upheld, it would never have set up a working party so late in the day.
Instead, right and proper voting entitlements and facilities would have been a priority many years earlier — just like in the American and Canadian armed forces.
Instead, it now looks certain that, for the second General Election in a row, many of our fighting men and women will be denied the chance to vote.
Most worryingly, this raises the very troubling question of whether Gordon Brown’s government’s failure to allow democratic representation to our Armed Forces is merely down to incompetence.
Or is there some other more sinister reason?
Could it be that New Labour’s electoral strategists cynically calculated that the majority of servicemen are more likely to be Tory voters — and have deliberately deprived them of the vote?
It is impossible to say for sure.
However, what can be stated with certainty is that as well as starving the Armed Forces of funds and sending men and women into battle with inadequate equipment, it has also denied many of them one of the most fundamental rights of citizenship.
At the forthcoming election, a number of our bravest fighting men — many of them risking their lives to bring democracy to Afghanistan — will themselves be Disenfranchised.
And for a nation such as Britain, with a glorious military history, that is a most terrible betrayal.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
French Female MP calls for Reopening Brothels
Friday, March 19th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
"Brothels should be reopened in France to protect prostitutes from exploitation and criminal gangs, an MP from Nicolas Sarkozy’s rightwing party has said.
Chantal Brunel, a member of the ruling UMP, wants to legalise women selling sex on licensed premises and say they should be taxed on earnings.
The proposals, which would see workers serving clients within a protected framework, are being studied ‘very carefully’ by French interior minister Brice Hortefeux.
Brothels – or bordellos – have been banned in France for more than 60 years.
Her demand comes as a survey revealed six out of 10 people supported the move.
Ms Brunel said: ‘Women selling sex should be allowed to do so legally on special licensed premises.
‘This would free thousands of women from the exploitation they suffer at the hands of pimps and criminal gangs and offer them much more security they currently have on the streets.
‘It would give them a legal taxable income and they would not be handing over large sums of their earning to a pimp.’
France had 1,400 legal brothels before they were all shut down under a new law banning prostitution in 1946.
Brothels are still legal in Germany, Holland and Switzerland, and tolerated in Spain."
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
A Word of Advice
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Do you subscribe to the principle "My body, my choice?"
If you answered 'Yes' to both of these questions, then here is a word of advice:
On the subject of male circumcision: Shut Your Fucking Mouth.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Quote of the Day
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
"The sexual double standard arises from the reality that getting sex is easy for women but hard for men. The reason studs are respected and sluts are derided is because being a stud requires skill, talent, and practice, while being a slut merely requires a pulse and a lack of impulse control. The unsung flip side of the double standard, however, is that female virgins are cherished whereas male virgins are ridiculed. A man who can’t get laid signals to the world that he is a loser, while a woman who resists spreading her legs for every scumbag who winks at her shows herself to be a sober, selective person. Because a female’s primary goal is getting the highest-quality man available to commit to her, women who cannot or will not stay in a relationship are poor sources of information on men. The male virgin and the female slut are mirror images of each other in terms of attractiveness to and knowledge of the opposite sex."
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
The Great Immigration Scandal
Sunday, February 28th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
“The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.
Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.
The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.
He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 — in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.
The ‘driving political purpose’ of this policy, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ — and one subsidiary motivation was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
Misters, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a ‘paranoia’ that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.â€
Reference
The evidence for this claim seems to be mounting. Steve Moxon made the same claim in his book ‘The Great Immigration Scandal’.
Moxon was employed by the Home Office as an Entry Clearance Officer, and he wrote the book to expose corruption and malpractice in the service, forcing the resignation of the then immigration minister, Beverley Hughes.
He also claimed in his book that it was Labour’s clear intention to use mass immigration as an instrument to destroy, quite deliberately, the traditional character of British national identity.
Some naïve voters still think that the Labour Party is ‘the party of the working man’. It is not. It probably has not been that since the 1950s. The party traditionally represented the interests of the working-class, particularly males employed in heavy industries, like coal, steel and ship-building. This was the working-class that I was lucky enough to see the final years of. This industrial ‘labour’ force no longer exists. Those industries finally disappeared during the Thatcher years, and in many places, were not replaced with anything.
The disappearance of traditional industries resulted in the disappearance of the working-class. Where is ‘the working-class’ today? Once a Left-wing Shibboleth, it is an expression you almost never hear any more. Now we have an ‘under-class’ instead.
It was inevitable that Labour was going to have to re-invent itself. But who was it going to represent?
They know from their market research who votes for them. Public-sector employees. Benefit recipients. Ethnic minorities. It should come as no surprise to find that they went out of their way to maximise the population of all three groups, in order to build their new voter base.
The number of people on benefits has massively increased under Labour. We now have the largest public sector workforce since World War 2. Around three million immigrants have arrived in the UK since Labour came to office. This seems to be part of a cynical master-plan to keep themselves in power.
What they have done, in fact, is to open the door to neo-fascism. We are seeing, for the first time since the 1930s, a racist party gaining significant support, on an anti-immigration platform. This, as well as the rest of the economic and social chaos we see around us, is the result of Labour's grand strategy.
I am not alone in feeling that Labour’s plan is verging on treason. What a great legacy they will leave behind. Borderline treason. International war crimes. Economic and social ruin. As the philosopher Karl Popper said, "Those who promise us heaven on earth, have only ever delivered hell".
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Duke Lacrosse Liar Charged with Attempted Murder and Arson
Sunday, February 28th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Crystal Mangum, 31, was arrested on Wednesday on charges including arson and assault, according to police in Durham, North Carolina.
She was also charged with identity theft, communicating threats, damage to property, resisting an officer and misdemeanor child abuse.
Mangum became infamous in 2006, when she accused three white Duke students of gang-raping her at an off-campus party.
The athletes were cahrged on the strength of Mangum's claims.
But the rape indictments were later dropped after Mangum told North Carolina prosecutors she was no longer sure whether anyone had sex with her.
By then, Duke had kicked the athletes out of college and their names and reputations were badly damaged.
Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was later disbarred over his handling of the racially-charged case.
The troubled accuser was not charged with making false accusations because investigators concluded she actually believed the tales she told.
It also turned out the Duke case wasn't the first time Mangum had accused men of harming her.
In 1996, she told police she had been kidnapped and raped three years earlier - when she was 14.
The case was never pursued.
Reference
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
The Truth about the Equality and Human Rights Commission
Saturday, February 27th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
In one startling passage in this 68-page document, the Commission warned it may be illegal for any school to require girls to wear skirts as part of their uniform, since this could discriminate against transsexual pupils.
Such an edict would be laughable were it not so indicative of the disturbing mindset of the equality bureaucrats who wield such control over our lives.
The threat to take legal action against schools because some uniforms can be deemed 'gender specific' is beyond satire. The number of transsexual adults in Britain is tiny, perhaps as few as 5,000, yet the Commission wants all public services to be altered for the sake of this minuscule group.
Furthermore, it is absurd to start putting these highly emotive, questionable labels on young people before they have barely passed puberty.
Such action highlights three of the most dangerous traits of the Left-wing doctrinaires. One is their remorseless focus on categorising individuals by race, gender, sexual orientation or class - and then placing them within hierarchies of victimhood according to the perceived disadvantage they have suffered.
Another is the sexualisation of children, in which the innocence of youth is destroyed by the aggressive promotion of the so-called 'sexual rights' agenda.
The third is the eagerness to obliterate all traditional morality by presenting support for normal, married family life as outmoded and discriminatory.
There is also a deluge of ultra-feminist drivel. 'Gender identity is subjective,' proclaims the document, contradicting almost a million years of biology.
How outrageous that we have to pay for this through our taxes. No one voted for this radical agenda or for the bureaucrats pushing through the change.
In its ruthless campaign to impose the creed of the hard Left on Britain, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, headed by Labour schmoozer Trevor Phillips, swallows £70million a year and employs 525 staff.
A scathing report from independent consultants DeLoitte, who had been appointed to examine the disastrous chaos at the EHRC, agreed. In language that was deliberately toned down, the report found that the board 'does not operate against clear, consistently understood rules and a common purpose'.
DeLoitte further condemned the bias of the Commission. 'There is currently a lack of representation from the private sector and a need for representation from a broader political spectrum.'
But despite all the turmoil, Trevor Phillips remains in post. With the backing of new legislation, his quango will soon be more powerful than ever, the leading apparatchik of Harriet Harman's sinister new social order.
Reference
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Documentary film on Feminism
Sunday, February 14th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
« Previous Entries Next Entries »