The Battlefield of Love

What would you do if you found yourself in the body of a member of the opposite sex?

2013-05-11T08:09:00.000+01:00

You suddenly find yourself in the body of a member of the opposite sex of the same age . To change back to your original body, you would have to undergo Gender Reassignment Surgery. Would you

(a) make the best of things in the body you have found yourself in?

(b) undergo GRS as soon as possible?

(c) commit suicide

This poll can also be found at https://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/permalink/573976712624232/

Male to female gender reassignment surgery
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/SRS.html

Female to male gender reassignment surgery
http://www.gendercentre.org.au/phalloplasty.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y7qJQ-6Lpk
Stephanie does have a feminine voice. I must say she convinces me just by her voice and I find her persona quite likable. She is genuinely feminine.

https://www.facebook.com/trippy64?fref=ts
Stephanie Rose Woodcock

http://www.stephaniewoodcock.co.uk/

I actually have a brilliant idea for a TV show featuring transsexuals which I know people the world over would just love.

BBC Socialist feminist Jayne Egerton displays a sound understanding of the rules of tolerance and the methodology of rational discourse

2013-05-10T13:38:00.000+01:00

@jayneeegerton @barbarahewson There is no need to put my name in quotes as if it were a false name. I am already known to the matriarchy.
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) May 10, 2013

@jeaniethepixie I've blocked Claire - s/he seems to be a mens rights activist- noboby else talks about the 'Matriarchy'!
— Jayne Egerton (@JayneEEgerton) May 10, 2013

@jayneeegerton @barbarahewson It should be noted that the BBC is peopled mostly by women.Virtually all the producers are women. @bbcradio4
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) May 10, 2013

@jayneeegerton @barbarahewson @bbcradio4 We know all feminists are leftwing, and most women are #feminists who have the vote. @proflizkelly
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) May 10, 2013

@jayneeegerton @barbarahewson @bbcradio4 It is sickening to have taxpayers pay for propaganda against themselves by #feminists/#socialists
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) May 10, 2013

Matriarchy proposes to make it easier to convict those who are accused of rape (ie men) by abolishing jury

2013-05-09T12:17:00.001+01:00

What is Rape Myth Acceptance?
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110125234919AAUFd2W

She asked for it: the impact of rape myths
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-love-and-war/201211/she-asked-it-the-impact-rape-myths

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/oah-initiatives/paf/508-assets/conf-2011-herman-irma.pdf
Quiz on how you are affected by RMA

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, (2013), pp. 1–29 doi:10.1093/ojls/gqt006
Rape Myths: Is Elite Opinion Right and Popular Opinion Wrong?1
Helen Reece*

"Once the population has been stigmatized as dripping with RMA, there are two solutions: to remove either rape-supportive people from process or rape-supportive attitudes from people. Donald Draper is unusually unapologetic about recommending the former. Making explicit the elitism that is implicit in much of the rape myth discourse, he sees rape law as representing a tension between elite opinion, which is right, and popular opinion, which is wrong. ‘Elite opinion has controlled the law-on-the-books’, he states, but ‘popular opinion has had more influence on the law-in-action.’ Accordingly, he is quite matter-of-fact about his proposal to abolish the jury in rape trials, as a ‘direct bypass of popular prejudice’. Proposals to screen criminal justice personnel for RMA, or ensure more female representatives, are less extreme points along this spectrum. It might have been assumed that the more optimistic recommendations would be those based on education. It is true that part of Draper’s reasoning for abolishing the jury is his pessimism about the prospects of attitudinal change (although this is in large part because he recognizes that educating people out of rape myths means the wholesale transformation of public attitudes towards gender roles and stereotypes). But in reality, ambivalence towards abolishing jury trial is rarely based on the importance of popular participation in the criminal justice system, and rarely because reformers are ‘bright-eyed optimist[s] [expecting] a sudden sea-change in popular attitudes’. Rather, RMA is seen as too rampant for this remedy to work. Specifically, Temkin and Krahe ´ are tentative about abolishing the jury because ‘reliance on judges and barristers effectively to challenge stereotypes seems rather like pie in the sky’."

"Nor does this problem extend only so far as judges and barristers. Before conducting their research, Stewart and others had expected rape supportive attitudes to differ across social positions, but they ‘became fascinated by the consistency with which cultural myths and stereotypes about rape were embraced at all levels of the justice system and by all parties involved’; for Temkin and Krahe ´, during discussion of the SOA 2003 adherence to rape myths extended as far up the echelons as the then Home Secretary. In sum, rape myths influence the ‘judgments and decisions made by police officers, crown prosecutors, forensic medical examiners (FMEs), juries, and judges’. According to these rape myth researchers, only super elite opinion is right. RMA having such a hold within the body politic, quarantine clearly cannot hold. Those few who are clean of RMA would not have time to process all the rape claims.

Accordingly, the more common reform proposals involve managing, not excluding, people with rape-supportive attitudes. One important strategy is to give them rules to follow, as discretion involves trusting decision-makers’ instincts. The other strategy is education. In itself, educating people is of course a good idea. But education needs to involve an educator who is better informed imparting knowledge to others who are worse informed. In relation to some small segments of rape myth education, these stipulations may be met. If jurors mistakenly believe that physical injuries must accompany rape, or that a woman’s delayed complaint means that she was not raped, then certainly information will help their decision-making. However, this is not true of the training programmes aimed at dispelling stereotypes, let alone the ‘wider educational initiatives designed to target social attitudes’. As we have seen, these involve persuading people to believe that they believe the most perverse rape myths, by labelling as myths what are actually a mixture of fact and opinion, depicting the occasionally held sex myth as rampant rape myth, and putting the worst possible interpretation on ambiguous and complex statements. The message of these initiatives—that those attitudes that are disapproved of are rape-supportive, and those views that are not shared are rape myths—functions to close down, not open up, the possibilities of a productive public conversation about these important and at times vexed questions."

Be afraid, be very very afraid as the matriarchy entrenches itself and spreads its tentacles all around you, especially in your mind.

Time to tell feminism to fuck off, methinks, if men value the quality of their lives and value being men.

The enemy within of nationalism - the promiscuous female nationalists fear to offend

2013-05-08T12:29:00.003+01:00

Understand your class system. The BNP are considered lower class losers who are expected to put up with this kind of thing because they are lower class losers. It really is as simple as that. Nick Griffin doesn't want any educated middle class professional joining the BNP because he doesn't want any leadership rivals.

The problem is therefore

1. the pariah status of lower class voters who are anti-immigration

2. the fact that the leader of the lower class voters are anti-immigration doesn't want to change its image of being a party of lower class voters who are anti-immigration

UKIP doesn't want anyone who ever joined the party of lower class racist voters to join them.

What nationalists in the prohibited list of parties and organisations that cannot join UKIP could most usefully do is to debunk ethno-nationalism and become civic nationalists, but I can't see that happening because they confuse a political party with a social club and believe that their political activism is the repetition of their desire to repatriate non-white British citizens.

They will insist on their right to say they want to send every non-white home even as they know how unrealistic and deluded it is to ask for that. They are not the brightest bulbs in the box, after all.

They insist on asking for all or nothing even though knowing that asking for all means they will end up getting nothing.

It is just the mulish stupidity that gives them their pariah status ie not only are they racist, they are also STUPID. They are so stupid they have no idea how much they are despised for both their views, their social status and their dress sense.

They never want to discuss anything ideological because they know they will end up fighting each other, and they can be pretty unpleasant to each other, as we all know.

In the meantime, Nick Griffin regards them as a source of income. He is not interested in helping them, only in milking them by feeding their grievances.

If he cared about them, he would drag them kicking and screaming into civic nationalism, but he cannot be bothered with these stupid vicious people, even though the success of Front Nationale has shown quite conclusively that the way forward is civic nationalism.

Is there another rival nationalist party in France? Nope, nothing that need worry Marine Le Pen.

She tellingly said that her party is closer to UKIP than it is to the BNP.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8230286/Marine-Le-Pens-emulation-of-Ukip-shows-Euroscepticism-is-growing-across-the-EU.html

Uneducated people tend not to get the significance of ideology and it is true that most BNP supporters will not understand why it is necessary for nationalists to embrace civic nationalism.

These uneducated and ignorant people see nationalism as asserting the right to say they want to repatriate non-white British citizens, even as they know it does them no good.

Because they are seen as so uneducated, racist, lower class and unpleasant, no one will give them the time of day apart from their leader, who only wants to squeeze money out of them.

Anyone who is leadership material in the BNP would be marginalised and expelled anyway, because Nick Griffin wants to stay top dog whether or not it is in the interests of his cause or not.

If he cared about his cause he would encourage people of talent to join and stay, but he does not. He only cares that he stays leader of the BNP.

Because he does not care about the people who supports the BNP, he sees it as more than his job's worth to tell them why the political establishment despises them and no sane British employer wants to hire a British worker who cannot compete against unskilled manual labour from abroad, probably because they are obese, or disabled or have learning difficulties as well as mental health issues with a few substance abuse, behavioural addictions and drink problems thrown in.

The fact is that the white working class are not fit for purpose.

Does Nick Griffin tell them that? Of course not. He tells them it is all the fault of the Jews and the Muslims.

There is only one person in the land prepared to tell the white indigenous working classes exactly what is wrong with them and why they are so despised, but she was expelled at the behest of an unmarried single mother with illegitimate and disabled offspring.

Single mothers with illegitimate and disabled offspring actually wield a disproportionate amount of power, because there are so many of them and they have the vote.

These women, who are members of the parasitic pornocracy who wield such power over both nationalists and the political establishment, are the result of over half a century of feminism and that other grave and continuing error - indiscriminate universal suffrage.

The reason why there are so many immigrants in this country is because British mothers do not have enough children and do not bring up or educate those that they have properly.

We all know that the teaching profession is female-dominated and have been trying to hide their failure for years.

But is any British man or even leader of a political party prepared to say that?

Of courser not. He is so afraid of them (because they have the vote) that he prefers to blame the symptoms of his malaise than point to its cause - the matriarchy that has established itself on the foundations of feminism, indiscriminate universal suffrage and no-fault divorce.

Any race of men who are known to be afraid of their women will be treated with contempt by other races whose men are not afraid of the worst of their women, the unmarried single mother with illegitimate and disabled offspring.

In fact, these days the white man is generally supposed to be a paedophile and his women considered sluts.

However, so effeminate and degraded is the white man now that he is either unaware of the contempt in which he is held by other races, or affects not to care.

In other races, there remains a visceral disgust for the promiscuous female. It probably comes from a collective memory of how degraded a society becomes when it allows the preferences of these women and their offspring to dominate their society, and is followed by invasion, conquest, exploitation and slavery.

The reason the promiscuous female is instinctively hated and despised is because when there are too many of them, standards of education and morality decline, and men become afraid of women. What can be more humiliating than to have to admit that you are afraid of people who are in most cases stupider, poorer and weaker than you?

Only men without honour and who feel no shame and who have no masculine pride would admit to this.

Yes, it is indeed the case that the enemy is within. It is in your trousers and between your legs and between your ears in the way that the default position of the average British male is that of rational cowardice and his degenerate inability to understand the purpose of abstract concepts such as honour and courage.

Men fear the wrath of promiscuous women when they are so impoverished that the only kind of sex they can hope for is sex from a slut.

If they want sex from such a woman, he must take care not to offend her by calling a spade a spade and, of course, a slut a slut.

A slut is anyone prepared to have sex with a man not her husband. A worse kind of slut is one who gets knocked up. The worst kind is one who goes on to have her illegitimate offspring at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Catholic Church is no longer prepared to call a slut a slut because it is afraid of the predictable accusations of homosexual and paedophile celibate priests.

The worst kind of man is a man who pretends he can see nothing at all wrong in all this, especially if he calls himself a nationalist.

If you want to know when the rot started, it was when the institution of marriage was no longer respected.

It was no longer respected when no-fault divorce was introduced. When that happened the fact that your marriage certificate has now become a piece of paper not fit to wipe your arse on was only inevitable.

To desecrate marriage further, treat the unmarried mother better than married parents by allowing her to live off the taxpayer.

To desecrate marriage even further, give it to same sex couples as a sex toy to use for when they want to say they love each other, until they no longer do.

In the Land of Compulsory Fornication that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland the Slut Single Mum is Queen and the men drones.

Have you noticed how feminists never ever consider the long term national interest between pauses of "Gimme, gimme, gimme"?

It is an alien concept to them. It is like asking a serial killer to consider the feelings of the loved ones of his murdered victims.

How can such a nation, based on such immoral and demented principles, ever prosper again?

Man created God to protect him from the promiscuous female. Now, the effeminate man no longer believes in God. Even those who acknowledge the usefulness of God do not have the conviction to use Him as an instrument of government, even as he knows that a general belief in God was an essential prop in making people respect the institutions of marriage.

Marriage is eugenic, illegitimacy dysgenic.

Soon, the white man will be so degenerate that he will no longer be able to grasp these concepts.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html

Returning to barbarism means behaving like animals, and animals are not known for their ability to grasp and use abstract concepts.

Let the West then be the perfect demonstration of how condoning extramarital sex can end your civilisation.

WHY WHITE WOMEN NO LONGER FANCY WHITE MEN AND PREFER MUSLIMS
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/05/muslims-dominate-the-natives-on-the-streets-of-norway/

COUNTRIES WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL ALSO HAVE A HIGH RATE OF ILLEGITIMACY ie most of their women are slut single mums
http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379

Why men are afraid of women

2013-04-30T17:00:00.000+01:00

Claire, you are generally awesome.. and you post some interesting thoughts.. however I can't "like" them unfortunately cos I don't want people who know me in real life to know that I like your views. I envy you cos you can speak your mind so freely. Unfortunately a single man is the least free person on the planet because they are at very real and large risk of not having any children. A woman has no such concerns however. Just wanted to say that :)

Dispossessed and oppressed men will simply bide their time and wait for a breakdown in law and order before they assert and avenge themselves.

Feminists should be honest to transgender people and say feminism has nothing to offer anyone who is not a woman

2013-04-30T16:56:00.001+01:00

Feminism bribes heterosexual men with cheap sex, which is bad for them.
Feminism has nothing offers women the burden of being expected to work after she becomes a mother.
Feminism gives women a greater probability of becoming a cougar or a jaguar.
Feminism gives women a greater probability of dying childless.
Feminism makes women bad mothers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9779587/Feminism-partly-to-blame-for-family-breakdown-says-Diane-Abbott.html
Feminism has resulted in widespread illegitimacy. Once the working mother becomes the norm, the divorced mother becomes the norm. Once the divorced mother becomes the norm, the never married mother becomes the norm. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
Feminism has resulted in the justification of the neglect of the elderly. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/elderly-people-expect-to-be-shunted-off.html
Feminism supports the right of women to be as promiscuous as men, therefore feminism promotes female promiscuity.
Feminism cannot exist without totalitarian thoughtcrime legislation ie the Equality Act 2010.
Feminism has given same sex couples the civil partnership. Women don't care about men having sex with me. Female MPs are less bothered by gay marriage than male MPs.
Feminism is about to give same sex couples gay marriage. This is of course the penultimate act of desecrating marriage. Before you poo on marriage you wee on it. What could be worse than giving same sex couples gay marriage? Forbid heterosexual couples from getting married, of course, and say marriage can only be the privilege of same-sex couples.
Feminism is really not interested in transgender people. While feminists are flattered that emasculated and mentally ill men should want to become women - imitation is after all the highest form of flattery - they do not respect them, as Julie Bindlel does not. Feminism regards transgender people as "other" as they do the male sex. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7 It is really a divide and rule tactic to keep the enemy busy fighting each other by setting them against each other, probably.
The hierarchy in our matriarchy is this: (Class A) Women (Class B) Men of other Races (Class C) Homosexuals (Class D) Transgender People (Class E) Men of their own race. "We know who is in power by those whom we cannot criticise."
What the matriarchy might do for transgender men is to pass totalitarian legislation to protect them from having their feelings hurt by men in Class B, C and E. To do so would be a way of rattling their cages, poking at them with stick in order to show them who is boss. If you are supreme you need to assert your authority from time to time. By forcing male employers in Class E to hire someone they despise and regard as a freak is a very effective way of rubbing their noses in it.

SMASH FEMINISM NOW, before it crushes you completely.

Being honest about the purpose of social conservatism

2013-04-15T13:06:00.000+01:00

The purpose of social #conservatism is to control women.Why don't we just admit that?#feminism
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 15, 2013

In order for men to control women, they too will have to control themselves.This seems fair enough to me. #feminism
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 15, 2013

Moral and rational women do not and should not mind accepting limits on their behaviour. #feminism
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 15, 2013

Black man tells it like it is about never married single mothers

2013-04-14T11:49:00.003+01:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq7FkKbNnOo

Would a white man these days make similar observations?

No, feminism has utterly destroyed, crushed and made mincemeat of his manhood. He is so utterly reduced and degraded that a female and a foreigner has to point out the perniciousness of the feminism herself and point out some bald evolutionary facts:

1. The male of any species has to fight to have access to females to perpetuate his genes.

2. Because the Western female human is so sexually promiscuous and will give sex at the drop of a pair of trouser, Western men only have to humour her and agree with her to have sex with her. (This means agreeing with her about feminism to the detriment of his own long term interests and certainly at the expense of the long term national interest.)

This theory explains the phenomenon of degeneracy ie why there are more and more people now in the West with physical and learning disabilities http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/shock-horror-britons-getting-5-more.html and why disability is now privileged and apparently beyond criticism.

These never married women who have illegitimate children with physical and learning disabilities are of course part of the parasitical pornocracy that is even now multiplying at the taxpayers' expense.

Because they all have the vote, and the political establishment relies on votes, they will not be criticising them, oh no.

Labour will, like Cameron, be promising them all sorts of goodies so as to attract the vote of the parasitical pornocrat. (Who is a parasitical pornocrat? Any mother who has (1) never been married and (2) never had a job (3) whose children will never have a job nor marry before having children.)

The BNP, who is against the LibLabCon for conspiring to facilitate immigration at the expense of the indigenous working classes, is too afraid to say anything about the parasitical pornocracy too. This is because, of all the political parties, the BNP has the highest proportion of members who were singly-parented.

Nick Griffin will not be saying anything about widespread illegitimacy because he does not want to alienate BNP members, whose members are mostly illegitimate.

The BNP is thefore afraid of supporting marriage.

So there we are: nothing will be said, and nothing will be done: not by the political establishment, and not by those who oppose the political establishment.

There was a reason why the slut was hated with a visceral venom by all sensible people in advanced civilisations, but this healthy instinct has long since been bred out of the British.

It began being bred out of the British when the Family Allowances Act 1945 was passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit#United_Kingdom

68 years later, most British babies are now born out of wedlock. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

And no political party in the UK will propose a single policy that will actually support marriage.

Perhaps they already think it is too late and we are back to all that "orderly management of decline" shit so we can look forward to a future where the only couples who are married are gay, while everyone else is slut and a bastard.

But if our civilisaiton is dying something then we the dying ought to know what it is we are dying of. It may do us no good and not prevent our dying, but we would at least serve the purpose of being a terrible warning to other races, nations and civilisations of the moral dangers of allowing feminism to stick her stiletto heel in your door.

Porn actresses are paid more than porn actors. Will feminists be campaigning for equal pay for porn actors?

2013-04-13T12:26:00.002+01:00

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130412064934AAABar2

A prostitute talks about her attitude to work

2013-04-13T12:04:00.000+01:00

http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/

Is it rape or just theft if you have sex with a prostitute without paying?

I would say it depends. If you made her think you would pay but ran off without paying after enjoying services, then that would be theft and obtaining services by deception.

If you had sex with her knowing that she did not want to have sex with you at any price then it would be rape.

The prostitute blogger wonders why her clients appear unfazed by her lack of enthusiasm.

I have never hired a prostitute but I imagine the attractions of doing so would be the power one feels when think "She doesn't even have to fancy me but knows she will have to have sex with me or she won't get paid."

This logic of this power of obtaining consent or quiescence would extend to rape, whose purpose is to enforce submission without consent. Rape would be how a man would assert power over a woman or even over another man or men, if he forces him or them to watch.

Some clients might want a "girlfriend" experience, or they might wish for something called a "rape" experience. The punter is the piper, and he calls the tune.

What is saddening is that a woman as highly educated as this woman should be reduced to prostitution and blogging about it.

Let us women be honest, even chaste wives: sex can be a bit like work sometimes, something to tick off on one's list of things to do.

If we women are to be in the business of providing sexual services and bringing up the next generation, then let us do it well while making it as easy on ourselves as possible. Surely, it would be easier on ourselves to have only one partner who wants our sexual services exclusively in the long term who will provide for us and our children, than have to put up with a stream of sub-alpha punters with dirty fingernails?

Is this what happens to female graduates then, when , instead of studying for a useless degree, they could have married a decent man and be bringing up children who would be a credit to them and their choice of partner , and by extension their reproductive choice?

Feminism has a lot to answer for, has it not? Because of Feminism, there are no decent men left. Dirt cheap slut sex has utterly corrupted the morals of the men of the West, who now think and talk and behave like women, and do hypocrisy and cowardice just as well as the worst of their women.

Feminism tricked this woman into doing a degree that turned out to be financially unproductive.

Feminism forced this woman into prostitution.

Yet this woman is used by feminists like Helena Horton https://twitter.com/helenashead, Deputy Editor of The Yorker (sponsored by Deloittes) to promote feminism http://theyorker.co.uk/features/13651-i-would-be-a-feminist- and pornography http://theyorker.co.uk/news/campus/13525-show-and-tell-women-s-committee

So now we have the evil, stupidity, perversity and masochism of feminism and its adherents displayed for all to see: legs wide open in all her obscene glory.

Porn workshop run by feminists sponsored by Deloittes

2013-04-13T09:56:00.002+01:00

http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/campus/13525-show-and-tell-women-s-committee

The Yorker

News

Campus

Show and Tell- Women's Committee explore sexuality

Helena Horton

March 5th, 2013

Women's committee are spearheading an anonymous sexual awareness project, to be displayed next Monday.

Students at the University have been called to submit anonymous writing about their sexual experiences to a project, spearheaded by Women's Committee, called 'Tell'. The aim is to break the taboo around sexuality, and to learn more about the sexuality of ourselves and others.

Women's committee are trying to remove the taboo around sex and sexuality. ©YUSU

This event has been popular in previous years, with some beautiful stories and poems, and some harrowing tales of sexual abuse. This will be the fourth edition of the anthology.

On Monday of week nine, members of the Committee, and other people who were interested, got together in Holgate Hall to create some artwork based on sex and sexuality. Art supplies and nibbles were provided and everyone got creative. This is the 'Show' part of the exhibition. This art will be displayed, along with the anthology, on the Monday of week ten.

Emily Inglis, a regular attendee at Women's Committee, said; "It's a creative way to get rid of the social stigma around sex, and making people realise that the word "Inappropriate" really needs to be redefined."

Submissions close tomorrow, if you want to contribute anything to the anthology, go to www.tell-york.com.

The Facebook event is here.

@yorkernews1 @helenashead

Masculine and parental authority ended in March 2013

2013-04-12T17:38:00.000+01:00

Did any of you men notice that your masculine and parental authority ended last month?

"the definition of domestic violence will now include ‘coercive control’. The previous definition defined domestic violence as a single act or incident. The new definition recognises that patterns of behaviour and separate instances of control can add up to abuse - including instances of intimidation, isolation, depriving victims of their financial independence or material possessions and regulating their everyday behaviour"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-definition-of-domestic-violence-and-abuse-to-include-16-and-17-year-olds

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby Persistent emotional manipulation (eg suggesting you can't help your behaviour), controlling what a
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby person wears, eats, who they see and when etc. making comments designed to make the victim feel less
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby intelligent or aware as the abuser, suggesting victim is to blame for "making" the abuser behave a
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby certain way, controlling finances, criticising the victim's clothes or behaviour, causing them to
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby lose self-esteem etc... All of those things are emotional abuse and there are other examples too.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@emmatofi @helenashead @itsjustahobby I see that your agenda is to completely undermine masculine and #parentalauthority.#evil #feminsm
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby Not at all. Our agenda is to raise awareness of abuse & promote equal, healthy relationships.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@emmatofi @helenashead @itsjustahobby That is what you say, but in the end you will undermine parental and masculine authority.
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby We'll do no such thing; there's a huge difference between abuse & equality.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@emmatofi @helenashead @itsjustahobby They are two different words for a start.
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 12, 2013

@emmatofi @helenashead @itsjustahobby I can just see female complainants abusing their position "He said I was fat and lazy, boo hoo!"
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby Words spoken in an argument are totally different to sustained emotional abuse.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@emmatofi @helenashead @itsjustahobby Who will be the judge of this?CCTV in the home - Big Sister.
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 12, 2013

@emmatofi @helenashead @itsjustahobby You know this will instantly advantage the one with the grievance ie the wife and children of the man.
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 12, 2013

@emmatofi @helenashead @itsjustahobby There has been no protest, has there, @fathers4justice @newf4j ? Too stupid or too scared?
— Claire Khaw (@1party4all) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby You're actually advocating a protest against a law change to protect abuse victims?! Wow. Nice.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@1party4all @helenashead @itsjustahobby As someone who escaped an emotionally abusive partner who left me suicidal, I find that disgusting.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

So today I encountered someone who thinks the change in law to recognise emotional abuse is a terribly bad thing, which should be protested.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

My mind boggles. Surely nobody is so ignorant that they genuinely think "emotional abuse" is just a label to hurt men with?! Jesus.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@katjevanloon Seriously, I can't even put into words how offensive I found the person's attitude. Apparently I hate all men. :-/
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@joec @itsjustahobby Jesus wept... When even the BNP are kicking you out, you know you're crossing a major line. :-/
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@itsjustahobby Just blocked her; not having that sort of person in my life! Those attitudes could be really triggering. :-/
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@itsjustahobby Yeah, just very glad I blocked her; I think I was in danger of really taking her vile opinions personally. Not nice!!
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

How is that for rational debate, boys and girls? Disagreement, outrage, accusation, overt display of victimhood, abuse, smear and finally censorship - the tactic and refuge of the passive-aggressive feminist.

What does "triggering" mean?

The BNP are pussywhipped pussycats who will never amount to anything.

Libertarianism: Why Does It Fail To Convince?

2013-04-12T16:44:00.001+01:00

http://victoriamonro.co.uk/libertarianism-why-does-it-fail-to-convince/#comment-6

Let us see if https://twitter.com/VictoriaMonro who has already blocked me on Twitter, will engage with me on the subject of feminism being the mortal enemy of libertarianism and whther deigns to display my comment on her blog.

She describes herself as "UCL, Phil & Econ, Libertarian Society President. Classical feminist. Passionate vegetarian and animal rights nut".

It sounds like a crazy miscellany of ideas but perhaps we will be given the opportunity to examine her beliefs.

Libertarians do not realise that their mortal enemy is feminism and have not the stomach to fight it. Only I do.

Only a theocracy would return us to smaller more rational government now. Paradoxical and counter-intuitive, but true.

A new genre of porn called "feminist porn" has come into being according to The Guardian

2013-04-12T14:57:00.001+01:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/who-speaks-for-women-work-adult-industry

... just seating a woman at the top is no guarantee of shared power with the women working down below. "When I hear feminist porn," performer and producer Bella Vendetta told me:

"I imagine porn made by feminists, which makes me believe that I'm going to be treated very well, and be informed about what it is I am expected to do. I expect it will be marketed in a way that doesn't insult me, and I expect I'll be paid a fair wage.

"Unfortunately, I have found that if the term feminist porn is being used, I can almost guarantee that it means I will be offered an incredibly low rate. To me, it is not empowering to accept half my rate to have sex on film."

Apparently, it does not pay as well as non-feminist porn. Feminist porn stars are therefore stupid, because feminism is stupid.

while certain strands of feminism have become consumed with celebrating women assuming positions of leadership in business, when feminists work to ban pornography, they guarantee that porn is one business where women won't find commensurate power and control over their work.

Can someone give me a few links to "feminist porn" videos?

My version of ethical and even halal porn can be found at
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/male-priests-civil-partnership-blessed.html

In theory extra-marital recreational sex is all forbidden and punishable. In practice, under a liberal interpretation [of the Koran], acts of homosexuality and adultery are tolerated provided it is not flaunted in front of more than 3 witnesses (making a threesome legally unproblematic and, dare I say it, halal, even if any of the three participants were prone to self-accusation). The same could be said of a threesome (of any combination) with no more than three voyeurs, witnesses or observers, call them what you will.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130412064934AAABar2
Do porn actresses get paid more than porn actors?

An example of reasoned debate and correct English from a feminist

2013-04-12T13:32:00.004+01:00

@1party4all @itsjustahobby @alanbissett WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK HOW IS THIS QUESTION RELEVANT NO WE'RE NOT & FUCK THE FUCK OFF
— False Consciousness (@pastachips) April 12, 2013

What would happen if lions became feminist?

2013-04-11T14:15:00.001+01:00

We know what happens to lions with harems when they have to defend themselves against other males who want access to their females.

The lionesses are not supposed to interfere and do not assist the father of their cubs against the encroaching male.

They do not assist him because they know that if he is a loses it means he is physically less fit and if he is physically less fit, they don't want his babies.

They would suffer their own already born cubs to be killed by this new male in order to have the superior genes of the triumphant male.

Lionesses are therefore more ruthlessly eugenic than human feminist females, who only think about themselves and in the short term.

However, if this pride of lions were to go feminist, then the lionesses would tell the lion that it is OK to trust strange male lions and assure him that nothing bad will happen to them, and he will be obliged to listen politely. Eventually, the feminised lion will one day behave as if he were a lioness and come to see other males as potential playmates, not knowing that while nothing bad will happen to the females, something very bad will happen to him.

Gay marriage came to Britain because the Conservative Party had no principles, but no one cared

2013-04-11T13:49:00.001+01:00

I am enraged, infuriated and aghast at the number of people who

do not know what a principle is
do not know what principles are for
are in the Labour Party and cannot even summon up the moral energy to make a fuss that the Conservative Party has no principles and that the leader of the Conservative Party is not in fact a Conservative.

Clearly, they do not think as I do that the blame for the ills of the nation can be laid at the door of this omission - this omission to insert an official statement of principles in the constitution of the Conservative Party.

I can see that this omission was perhaps deliberate, for not having principles gives the leader and his cronies the ability to trim their sails to the prevailing wind and adopt the cause of expediency in order to stay in office or come to office.

What is the harm of this, you ask?

It will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage at the hands of a Conservative Prime Minister.

If you are not shocked and appalled, then you clearly you do not respect the institution of marriage,and the overwhelming number of people in Britain do not. It is now a badge of Britishness to say that a wedding certificate is only a piece of paper not fit to wipe our bottoms with.

Cameron does not understand or will not be told that conferring upon couples who are only capable of recreational sex with each other the privilege of marriage is the ultimate in the desecration of marriage. You really cannot go any further than that in policy terms.

Yet he will not be told and no one can explain it to him.

The awful truth is that not a single party in the land dares to propose or support policies that would actually support marriage.

The awful truth is that no one seems to understand that to support the institution of marriage, one has to treat marriage as a privilege to be reserved for heterosexual couples only.

The awful truth is that in order to support marriage (and not just pay it lip service) married parents must be privileged over unmarried parents.

And the reason for this?

Since most babies in Britain are in fact illegitimate, this would mean that most mothers are self-evidently sluts, or fornicatresses, if you prefer. This means that there are more SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379 than there are non-SSMs whose children are legitimate. This means that they must make up a significant percentage of the female vote which Cameron, who did not win outright the last election (because he feared to promote or even articulate Conservative principles), feels he can ill afford to alienate.

Principles can however be very useful.

Old Labour had principles. Being a socialist party, it had the principle of nationalising everything in sight. This was found not to be very popular and so they felt they had to change it in a way that would reassure their potential supporters ie voters who owned shares in the newly privatised utitlities. Clause iv of their constitution contained the clause that said they would nationalise everything in sight and therefore clause iv had to be removed in order to reassure voters with shareholdings in British Gas and British Telecom. After much rending of garments, gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair, this was successfully accomplished in 1995. The voter being reassured, Labour went on to win the election in 1997.

The fact that Labour Party constitution had a clause stating this policy turned out to be a blessing in disguise, for it served to be the clear blue water that divided Old Labour (not electable) from New Labour (infinitely electable).

There was doubtless much sniggering by the Tories at the discomfiture of Labour. Tories are not after all the fools who would ever have such a ridiculous policy in their constitution. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/05/does_the_conser.html

The Tories congratulated themselves on the fact that they had no principles and on the fact that Conservative Party principles were always whatever the leader of the party and his cronies said they were, which was all very convenient and expedient.

But what if their leader was not a Conservative and had no idea what Conservative principles are?

Can it really be the case that Conservative Party is claiming that its principles are contained in the Foreword of this piece of puffery at

http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf?

What would Disraeli, Peel or Salisbury make of this farrago of absurdities? We can only imagine.

The moral of this story, boys and girls, is that because Labour had principles and took them seriously, they went on to win a general election. Because they saw the importance of having principles, they made a big thing about having to change them, even though everyone quarrelled with each other and was very upset. However, because they were making such a fuss, this made everyone notice them and take them seriously. The result was that they went on to win an election by a landslide.

As for the Tories, who had no principles, they had the purpose of their party subverted by a convictionless charlatan, who had no idea what Magna Carta was even though he went to Eton, and foisted gay marriage on the nation while claiming to be a Conservative.

Sadly for the Conservatives, most of them were so dumbed down by the miasma of illegitimacy and low moral and educational standards all around them that they no longer knew what a principle is nor what principles were for and believed it was something to to do with sacrifice, inconvenience and the unnecessary narrowing of one's options. They no longer had any idea what Conservative principles were because it is not written down anywhere, and came to prefer the Humpty Dumpty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass approach to Conservative principles, which meant that they left such things to their leader. While a few protested, most of them who did not like thinking very much did not mind. Eventually, Conservatism became Whateverism - an idea that that salvation lies in doing whatever your leader says while hoping for the best. Whateverism does not take into account that your leader might be an unprincipled charlatan or perhaps even an alien from outer space who wishes to subvert your society and destroy it, because it is best not to worry oneself too much about these things.

And, so, boys and girls, that is how Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland came to have gay marriage - because the Conservative Party had no principles and no one cared. No one cared because a nation of sluts and bastards would not care about such abstract concepts such as principles, much less Conservative principles.

Marriage is an abstract principle, and those who do not make the effort of abiding by abstract principles eventually return to barbarism and live like animals, caring only to have sex, food and shelter. Eventually, they will become like cattle, to be exploited by other races who do respect marriage, if they do not become extinct altogether.

Eventually, the Whateverists lurched ever more madly into having sex for the sake of having sex, with mothers not looking after their children properly or bringing them up to be good and obedient children.

Eventually, the children of heterosexual couples became the sexual playthings of homosexuals and then went on to become homosexual themselves too. They in turn preyed on the children of other heterosexual couples. Their numbers declined drastically and eventually, because no one saw the point of having children any more, there was only one lone homosexual left.

And when he too died (it was believed he committed suicide) there were no Britons left in the world any more.

And that is why gay marriage and not having principles is wrong and bad for your civilisation.

Legalising gay marriage is the ultimate act of desecrating marriage

2013-04-05T15:32:00.000+01:00

That the West has prospered since feminism is an illusion since it was fueled by consumerism and reckless borrowing and lending by individuals and governments. People only appear to be prosperous if they practise conspicuous consumption and spend extravagantly and ostentatiously.

In fact, what the Liberal West did was to dissipate and consume the wealth that was acquired by the by its ancestor, the Imperial West, without replacing it, whom it now affects to despise for being sexist, racist, homophobic, nationalistic, militaristic and imperialistic.

They are like the idle rich children of wealthy parents, who have no idea how their ancestors acquired their wealth and who could not care less, as long as they had money to spend. Indeed, most of them even affect to despise their parents and their ancestry.

It goes without saying that they do not respect the institution of marriage. Indeed, they do not even now know its original purpose nor what they have to do to respect it. These days, it is practically compulsory to be a fornicatress if you are a woman in the West. Most Western men insist on “trying before buying” and a woman who insists on being a virgin bride is looked upon with pity and contempt, for the West is now the land of compulsory fornication, and Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland describes it perfectly.

Such is its corruption that even senior Catholic priests cannot bring themselves to say that a fornicatress is a slut, and that even one act of fornication makes a woman a fornicatress and therefore a slut.

Just one act fornication makes you a slut? That is so harsh, non-judgmental liberals will cry, quite forgetting all that they have learnt in human reproduction, for a woman who has sex just once could be impregnated, and therefore ruined if she is not already married.

Why would any rational man want the responsibility of providing for another man's child, especially if he is an ill-bred brat whose mother is a stupid slut?

But most women in the West are sluts and most women have the baggage of another man's offspring so Western man must take their women as they are, or find foreign women whom they believe are not as promiscuous as their own.

The best they can do now is to grade their women according to degrees of sluttery. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/degrees-of-sluttery.html

Soon, most of the West will have legalised gay marriage. If you wanted to desecrate marriage and make a mockery of it, there is no better way of doing that than by legalising gay marriage.

When the man who proposes this is in fact the leader of the Conservative Party, then you must accept that social conservatism is now considered odd, if not actually “extremist”, for anything that deviates from the extremist liberal norm must by definition be labelled extremist.

It is actually not much fun being a social conservative saying no to everything that might give people pleasure, which is why Man created God to keep himself on the straight and narrow. Without a general belief in God, a society would have to rely on dictators like Hitler, Franco and Mussolini to keep most people on the straight and narrow, for the exercise of moral restraint is necessary to prolong the life of your race, nation and ultimately your civilisation and perhaps the human race.

Liberal atheists in practice worship like a deity the idea of tolerating sex between consenting adults. This means that they tolerate extramarital sex, under the impression that sexual morality has no bearing on general moral standards. When it is pointed out to them that there is a clear link between illegitimacy and crime, they get very angry. Their tactic is to deny that there is a link or deny that it affects them or anyone that they know, until they themselves become a victim of crime.

Extramarital sex of course includes premarital sex ie sex with anyone you are not married to, which includes homo sex. To get round this problem, liberals are now proposing same-sex marriage in rather the same way a murderer who wishes to escape the penalty for murder would legalise murder, quite ignoring the fact that if murder were legalised then murderers would in turn be murdered by the supporters of anyone they murder and bring about the breakdown of their society in an orgy of homicidal licence.

It has been said that the Conservative Prime Minister who proposes to legalise gay marriage is doing so at the behest of his wife and his gay Downing Street advisers. So entirely without moral conviction is he that he cannot see anything wrong about this, even though he is supposed to come from the best family as well as going to the best school and university in the land. Such alarmingly low moral and educational standards should be cause for alarm by all who live in this country and are subject to its laws, but most are complacent or indifferent to the fact that they are being led by a man without convictions who is either a fool, a knave, or both, and is not ashamed of being told what to do by his wife.

“Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil.”

The Bhagavad Gita

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-to-say-against-gay-marriage.html explains the long-term degenerative consequences of gay marriage.

A series of dishonest exchanges with feminist Susanne Moore who appears unable to defend feminism

2013-04-05T01:32:00.000+01:00

https://twitter.com/1party4all/status/319591164565147648

@1party4all I am going to block you Claire. This amount of tweets is just harassment. I don't know why you think I am a feminist and enemy.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 4, 2013

I wonder why feminists and those taught by them always say "amount of times" when they should know better. Perhaps feminists no longer see the point of being grammatically correct. Her final sentence does not make any sense.

@1party4all @theposieparker @beau_tox @guardian yes like your message. Very confused and twitter is not helping you.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 4, 2013

I made a simple statement in simple words, yet she claims I am confused.

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore 18h
Gender diversity is not about flexibility it is about equal opportunity for men and women its benefits. Lets not lose the message.
11:55 PM - 3 Apr

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 16h
@susannemoore Is gender diversity in the workplace conducive to efficiency and productiveness? I rather think not.
2:07 AM - 4 Apr 13

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore 15h
@1party4all why? Give me a sensible point by point argument so I can address each one at a time otherwise stop wasting my time.
2:36 AM - 4 Apr 13

Claire Khaw
‏@1party4all
@susannemoore Why would I need to give you a point by point argument when all I asked was a YES or NO question?
5:06 AM - 4 Apr 13

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 3 Apr
@susannemoore Feminist Jane Clare Jones cannot defend feminism against Breivik
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/feminist-jane-clare-jones-cannot-defend.html

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore 18h
@1party4all the sociological approach I find is the best and looking at trends and facts in history. Instead of blaming feminism.

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
@susannemoore If you are able to argue that #feminism is not to blame for the weakening of Western men and society, then please do so.

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore
@1party4all yes I can but I won't be doing it via twitter.

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 16h
@susannemoore How will you be doing it then?

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore
@1party4all I thought in person when I get to London.
2:33 AM - 4 Apr 13

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 12h
@susannemoore I think you are hoping I will forget by then!

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 12h
@susannemoore All you have to do is refute, point by point, what Breivik was reported to have said in that link, but I see that you cannot.

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 3 Apr
@susannemoore Feminist Jane Clare Jones cannot defend feminism against Breivik
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/feminist-jane-clare-jones-cannot-defend.html4:24 PM - 3 Apr 13

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore 18h
@1party4all cultural Marxism is not feminism. Marxism is Marxism. Feminism is about equality for all.

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 12h
@susannemoore I note that you have not answered my question: What is the difference between Cultural Marxism and Feminism?

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore 1h
@1party4all sorry Claire I don't like these detailed discussions via twitter. Send me an email.
4:16 PM - 4 Apr 13

She can only assert that Cultural Marxism and Feminism are different but cannot explain why.

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 3 Apr
@susannemoore Feminist Jane Clare Jones cannot defend feminism against Breivik
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/feminist-jane-clare-jones-cannot-defend.html

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore 18h
@1party4all cultural Marxism is not feminism. Marxism is Marxism. Feminism is about equality for all.

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all 12h
@susannemoore I note that you have not answered my question: What is the difference between Cultural Marxism and Feminism?

Susanne Moore ‏@susannemoore 56m
@1party4all go and do the research Claire.
4:19 PM - 4 Apr 13

I say Cultural Marxism is the same as Feminism. She denies this. I ask her what is the difference. She tells me to "do the research"!

The issue of child care is a societal one, not a female one. We need to cast our net wider when looking for solutions.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 4, 2013

This woman presumably wants free childcare provided by the state while women take men's jobs and do them badly. In the meantime unemployed men failed by the female-dominated teaching profession watch porn all day thinking of ways to become more successful paedophiles.

Does feminism cause paedophilia? I think we should be told.

Later, she claims I am "mad" and "confused".

@beau_tox if it wasn't for mad Claire then we would never have bumped into each other via the tweet!Nice to meet you.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

@theposieparker @1party4all @beau_tox boy what a confused person!
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 4, 2013

@han_grrl yes have blocked her now. She actually doesn't want to hear the answers when given to her.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

But I do particularly since I have gone to the trouble of asking them!

@han_grrl she is a little disturbed and for some reason thinks I am a nasty feminist because I believe in equality. I also blocked her.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

Oh dear, more aspersions being cast on my sanity just because I disagree with her. How odd that she thinks someone who believes in gender equality is not a feminist. Feminists are always going on about gender equality.

@1party4all @han_grrl Claire I said I wouldn't answer via twitter and to send me an email. I am a sociologist not feminist anyway.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

Wow. It seems I have made Susanne Moore renounce feminism. What a result!

Does this woman have even a shred of professional, scholarly or personal integrity?

But women like her infest academia peddling their useless mendacious shit that they cannot even defend.

Below are the questions I wanted answered:

What is the difference between Cultural Marxism and Feminism?
Can she refute any of the things Breivik said about feminism at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/feminist-jane-clare-jones-cannot-defend.html?
She denies that feminism has weakened Western society, but where is her refutation of Breivik's contentions?
Can she prove that gender diversity in the workplace ie women in the workplace and out of the home, has not made labour less productive and less efficient while piling on the costs of hiring and firing labour including maternity and paternity leave, as well as the human cost of broken marriages, juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy? Of course she can't. That's why she told me not to waste her time, send her an email, or wait till she comes to London ...
Do feminists ever consider the long term national interest?

https://susannemoore.wordpress.com/contact-me/#comment-553

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:07 pm

You have said that there is a difference between Cultural Marxism and Feminism. Could you explain what they are?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:16 pm

Breivik claims that the PC-project is bent on “transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy” and “intends to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European heterosexual males”. But more than that, it has succeeded. The “feminisation of European culture” has been underway since the 1830s, and by now, men have been reduced to an “emasculate[d] … touchy-feely subspecies”.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:18 pm

According to Jane Clare Jones, Breivik believes that ‘the degeneration of our civilisation is intimately linked to an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and “emotionalism”. Indeed, the danger of women’s “unnatural” demand for equality is such that Breivik closes his introduction by claiming that “the fate of European civilisation depends on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism”.’

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:22 pm

Breivik believes that ‘the “feminisation” of the European male corresponds to the “feminisation” of Europe itself. Our cultural purity is threatened by invasion from outside. Once proud, virile, and impregnable, Europe has been turned – Breivik suggests in Section 2.89 – into a woman, one who has submitted to rape rather than “risk serious injuries while resisting”.’

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Do you even understand the question?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:28 pm

How does gender diversity in the workplace make work more efficient and society cohesive?

Is it not the case that totalitarian laws are required to compel employers into hiring women who will at some point in their reproductive lives get pregnant, give birth and want maternity leave?

Is it not the case that if women are to have maternity leave, sooner or later men will also be asking for paternity leave in the name of gender equality?

Do you not see this phenomenon as making the cost of hiring labour in the West prohibitively expensive to business if not actually financially ruinous?

Is this the reason why so much work is now being outsourced to India and the Far East – work that Western workers could easily do themselves?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Do feminists ever consider the long term national interest?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:34 pm

Can an ideology that only selfishly acquires rights and privileges for its adherents on grounds of being female at the expense of men, children, the elderly and the public purse and which never considers the long term national interest ever be regarded as moral or rational or sustainable?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Feminism causes women to be as promiscuous as men and gives men the excuse to be as cowardly, hypocritical, irrational and capricious as women. Feminism is therefore destructive, immoral, irrational and evil.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Claire Khaw (@1party4all) says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 5, 2013 at 6:45 pm

Once men say it is OK for women to be sluts, they will be in the power of the worst of their women. Feminism says it is OK for women to be sluts.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

It will be interesting to see if Susanne Moore will display my comments and answer my questions.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/two-men-look-on-while-feminist-and-anti.html has an exchange I had with Deborah Orr. She cannot defend feminism either.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/feminist-family-lawyer-loses-argument.html has an exchange I had with the barrister Zoe Saunders.

Feminist Jane Clare Jones cannot defend feminism against Breivik

2013-04-04T00:08:00.001+01:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism#start-of-comments

Following much of the media's initial "fact-free conjecture" about the origins of the atrocity in Norway, we have since had to reckon with Anders Behring Breivik's own account of his motivations put forward in his 1518-page manifesto entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. Overlooked, however, in the focus on Islamism and Islamophobia's culpability for Breivik's pathology is the way his gargantuan manifesto presents multiculturalism as just one form of the "ideology" which "now looms over western European society like a colossus". This ideology, most often known as political correctness, has, Breivik tells us, several other names. One of them is cultural Marxism, and the other is feminism.

Cultural Marxism is feminism.

Feminism is just another word for Cultural Marxism.

Feminism is the Sacred Cow of the West that is eating it out of house and home and pooping all over its carpet.

Breivik's introduction is entirely given over to a half-baked history of political correctness, "no aspect" of which, he tells us, is "more prominent … than feminist ideology". The PC-project is bent on "transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy" and "intends to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European heterosexual males". But more than that, it has succeeded. The "feminisation of European culture" has been underway since the 1830s, and by now, men have been reduced to an "emasculate[d] … touchy-feely subspecies".

I can find nothing there to disagree with, except Jones' claim that Breivik's history of political correctness is "half-baked". She does not say how or why it is half-baked.

The antipathy to feminism – and women – threaded throughout Breivik's document is more than just incidental. The text is peppered with references to the pernicious effects of the "Sex and the City lifestyle, the propagation of sexual immorality (indexed by women's promiscuity), and the "erotic capital" women use to manipulate men. The degeneration of our civilisation is intimately linked to an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and "emotionalism". Indeed, the danger of women's "unnatural" demand for equality is such that Breivik closes his introduction by claiming that "the fate of European civilisation depends on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism".

A whole web of reasons are given for this conclusion, but two familiar constellations stand out. The first concerns feminism's purported sundering of the nuclear family and responsibility for a demographic collapse that opens Europe to Muslim colonisation. Too distracted by "having it all", western women are failing to breed enough to repel the amassing hordes. But, in their feminine naivety, they fail to realise that their comeuppance is on its way, their freedoms snatched by the invasion of the genuine oppressor. Barely submerged in this narrative – as in much cultural conservatism – is a profound anxiety about who controls women's bodies and reproductive capacities. In his concern to save us from ourselves, Breivik wants to drag us back to the 50s, limiting access to reproductive technology and discouraging women from pursuing education beyond a bachelor's degree. Alternatively, he suggests, we could "outsource breeding", and pursue surrogacy in low-cost countries or the development of artificial wombs.

This sci-fi fantasy of finally abolishing men's dependence on women's generative abilities is revealing. On the one hand, Breivik indicts feminism with causing our alleged "cultural suicide", both by encouraging reproductive treachery and also because women are apparently more supportive of multiculturalism. However, in another sense, Breivik's thought betrays an analogy between his monocultural nationalism and his veneration of a certain type of "warrior" masculinity, an analogy that revolves – as his manifesto's title implies – around the ideal of masculine independence. The "feminisation" of the European male corresponds to the "feminisation" of Europe itself. Our cultural purity is threatened by invasion from outside. Once proud, virile, and impregnable, Europe has been turned – Breivik suggests in Section 2.89 – into a woman, one who has submitted to rape rather than "risk serious injuries while resisting".

Jones appears to disapprove of Breivik's assumptions but does not or cannot say why.

Unlike Breivik, we must resist the urge to make easy causal connections.

Jones appears to be accepting that feminism is causally connected to European weakness while resisting the urge to make this casual connection. Talk about having your cake and eating it!

No account of this man's background or beliefs about nationality, religion or gender can serve to explain his actions.

Why not? Breivik has already told us again and again why he did what he did. Those reasons are rational, though ruthless.

His cool enumeration of technicalities about downloading the document, his careful inclusion of a press-pack of photos, the chilling reference to the sacrifices involved in its "marketing operation" – all this serves to exhibit an inhumanity which opens a chasm between ideas and action.

What does Jones mean by "a chasm between ideas and action"? There is no chasm at all as far as Breivik was concerned. He saw what he thought had to be done, and he did it.

Nevertheless, while the behaviour of Breivik must, and can, only be understood as insanity, we would do our understanding a disservice by accepting it as only that.

What on earth does Jones mean? Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no but ... ? We must regard Breivik as insane even though he was also rational, this silly woman seems to be saying.

Why does is this stupid woman being paid to write her incoherent and timorous nonsense in The Guardian when I am not being paid at all, when it is I who already know what the problems and solutions are?

Why everything is shit

2013-03-23T10:48:00.002Z

"Religion is only valuable to the extent that it suppresses women."

2013-03-17T09:57:00.001Z

‎Rookh Kshatriya who blogs at http://www.anglobitch.com:

"Religion is only valuable to the extent that it suppresses women. A religion that does not suppress women, children or the lower orders (and make them behave better, in a social context) has no reason to exist. Modern Christianity is pointless, for that reason."

Why female bishops are dangerous to male bishops

2013-03-12T14:44:00.002Z

I wonder if Lord Rennard is feeling just a little betrayed by his party after all those years of helping the party. The LibDem women for some reason decided to complain about his lechery that happened over two decades ago, and his male comrades have basically hung him out to dry. One of them, Tim Farron, even called the cops about Lord Rennard's "sexual impropriety" too.

Tim Farron, President of the Lib Dems: Would you trust this man to run a whelk stall without calling the cops for back-up?

The question of how to handle the claims against Lord Rennard will be considered not only by the party but by the Specialist Investigations Command of the Metropolitan Police.

The meeting between the Met and Lib Dem officials on Tuesday comes after Lib Dem officials approached the force.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21583533

On Monday night, a Scotland Yard spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police Special Investigations Command has been approached by officials in the Liberal Democrat Party and is working with them to ascertain whether or not criminal activity has taken place."

A Lib Dem spokesman said: "We can confirm that the party has had an invitation to attend a 'stakeholder meeting' at Scotland Yard to discuss the involvement of the police in any investigation into Chris Rennard. The party will fully engage with the police on this issue and continue to encourage anyone with allegations of a criminal nature to contact the police."

http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/police-probe-rennard-allegations-8509310.html

Amidst such terrible scenes of betrayal and mutual backstabbing, it is clear that the concept of honour amongst thieves does not exist in the minds of the LibDem men and women. Party discipline is singularly absent and Clueless Clegg limps on while the LibDem men call the cops on each other at the behest of treacherous LibDem women.

If these weak, treacherous and stupid women are still going on about it decades after the event, then their contribution to British political life is NEGLIGIBLE if not UNDESIRABLE. Too bad LibDem men whose brains have turned to shit, their guts to piss and their balls to mince, cannot bring themselves to say this or form this view independently, let alone articulate it.

From http://www.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/2012/House_Issue_Supplement_10_Guide.pdf at page 24, you can see that the woman allegedly groped by Lord Rennard was on perfectly good terms with the LibDems as recently as April 2012.

"Bridget Harris is the deputy prime minister’s agent in the House of lords. She is one of a number of departmental advisers who represent the lib Dems and their leader across government departments where the liberal Democrats don’t have a lead cabinet minister.

These advisers were appointed to give the lib Dems more clout in areas of policy they don’t have a direct control over at ministerial level."

She reminds me of a certain woman who did the dirty on Nick Griffin at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/chronology-of-events-leading-to-sunday.html

The rule for women who are being sexually harassed must surely be "Either tell them in no uncertain terms that you want them to cease and desist, or forever hold your peace."

This woman has subsequently gone on to call the cops on Eddy Butler the former BNP National Organiser for allegedly assaulting her, apparently withdrawing those accusations, and then renewing them, apparently according to whim and time of the month.

Look at the list at https://twitter.com/1party4all/journalists/members if you don't believe me, and note not just the number of female journalists but also the number of editors who are female and Commie Pinko Liberal Feminist.

I hate to say this, but the brains of men fall out when they see a woman they fancy. Yesterday, a male friend who is educated, professional and legally-trained (but who identifies himself as a UKIP-Conservative) was cooing about Anna Soubry and Harriet Harman.

I am considering only letting ugly, but clever and good people enter politics when I am Dictator of Britain.

It now occurs to me that the niqab was really to protect men from women.

Should men allow themselves to be held to ransom by women like that? Will the country be better governed as a result? I rather think not.

This is yet another reason not to have female bishops.

I urge Cameron to dump that bunch of losers without further delay and form a coalition with Labour instead.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/libdems-to-ban-women-from-workplace-and.html
LibDems to ban women from the workplace and propose khalwa laws?

Why don't powerful men support men's rights?

2013-03-08T17:31:00.000Z

http://ozconservative.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/why-dont-powerful-men-support-mens.html

Because they

do not want to associate with victim men
think victim men are beyond contempt
think victim men probably deserve what they get for being limp-dicked sub-alphas and gutless whingers
think they or their friends could never become victim men and that this sort of thing only happens to other people
would not acknowledge their victimhood by whingeing about it even if they themselves really have been victims

These days only a female with the mind of a man can fight feminism.

A few tips for anti-feminist men:

The term "feminazi" and "matriarchy" should be used to command the terns of discourse. Do NOT talk of yourselves as victims.
Only when men have the courage to call themselves anti-feminist will the challenge to feminism really begin.
The very idea of "victim men" is nauseating and repulsive. No wonder alpha males shun the very idea of helping sub-alpha victims in case their pariah status rubs off on them, like a kind of social leprosy.
Men will never be able to compete with women in the field of victim status. The idea is repugnant anyway.
Your best bet really is not to argue this point yourself but to hire me to do it. Most anti-feminists are by definition sub-alphas and therefore bound to create the impression that they deserved whatever bad treatment they have suffered. Mike Buchanan is a case in point. View his performance at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkPCwvsYrjA Definitely sub-alpha: sour, angry, short and rather unattractive. Women will not fancy him, especially if he is criticising feminism, and men just won't want to identify with him at any level. I am more likely to charm and amuse people than a sub-alpha male victim of feminism.
Steve Moxon seems reasonably attractive but UKIP dumped him because he wrote something controversial about the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik in his blog. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17911131 But perhaps his stripey jumper was reason enough. Have a look at that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwqTi6HN0pM&feature=endscreen

What do you have to ask for to destroy the matriarchy and feminism as a viable, rational and moral ideology?

The reintroduction of fault into divorce so the bitch cannot divorce you and take your house as soon as she is bored and irritated by you.
The repeal of the Equality Act 2010 if you live in the UK or your country's equivalent of totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination employment legislation.
The abolition of the welfare state. (That should be easy because Western governments can no longer afford to the upkeep of this sacred cow anyway.)

LibDem Mangina Richard Reeves calls for more housework to be done by men for women

2013-03-08T13:14:00.000Z

Tim Farron - Liberal MANGINA who called the cops on Chris Rennard for allegedly groping the treacherous Bridget Harris about 20 years ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9863557/Single-parents-less-effective-at-raising-children-than-married-couples.html

Richard Reeves: has he got MANGINA written all over his face? Look more carefully and you may yet see the words. Maybe he is just a pretty face, unlike Chris Rennard. No woman would complain if he touched their knee, I suppose, unless he is fat and bald, which he is not .. yet.

Richard Reeves, the deputy prime minister's former director of strategy, claimed that while fathers have ''greatly increased'' their contribution to childrearing and housework ''women continue to get the sharp end of the stick''.

He called for breadwinning and childrearing to be shared equally to help improve modern family life and warned it would take more legal equality of rights and greater childcare to help that happen.

A transformation would help single mothers currently struggling to raise their children and ease the problem lower and middle-income families have giving their youngsters enough attention in the face of demanding work, he said.

By 2043, if we are successful, the terms 'career man', 'working father' or 'stay-at-home Dad' will have lost their novelty.

Is this what you want for yourselves by 2043, guys? Any person with a male sex organ who says yes to this question should immediately castrate himself, cook his sex organ and serve it to his female partner for tea pronto.

Manginas - Betrayers Of Men

Manginas are pseudo-men who fixate their lives on getting a sniff of the female genitalia (figure of speech) at the expensive of others and by betraying real men.

Manginas see women as an ultimate being, places them on a huge pedestal, mind focuses only on sex or the satisfaction of women all the while not giving two bits a damn about his fellow man. Chivalrous and illogical are two definite traits of being a mangina.

A mangina is not a man, and we wouldn't dare honor them by gracing them with the title. A mangina is a pseudo-man who will first and foremost put women above men. This can take the form of buying into sexist stereotypes about men, trolling for pussy, or playing Captain Save-a-ho and reinforcing bad behavior from women.

A Mangina seeks continuous approval from females thereby becoming their servant.

Manginas support women's issues which are against his fellow men. Someone who espouses feminism but is really being suckered into a form of chivalry in which women's interests take precedence over men's. Unaware that they are merely "useful idiots", doing what women want in the vain/hope of getting laid. When his usefulness is over she tosses him out with the rest of the rubbish. Usually can be identified by his spouting the latest feminist clichés. A man who has been p-whipped but doesn't quite realize it. A man who thinks that women will like him if he does what women want (little knowing he is being used and will be dumped for the first alpha male/thug who shambles out of county lockup).

A Mangina is a self-depreciating man who subconsciously hates himself and blindly believes women are superior to him. He has been raised to think masculinity is inherently wrong - perhaps even a genetic/evolutionary/social flaw - and must be corrected by embracing his "feminine side" to the point of losing the very qualities that make him male. He believes women are beautiful, innocent angels and men are filthy animals who need to be controlled. His entire world-view is built on an absolute lie supported and propagated by a Feminised, Liberal culture and morally bankrupt Media. Ultimately his entire life is nothing more than a sad illusion....

He not only betrays himself, friends and family, but all men by sucking up to women in return for favors. A mangina is basically the proverbial Uncle Tom of the male populace. This is why manginas are betrayers and enemies of men.

Types Of Manginas

Here are the types of manginas:

1) The unenlightened. These guys are dangerous, not because they're adverse to our cause, but because they simply do not know any better. These guys have been raised to treat women with respect, to be kind and courteous to women, and when appropriate, to assist and defend her. As I said before, what makes these guys so bad isn't that they have an anti man agenda, so much as it is that they don't know better, and there are so many of them. Imagine that you're the only person in a crowded arena who knows that there is a bomb about to detonate, and you're trying your best to escape while everyone else is standing around doing nothing. That's what these guys are.

2) The horny. Ok now we've crossed into the "dangerous and evil" zone. These guys may not inherently hate men, but they love pussy so much that they are willing to justify anything in the name of pussy. Different from the unenlightened because even the unenlightened realizes that there are some women (bad girls) who you should just stay away from. The horny worships pussy, and will do anything in the name of pussy.

3) The worshipper. We're deep into the "dangerous and evil" zone, and reaching the mentally ill level. Like the horny, these guys will justify anything in the name of pussy. However unlike the horny (or maybe just like the horny), there are no limits on what pussy he'll worship. It doesn't even have to be pussy that he'd fuck. To him, pussy == superior human being. Acts that would be unconscionable to people with common sense, people in level 1, and even some people on the far border of level 2 are completely OK with the worshipper, so long as it's done in the name of pussy. These are the killers and sadists who kill people on their girlfriend's whim.

4) The nut-less. Dangerous. Evil. Mentally ill. Or just a Pathological liar. Basically, Hugo: in this person's mind, all logic, reason, cause, effect, and circumstance is overridden by a hatred for men and the prime directive that women are always right, and always to be obeyed no matter what. No matter what any woman says, this person agrees with them. There is no reasoning, rationing, or convincing this person of anything, no matter how obvious it may be to the rest of the world

The "Hugo" variety, the quasi alpha male who uses feminism to get female attention. Also uses feminism as an excuse to place themselves higher on the male feeding chain by taking the moral high ground as "protector" of women. For ex: politicians who pass laws like VAWA (highly biased, one-sided) which give ever more power to the state.

Any politician that voted for policies such as VAWA and IMBRA. Call it a subspecies of Mangina.

Definition

Man·gi·na
-noun-
1. A women-firster.
2. A pussy-worshipper.
3. A male who behaves or acts toward men in an overly aggressive way once feminist Maxims are questioned.
4. Teacher of lies and half truths.
5. One who believes violence against women is more wide spread than violence against men.
6. The major party of financial transactions to feminist and their misandric programs.
7. A cruel and vicious robber of freedoms.
8. A male lackey of the feminist movement (called a 'male feminist'), who views women as superior to men and always bows down to and agrees with women in an attempt to curry favor.
9. Males who cater to women so that women might like them more.
10. A woman's doormat, personal servant and cuddle buddy.

http://antimisandry.com/essential/manginas-betrayers-men-13392.html#axzz2Mx97SwTi

THE LIBDEMS - a contemptible collection of MANGINAS and gutless wimps not worthy to be called men.