“INFEST ’IM”: Some Anagrams of FEMINIST with Commentary about Why It’s a Dirty Word

February 20, 2018July 28, 2023Moderator 4 Comments

Feminism has been called a “cancer,” and there’s no question many of its manifestations are malignant. Or that its cells metastasize unchecked. Despite those cells’ being a minority in the body politic, they exercise a systemic and debilitating influence on the whole.

“Plague” might be a better metaphor yet.

While only 20% of the population “identifies” as feminist (according to the Huffington Post), feminism has proved an epidemic contagion—“infest ’im” feminists have, many ’ims and ’ers.

Alas, a pocketful of posies is no deterrent. Brandish a bouquet at a feminist, and there’s a good chance you’ll be accused of stalking (#YouToo?).

Which leads to another anagram of feminist: “fine mist”—like fog or like the spittle that might cloud your glasses when a rabid crank holds forth on “rape culture”…before retiring to her laptop to tweenishly effuse about a male lead on HBO’s Game of Thrones.

This sort of self-ridicule makes the anagram “finite S&M” a pervect fit, though it may be optimistic in its appraisal of feminism’s longevity.

A final anagram of feminist is “mini-fest.” Feminists have certainly had their fun. Here’s hoping the anagram is auspicious and that their next “wave” is goodbye.

*The anagram “fistin’ ’em” was considered and then rejected upon consultation with an online slang dictionary. Apparently having a fist inserted in their rectums is considered pleasurable by many—which may account for a corrupted movement’s lasting as long as it has.

An Anagram of RationalWiki Is “A Liar—I Know It”: Talking Back to Little Sisters Who Play Big Brother

July 5, 2015March 9, 2018Moderator 2 Comments

They have a network of informants. They target dissenters, lump them, and apply a label. They maintain lists. They coerce lockstep conformity with their perspectives by ridicule and censure….

No, I don’t mean the former East German secret police; I mean those liberal/feminist pretenders to enlightenment and humanism whose robotic pronouncements are so clotted with jargon they actually read like computer code: YEC, ID, MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, Nice Guys/Incels/AFCs, TERFs, radfems, Randroids, etc.

RationalWiki’s logo, fittingly, is a disembodied brain.

Don’t underestimate the potency of nerds, though. They have Twitter accounts…and they’re not afraid to use them.

I learned the other day that this blog had been put on one of their blacklists. If my motive for writing about reprehensible acts like fraud, corruption, perjury, betrayal, parental alienation, discrimination, legal abuse, judicial dereliction, and bullying people to suicidal despair were self-promotion instead of firsthand knowledge of the ruin they cause, I might be flattered that my desultory musings had achieved the notice of (dotdotdotDAAAAAA)…

RationalWiki.org. (Enter Chihuahua, stage left, in a tutu,)

No, I didn’t know there was a RationalWiki.org, either—and after visiting the site, I’m still not sure there is. If “rational” is meant to imply “having reason and understanding,” then this is to report the domain name lacks qualification. The word rational can also mean “involving division,” however. Maybe that’s what the editors meant.

RationalWiki, “Authoritarianism”

The rhetoric of sites like this isn’t without its amusements. For example, RationalWiki invites its audience to “Check Our Entitlement.” In other words, it doesn’t want to exclude the less advantaged, or seem to talk down to them.

Considering there’s nothing on RationalWiki that doesn’t smack of pop-culture-poxed, pseudo-intellectual, East Coast establishment condescension, and that the educationally impoverished victims of racism and classism that RationalWiki purports to defend probably couldn’t track a fraction of what’s published there, the invitation to “Check Our Entitlement” deserves to be met with chorus of raspberries or a barrage of moldy tomatoes.

The page on RationalWiki that pans the blog you’re reading is charmingly titled, “Webshites.” The word is a pun that will only be understood by fans of the BBC or the novels, say, of Graham Swift—and there’s nothing elitist or alienating about that. (Shite is Anglo-Irish for shit.)

RationalWiki accuses this site of being “sexist.” Since RationalWiki is plainly a stalking-horse for feminist and otherwise PC propagandists, this site proposes it’s projecting. Since RationalWiki is blind to the wealth of pain its derelict dogma produces, this site further proposes it’s vicious.

Finally, this site’s editor dismisses RationalWiki’s editors as a collective of dorks.

*Propaganda is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary). This is how information control is disguised:

This is reality:

The Feminist Self-Contradiction: On the Flawed Conception of Restraining Orders and the Error of Preferring the Stick to the Carrot

July 12, 2014July 15, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

Consider: At least a couple more restraining orders will have been issued in the time it takes you to read this post.

I pointed out recently that after 30 years and the issuance of millions or tens of millions of restraining orders, feminists and others continue to report that the incidence rate of domestic violence, which is the go-to rationale for restraining orders, is unchanged.

They report, in fact, that it’s “epidemic.”

Plainly restraining orders have put no dent in the problem. What’s more, it’s possible they’ve made it worse.

How this may be possible is simple. By authorizing gross and large-scale (epidemic) civil rights abuses for decades, the system has jaded the sentiment of a significant sector of the public. The punitive nature of both biased legal policies and the feminist rhetoric that has inspired them does nothing to change minds. It inspires resentment, outrage, and distrust, if not contempt.

Male victims of false restraining orders, in particular, who may well be a majority of recipients and number in the millions, can hardly be expected to sympathize with the feminist agenda. Worse yet, a goodly proportion of them may be far from sensitive to the interests of women generally, because feminism has associated itself with those interests inextricably.

Feminism doesn’t appeal to or cultivate sympathy; it largely strives to chastise and dominate, which can only foster misogyny.

Resentment toward feminist-influenced legal processes conduces to resentment toward feminists and consequently resentment toward women. Feminism works against its own mission statement and the interests of its nominated beneficiaries.

It’s certain that restraining orders have provided peace of mind to some petitioners. It’s certain, also, that they’ve compromised or devastated the lives of a significantly greater number of falsely accused defendants, who receive no compassion from feminist quarters.

On balance, the curative value of restraining orders is null if not negative. Per capita, that is, they do more harm than good. And the impact of each instance of abuse of power is chain-reactive, because every victim has relatives and friends who may be jarred by the reverberations.

Although it doesn’t occur to feminists, because they’re the darlings of the government and the media, their zeal to blame and punish is alienating instead of unifying.

The feminist m.o. is to win not win over…and nobody doesn’t hate a bully.

Thanks to kangaroo legal processes that are effectively products of their authorship, feminists’ potential supporters may number several fewer now than when you started reading this post.

Victims Are Important, but They’re Not More Important than Anyone Else: Amending Priorities and Reconceiving Restraining Order Policy According to the Principle of Equality

June 20, 2014August 8, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

“While some municipal court judges acknowledge that the domestic violence law can create injustices—one calls it ‘probably the most abused piece of legislation that comes to my mind’—there are counterpoints. Melanie Griffin, executive director of the Commission to Study Sex Discrimination in the Statutes, a legislative commission that drafted much of the 1991 law, says that for every individual who files a false report, ‘there are 100 women who don’t come in at all and stay there and get beaten.’”

—“N.J. Judges Told to Ignore Rights in Abuse TROs”

This quotation comes from a nearly 20-year-old journalistic exposé, yet you’ll find the same starkly meretricious apology for restraining order abuse routinely voiced today.

This quotation from the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) means that all people should be treated equally under the law, not that women should be privileged. Anyone who’s for women’s being afforded special treatment by the authorities and the courts opposes the message of the ERA, as do proponents of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

The argument, basically, is that it doesn’t matter if restraining order defendants’ rights are ignored, and it doesn’t matter if defendants are falsely accused, because there are many more victims of abuse who suffer in silence than there are false accusers.

The argument equates apples with orangutans. Its reasoning is partisan and purely emotion-based—and betrays ignorance of the fact that women, too, are falsely accused of domestic violence. Its thesis is that since there may be multitudes of unacknowledged victims of domestic violence, the state’s creating victims by abetting false prosecutions is of no statistical significance.

While everyone should feel for women who are “beaten” at home, no one should be forced by the state to endure “sympathy pains.” The falsely accused man or woman whose life is upturned or undone by hyped allegations or gross lies credited by careless judges is absolutely blameless for the suffering of strangers.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution, and equality and fair treatment under the law are among its mandates that brook no compromise. Denying the latter to anyone, ever—even if the motive is a sympathetic one—is categorically wrong.

The statement in the epigraph says: It’s okay if you, Mr. or Ms. Doe, are falsely accused and battered by the system, and it’s okay if it deprives you of your kids and home and livelihood and dignity and sanity, because some people you don’t know and never will know are reportedly “beaten” by some other people you don’t know and never will know.

It says there are women who suffer unjustly, so never mind if we make you suffer unjustly, too.

Restraining Orders and Feminist Self-Sabotage: On the Error of Preferring the Stick to the Carrot

June 18, 2014August 10, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

Consider: At least a couple more restraining orders will have been issued in the time it takes you to read this post.

They report, in fact, that it’s “epidemic.”

Plainly restraining orders have put no dent in the problem. What’s more, it’s possible they’ve made it worse.

Feminism doesn’t appeal to or cultivate sympathy; it largely strives to chastise and dominate, which can only foster misogyny.

Although it doesn’t occur to feminists, because they’re the darlings of the government and the media, their zeal to blame and punish is alienating instead of unifying.

The feminist m.o. is to win not win over…and nobody doesn’t hate a bully.

Thanks to kangaroo legal processes that are effectively products of feminist authorship, feminists’ potential supporters may number several fewer now than when you started reading this post.

Who or What Can’t Be Published on CafeMom?: On Ad Hominem Attacks, Feminist Hatemongering, and the Victimization of Moms by Both

February 24, 2014August 10, 2023Moderator 2 Comments

I was concerned to see that someone was brought to this site recently by the search term “Tara Palmatier [X].” I’ve omitted the final word of the phrase not because it’s vulgar but because I don’t want an anomalous Google query to put an idea into the head of some crank with too much time on her hands.

Dr. Tara J. Palmatier is a psychotherapist whose writing I’ve come to admire and respect, and which I’ve consequently quoted many times. She has what distinguishes the brilliant from the intelligent: bold candor. I did a hasty Google search of my own to see what would have prompted someone to use the keywords cryptically quoted above and nothing correspondent appeared except a page that appeared to be a spoof.

I did, however, notice this post, published eight months ago, on CafeMom: “Just ‘Who’ or ‘What’ is Dr. Tara J. Palmatier?” (which was deleted subsequent to the publication of this post).

In several pieces I’ve published over the last couple of months, I’ve given critical scrutiny to feminist rhetoric, because I believe the gross civil injustices this blog concerns owe their ontological debt and perpetuation to such rhetoric.

Consider the rhetorical strategies of this writer, who identifies herself with a picture of a kitty cat and the alias “joyfree” (prompting this writer to wonder whether she’d be less catty if she were more joy-ful).

Note first that the question that titles the post disdains to recognize Dr. Palmatier as human. Why? Apparently because she wrote about women’s entrapping men by getting pregnant. Assuming she did, how this observation could be “one-sided against women” is baffling, not for the least of reasons because it’s impossible for men to entrap women by getting pregnant. The actual source of the beef, of course, isn’t its writer’s perception of Dr. Palmatier as unfair; it’s kneejerk resentment of a woman’s criticizing women. That’s why instead of offering a reasoned critical response, the writer simply denounces a (“supposed”) woman with a doctorate in clinical psychology as a “fake.” (William Buckley called this “rebuttal by epithet.”)

There’s little point in my spending an hour parsing (and thereby dignifying) the facile hatemongering of an anonymous writer who probably invested half that time cobbling her post together. What I would bring to the attention of this blog’s audience (particularly its female readers) is that this vitriol was published on a site called CafeMom. This isn’t a forum of radical feminist academicians; these are your everyday householders. And the question I would hope scrutiny of public statements like this arouses is when did it become okay to attack someone’s sexuality and qualification as a human being, because she voiced an eminently informed, professional opinion that wasn’t favorable to female exaltation?

If Dr. Palmatier were black, would it still be okay to suggest she wasn’t human? Not so much, right? Observe, though, that this writer’s rhetorical strategies (like those of any number of like-minded writers) pretty much mirror those of racial bigots of centuries past.

And it slides under the radar.

What shouldn’t slide under the radar of this blog’s readers is that the acceptability of these kinds of views is an indicator of the breadth of feminist influence, and it’s this coercive influence by women that allows this to continue (quoted from the e-petition “Stop False Allegations of Domestic Violence”):

“My ex has used the law and the justice system, and destroyed my life and those of my minor children! He lied and said he had a witness to testify to his false accusations and bullied me into a deal with the devil eight months ago, and has filed five emergency ex parte motions to remove my kids…. He has put me in debt. I lost my job. I have no money, no friends. Therapists will not help my children as they are afraid he will ruin their lives, too…. Lawyers drop the case because of the constant verbal abuse he does to me and eventually to them, too. I have no friends left. Everyone has left me, and my family is far away, and their hands are tied. He has told teachers and principals and camp counselors these horrible accusations and caused me to have to move to a different town. My five-year-old told me his mind is telling him to die because his mommy is never happy. So what about the [woman] who [doesn’t] cry wolf and [leaves] an unhealthy marriage to save [her] kids and [has] a scorned, mentally ill, narcissistic ex-husband who is torturing every single day and using the law to harass [her]? He is a doctor and has deep pockets, and I am now in debt with no income. Had they been ethical the day of the hearing and admitted that they had no witness anymore, this would never have happened. So what about the tortured women?”

Over to you, CafeMom.

What to Do if You’ve Been Abused by a Judge

October 24, 2013August 25, 2023Moderator 1 Comment

Judicial misbehavior is often complained of by defendants who’ve been abused by the restraining order process. Cited instances include gross dereliction, judge-attorney cronyism, gender bias, open contempt, and warrantless verbal cruelty. Avenues for seeking the censure of a judge who has engaged in negligent or vicious misconduct vary from state to state. In my own state of Arizona, complaints may be filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Similar boards, panels, and tribunals exist in most other states.

Citizens of other countries are encouraged to hunt up the equivalent regulatory bodies in their own provinces or nation-states.

Such commissions won’t retry a case. Complainants looking for fairer treatment or relief from an unjust decision by an independent body of arbiters will be disappointed. These panels will, though, investigate allegations of ethical violations by judges. Those readily responded to are glaring ones: slovenliness, for example, or drunkenness or the use of vulgarities or racial epithets. Misbehaviors like these are indefensible and reflect poorly on the dignity of the courts.

Favorable treatment toward one party or the other (that is, preferentialism or sexual bias), abuse of power, disparagement, and slackness, however, also contravene judicial performance expectations, and they are equally valid reasons for censure. Defendants’ feeling scorned by judges of restraining orders is common and a frequently expressed source of gnawing outrage. Odds are complaints about such treatment will be discounted or even offhandedly dismissed. But complainants cannot be punished for reporting judicial misconduct, and there’s always a chance that a compelling petition may be heeded (especially if the same allegations have been made against a particular judge previously).

There may be value, too, in more abused defendants voicing beefs and thereby arousing awareness among oversight commissions of the breadth and severity of judicial malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in the restraining order arena, because it’s complacency, ignorance, and indifference by those empowered to make a difference that preserves the status quo.

Feminism and Gender Guilt: On Restraining Order Policy’s Encouraging Judges to Abuse Men

July 16, 2013July 13, 2023Moderator 1 Comment

A police officer’s job is to enforce policy, not interpret it. And policy respecting allegations made pursuant to seeking a restraining order, in particular allegations made by women, is to take the truth of those allegations for granted.

Judges, on the other hand, are paid—and quite handsomely—to interpret evidence and testimony, and to apply policy based on deliberated conclusions.

So how is it so many men are railroaded through a process that may be initiated on no evidence at all, may strip them of their most valued investments and every bit of social and financial equity they’ve built in their lives—kids, home, money, property, business, and reputation—and may ensure that they’re never able to recover what they’ve been deprived of?

Feminists don’t acknowledge their political might, because that would be disadvantageous to their accumulating more of it. They continue to plead victimization and to promote skewed or bogus statistics like one in four women are prey to rapists or attempted rapists, women earn a mere fraction of what men do, girls are ignored by their teachers, and battery is the leading cause of birth defects and increases by 40% on Super Bowl Sunday.

Enterprising journalists like Ken Ringle and dissident feminist scholars Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia have long ago debunked all of these claims, yet they continue to circulate. The feminist propaganda machine hums right along. And its malign and maligning influence has been very effective.

(Besides the aforementioned feminist scholars, journalist Cathy Young and Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, have called giving attention to restraining order administration long overdue—in articles published 10 to 20 years ago.)

Judges and the judicial system proceed in matters of protection of women as father-guardians (which mainstream feminists don’t seem to find patronizing or infantilizing). The rhetoric is defendants are presumed innocent; the practice is they’re presumed guilty. Judges—more often than not male—pander to the women who come before them to beg their intervention; men are treated like police suspects.

Judges of these matters, like the women who introduce them, aren’t bound by the same ethical restrictions that obtain in other sorts of cases (especially if there are no lawyers present). A detective in the county attorney’s office I spoke with put it this way: because restraining orders grew out of a clamor to address domestic violence, judges are inclined to let their inner vigilantes off leash when a male defendant appears before them. They’re glad to have a trussed target for their frustrated wrath and to play the white knight.

The slack standards that govern restraining order administration are defended as leveling the playing field. They’re in fact engineered to level men. The judges who do the administering are predisposed by policy and propaganda to regard male defendants through jaundiced eyes and to bring the gavel down on their heads.

It’s probably very cathartic for them.

Restraining Order Fraud and Female Victimization of Men

July 12, 2013July 13, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

It shouldn’t be any mystery why with millions of restraining orders being issued each year in the Internet age complaints of abuses aren’t louder and more numerous: stigma.

A woman’s having taken out a restraining order against him—particularly one alleging violence or fear of violence—isn’t something a man is apt to broadcast, even if the order was grounded on sheer lies (and especially if those lies aren’t ones he’s able to expose as such). Allegations of fear or threat by women aren’t held to any standard of substantiation. They can be completely vaporous (pardon the oxymoron), and judges are cool with that.

Also, the experience of being publicly shamed is a harrowing one and one a man isn’t likely to want to revisit. (There’s always, besides, the apprehension of incurring further malice from the courts. For many injunction defendants, ever again having access to home, property, or children is entirely subject to judicial impulse.)

An unscrupulous woman not only enjoys the gratification of being rewarded for her fraud by a paternal system that regards her as a fragile fledgling in need of special protections; she also enjoys the impunity guaranteed by her victim’s fear of humiliation and social and professional condemnation.

Society today condescends to give a sympathetic ear to women’s plaints; men are still expected to suck it up. Feminists promote a double standard they profess to oppose to reap the benefit: not gender equity but political advantage.

There are a number of sites on the Internet that advocate for “men’s rights” (see how even the phrase sounds absurd?) like A Voice for Men and Men’s Activism News Network. You’re unlikely to hear them cited on NPR. Feminism is chic and trendy: VAWA! NOW! AAUW! The Vagina Monologues!

“Masculinism” isn’t a word.

TALKING BACK to restraining orders

THEY’RE NOT JUST ABUSED BUT ABUSIVE

Tag sexism