Category Archives: misandry

History of the International Women’s Movement: A Dry Topic for those Wet behind the Ears.

Mark Conway

The Birth of an International Movement

To enter this topic into polite “cocktail” conversation is often difficult.  You are either met with glassed over eyes from those that are either ignorant and/or uninterested in the topic, or you are subject to vehement observation of a potential deviation from the accepted narrative.

One can, and probably should, consider the birth of the international women’s movement to the founding of the United Nations (UN) Status of Women’s Committee (SWC) in 1946, and its initial triumph in removing the reference to “men”, as being synonymous with “humanity”, in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This was laudably argued by the SWC as being more “inclusive language”, consistent with the concept of equality.

From there, the SWC managed to influence a number of international declarations/agreements over the following 20 years.  These include:

The International Labour Organization’s 1951 convention concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, enshrining the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The 1953 Convention on the Political Rights of Women, the first international law instrument to protect the political rights of women.

The 1957 Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, following by the 1962 Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages.

The crowning achievements of this initial period resulted in the 1963 request by the UN General Assembly for the SWC to draft a Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which was adopted by the UN in 1967.  This declaration contained 11 Articles which mostly consolidate the fore mentioned conventions.  Article 1 specifically declared that discrimination against women is “fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offence against human dignity”.  Though that “black fly in you chardonnay” may actually not be ironic, the fact that the initial “inclusive language” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins to dissolve away. The absence of the inclusion of men is a little ironic, don’t you think.  

In essence, the objective of the first 20 years of work by the SWC was to legally build a level playing field which tried to establish equality between the sexes.  This work also inspired the United States in 1961 and Canada in 1967 to appoint their own “Status of Women” Commissions to evaluate the situation within their respected countries.  

These two national committees echoed the concerns of the UN’s SWC findings, and recommended measures to promote equality and women’s participation in both politics and the economy.  One interesting recommendation from the Canadian Royal Commission was to “undertake short-term measures, where necessary, to achieve it’s (these) objectives”.  What these “measures” were, and how “short term” they were to become some 25 years later, should be a concern for those that truly espouse the concept of equality.

The First International Women’s Conference:  Mexico City 1975

The year 1975 was chosen as the year of the first International Women’s Conference, to coincide with both the International Year of Women, and the start of the International Decade of Women (1975-1985).  The principle objective of this conference was to sustain the improvements already made, and to further “bestow the benefits” of equal opportunity on all.  In addition, the conference promoted “i) full gender equality, and the elimination of gender discrimination, ii) the integration and full participation of women in development, iii) as well as increasing the contribution of women by strengthening world peace”.

The inclusion of “world peace” was a major issue of conflict at the conference as it highlighted the major political/ideological differences that existed during the cold war.  These differences were principally between the United States, and the Eastern Bloc countries.  The United States promoted an “equality agenda”, and wanted to keep a narrow focus on what they believed to be “women’s issues”, whilst the Eastern Bloc promoted a “peace” agenda, wanting to incorporate issues like colonialism and Zionism into the discussion.  The United States considered these issues to be non-related, whilst the Eastern Bloc did not consider “sexism” not to be present in their societies; hence there was no need for an equality discussion.  This political discourse also haunted the following two conferences.

Some concrete developments that came about after this conference were the establishment of both the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW), and the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).  UN-INSTRAW was the leading research and knowledge management organization to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment using a “gender perspective”.  While UNIFEM provided financial and technical assistance to promote women’s human rights.  These two agencies appear to be the first to direct monies directly to organizations assisting women.  The first of the “temporary measures“ to be employed to promote the development of equality.

In addition, the convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was enacted in 1979.  It is in this convention the phrase discrimination against women was clarified as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”.

In hindsight, there are two other noteworthy observations that can be made from this conference.  Firstly, this is the first time that the term “gender” became dominant in the documentation related to SWC.  Secondly, the impetus from the Eastern Bloc to broaden the agenda to incorporate what could be considered “non-women” related issues.  Both of these will become much more prevalent 20 years later, to the familiarity of all who read this I am sure.

Copenhagen 1980

What was initially scheduled to be located in Tehran, was moved to Copenhagen as a result of the Iranian Revolution.  Though a Program of Action was adapted from this conference, this adoption was not by consensus as the political tensions from Mexico City had carried over.

In this Program of Action, the tone of the language began to change.  It cited the “reasons“ for the apparent discrepancy between the legal rights of women, and women’s ability to access those rights was blamed on:

  • The lack of sufficient involvement of men
  • Insufficient political will
  • Lack of recognition of the value of women’s contribution to society
  • Lack of attention to the particular needs of women
  • A shortage of women in decision making processes
  • Insufficient services to support the role of women, such as cooperatives, day care centers, and credit facilities
  • Overall lack of necessary financial resources

During this conference, again much of the dialog concerned promoting international cooperation, peace and security.  As well, there was much credence given to women’s struggled with colonialism, neocolonialism racial discrimination and apartheid.  It appears that the Eastern Bloc had gained the upper hand in deciding the agenda.  Both the American and Canadian delegations voted “no“ the conference’s resolution, but for all intents and purposes, delegates from the remaining countries began to fully embrace the Eastern Bloc’s “peace“ agenda.

The Program for Action called for stronger measures to ensure women’s ownership and control of property, their right to inheritance as well as child custody.  In addition, it was at this conference, for the first time, that domestic violence was explicitly mentioned in an official UN document.  The legislative measures recommended at this conference included both the ratification of CEDAW by member nations, and that nations enact legislation to accelerate full and equal participation of women, and to eliminate existing inequities between men and women.  This laid the foundation for additional “measures“ in order to promote equality.

Nairobi 1985

The Nairobi conference was scheduled to review and appraise the achievements of the UN’s International Decade of Women.  This conference has also often been cited as the “birth of global feminism“.

The conference found that generally the women’s movement had grown in number and scope, and that they represented an international force for equality, peace and development.  (Though the key findings of the statistics provided to the conference found that only a limited number of women had benefited from the improvements),  As a result, it was mandated that new ways to overcome the obstacles would be sought. 

Some of the recommendations to overcome these obstacles include the establishment of a “mechanism“ for women’s equal participation at all levels of the political process and public life.  There was also a call for the formulation of laws, programs and policies to harmonize the family and work balance. 

In addition, the continued discussion about domestic violence would lead to the appointment of Radhika Coomaraswamy as the first Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, and the adoption of the UN declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993).  The conference also recognized that gender equality was not an isolated issue, but encompassed all areas of human activity.   This would result in the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo (1994) beginning to recognize women’s health, education and rights a prerequisites for effective population control policies.

Beijing 1995:  The turning point for the Global Agenda for Gender Equality

The Beijing conference is the final of the four conferences to date, and provided a Plan of Action which has manifested in numerous national government policies/laws and programs that actively support and favor women.  In essence, all governments that signed on to the agreement have adopted a policy tool called Gender Based Analysis (GBA).  GBA mandates everything a government does must be subject to gender based analysis to correct for historical imbalances that exist.  It allows for the unequal distribution of monies and consideration to a specific gender.

The principle problem with this approach is that it is the domain of the Status of Women Committees in the various countries to present the gender specific data by which laws/programs and policies are enacted.  The Status of women committee is only required to act on behalf of women, and not men.  This is how the governments of the world can discriminate against men on all fronts, yet justify their actions as being, inclusive.  This is that “short term measure“ which if you are under 25 years old, has been in place since you were born.  In a future article I will explore how this policy tool has created a situation where Separate consideration is given to one group, But it is considered Equal.

I will allow Hillary Clinton to summarize it as she did at the conclusion of the Beijing conference.

Let it be that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all. “

My trip through the polypharmacy blender

 

By Rory Tennes

I agreed to write this story but have been surprised how hard it was to sit down and do it. I knew it all. The words were in my head, yet I avoided getting started. Perhaps it was because of the painful emotions I knew it would bring to the surface. Or maybe because it reminds me of the pain and suffering my family had to endure, how much we lost and the fact that I may not be able to do anything about it. Or it could be my frustration from the cognitive difficulties still affecting me, making writing a difficult task that drains what little energy I have.

My trip started this way: I was ill, injured and in pain. I went to my doctors for help, and they proceeded to drug me into oblivion. My PCP or “family doctor” diagnosed me with fibromyalgia. I don’t think he really knew what I had, but once he put a name on my symptoms, he started throwing drugs at them. I was in constant pain, chronically fatigued and began to have severe bouts of anxiety. For four years I saw doctor after doctor but none of them could tell me what was wrong, or why I was getting worse not better despite all the drugs. It turns out I had autoimmune arthritis. I’d had it for 30 years, and since it was misdiagnosed and untreated for so long, my spine was a total wreck.

I have worked in construction for 38 years, as a skilled tile setter with my own business. I love the work, but it can be rough on the back. I am now on disability due to a combination of my disease and the multiple toxic “treatments” I was put on.

Seven seizure warnings… and five for serotonin syndrome

From the beginning of my four-year search and the two years following my diagnosis I was on an ever-changing cocktail of drugs that kept me off balance constantly. I was at that time unaware of the drug companies’ influence on medical practice, and I trusted that my doctors knew all about the drugs they were giving me. Big, big mistake! They knew very little about the drugs and the “side effects.” They, like me, believed what we are told about side effects – that they are “mild and rare.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

My drug list started with Wellbutrin, Trazodone and Flexeril. When Lyrica and Cymbalta were added, the real trouble began. At the end of six years my list of drugs included, among other things, five major drug interaction warnings for serotonin syndrome. Five! Not to mention seven warnings about an increased risk of seizures. And not one doctor saw that as a problem. If they did, they didn’t say anything. I carried my drug list to every appointment, so all my many doctors had my updated list. None of them said anything about the dangers. Neither did my pharmacists.

Being somewhat of a health seeker, I really didn’t like taking all those drugs and worried what they might be doing to me. I asked friends about it. They said, “The doctors know what they are doing, trust them, take the medications.” My meditation/self-hypnosis counselor said, “I have several clients, some of them pro athletes, who take multiple meds. I tell them to concentrate only on the positive effects of the medicines, not on the negative effects. That way your body will know what to do with the medicine.” Hmm, that didn’t work out very good for me.

How to become an alcoholic in 30 days or less

Before my trip through the Pharma looking glass began, I had quit drinking altogether. I had been sober for five years — solidly sober and liked it. In October 2010 I was on Trazodone and Wellbutrin. When Flexeril and Naprelan were added, within weeks I suddenly had strong urges to drink, which had been totally absent until that point. I now know that Flexeril (cyclo-benzaprine) acts just like a tricyclic antidepressant and should never be mixed with trazodone or Wellbutrin. The urge and the thoughts of drinking came on suddenly and very strong.

I made two trips to alcohol rehab, attended AA regularly but could not stay sober. I had numerous run-ins with the law as well. My behavior had become so bizarre, unpredictable, unstable and dangerous that I thought I had lost my mind and myself completely. I had no control over my thoughts, emotions or behavior, no matter what I did or how hard I tried. I watched my family suffer horribly in fear and confusion at what was happening.

Now I know why. Drugs can drive people to drink for relief from the agonizing akathisia that they cause. Couple that with the disinhibiting effect of the drugs, and it’s a recipe for alcoholism. That’s not just true for the antidepressants, but Lyrica too. The warning on Lyrica says that “People who have had a drinking problem in the past may be prone to abuse Lyrica.” It really should say: “If you take Lyrica you may have strong, uncontrollable urges to drink.” Lyrica can cause alcohol abuse, I have no doubt. So can Cymbalta, Zoloft and several other drugs I was on. I didn’t have a chance in hell to stay sober on those drugs.

“One way or another, this is going to stop.”

By April 2014 I was at the end of my rope. My life and my mind were coming completely apart, and I and everyone else who tried to help me was helpless to stop it. I went to my PCP or family doctor, whom I had not seen in quite a while. I explained what was happening and told him that I could not go on this way. “One way or another, this is going to stop,” I told him. He understood what I was saying.

I handed him my medication list and asked if he saw a problem. By that time it included 12 drugs: Cymbalta, Lyrica, trazodone, Trileptal, gabapentin, Wellbutrin, tramadol, Soma, Amrix (more cyclobenzaprine), Etodolac, lisinopril and Sprix (ketorolac). Some were for physical pain, some were for bipolar disorder, and some were for both. The lisinopril was for blood pressure.

He immediately became alarmed, saying “Who prescribed all this!? You can’t take all this at once! This is lethal! Serotonin Syndrome. You have to stop!” He had sent me to a psychiatrist a couple years prior to this because of my behavior problems, depression and what he thought might be bipolar disorder. The shrink added more drugs, never suspecting that my problems were all drug-related. The more he drugged me the worse I got. He blamed me – it was my worsening mental illness, he said.

I stopped five of the drugs my PCP had checked off on my list that day—cold turkey. The doctor did not warn me about what might happen if I stopped all at once, and I didn’t have a clue this would be a problem. The next few weeks were torture, but I made it. I don’t remember much about that period, and maybe that’s a good thing. I do not know why I was able to stop that many psychoactive drugs at once and survive, but I did. Several doctors and counselors have commented that I was either very tough or very lucky, or both.

Reawakening

After about two months I noticed I was different. I was sober, and I stayed that way with little effort. My anger, irritability and restlessness had come way down the scale. I could actually think, read and comprehend what I was reading. Something had changed, and I wanted to know why. I started researching; behavior change, causes. I found that chronic pain, chronic fatigue and many physical illnesses can cause behavior changes.

Rory Tennes

Then I found the RxISK.org site. The most surprising thing I found was how prescription drugs could be responsible for severe and uncontrolled behavior problems. The very same problems I was having! So why did none of my doctors recognize this? Did they not know this about the drugs they were giving me? If they did, they did not tell me.

What some are saying about drug companies running the information show and hiding the truth about their chemicals appears to be very true. Very few doctors are aware of the risks involved in the drugs they so willingly hand out. My shrink was the worst offender. He obviously did not have any clue that all of my symptoms were drug-induced. He followed the DSM to the letter and I was at the point of suicide. I know that to be true since all my symptoms have miraculously disappeared since I stopped taking the drugs.

Imagine that. I didn’t need the drugs after all. They were not helping, they were hurting me!

Is anyone looking out for the patient?

When I went back to my PCP after coming off most of the rest of the drugs I had been taking, I took along a RxISK report for Lyrica. I asked him to read it, and sign it if he agreed that my symptoms could be from Lyrica. That is what is suggested on the RxISK site: take the report to your doctor. I had multiple reports for the different drugs, but decided to take just the one since he was so insistent that Lyrica would help me and that I keep taking it. My RxISK score was 8 out of a possible 9, meaning it was very, very likely my problems were connected to Lyrica.

He read it and said he had never heard of any of this about Lyrica. He knew nothing about mood or behavioral side effects from that drug. He would not sign the report, out of fear of being sued, I guess. He acted very nervous and apprehensive. He asked if I was going to sue him, or sue someone. He kept asking about RxISK: “What is it? What do they do? I’ve never seen this before.”

His response to the RxISK report dampened my willingness to do that again. However, I may now have the will to take the rest of the reports to him and my shrink. That would be very interesting to see the look on his face, my shrink. I might just do that.

Recently I talked to the doctor who treats my autoimmune condition about that medication list. I had showed it to him back in April 2014, right before I saw my PCP and stopped the drugs. To my surprise, he said, “I saw that list and I remember thinking, how is this guy even standing in front of me today? Why is he not dead?”

I asked him why he didn’t say anything at the time. He said, “I can get into a great deal of trouble by criticizing the prescribing habits of other doctors. Legal trouble.” WOW. I did not know how to respond, so I didn’t. I just thought about it for a while, what that means for patients. Your doctor might not look out for you, even if your life is in danger, for fear of legal trouble.

I have taken my med list to my pharmacists and asked them for their opinion. All of them said it was way too much medication, with several duplications—two meds that do the same thing. I asked why they did not say something to me as I was getting these prescriptions filled. They said, “Well, your doctor prescribed it, so I guess he thought it was OK.” Another said, “You didn’t ask.”

What writing this has done, I hope, is renewed my willingness to pick up the ball and continue spreading the word about pharmaceuticals and the dangers. I am planning on taking the RxISK reports to the prescribing doctors and to pharmacists. There seems to be so much lack of knowledge and apathy about drugs from the people who prescribe them and sell them.

Every time I hear on a drug commercial, “Ask your doctor,” it reminds me of just how bad the situation really is, and how ridiculous the phrase is. Ask your doctor about ________. Really?

 

________________________________________________

Rory Tennes was born at the end of the baby boomer age, grew up in a happy, traditional, working class American family with his siblings. After high school he joined his dad and brother in a family business as a skilled tradesman where he enjoyed success in a personally rewarding occupation. When illness and injury came he relied on the skill and integrity of professional healthcare system to get him patched up, back on track and back to work. Instead of help what he walked into was a machine that chewed him up in a polypharmacy blender that very nearly killed him, left him a ground up mess with no recourse for justice or even accountability on the part of the guilty. He has a passion to to alert others to the dangers we all face from a greed driven pharmaceutical industry gone dangerously awry and a legal system unwilling to protect the victim.

____________________________________

Top Menaregood Videos!

I put together a new playlist on the menaregood youtube channel.  Many have asked me what videos were the best for men’s issues.  I have made over a hundred vids so I handpicked 18 of what I considered the top menaregood videos. Here they are!  You can also use this link to go to youtube and see all 18 in the right hand sidebar and click through them.

New Male Studies Journal article Male Circumcision Grief: Effective and Ineffective Therapeutic Approaches

I co-authored this Journal article with Lindsay Watson.  It tells the story of the mistreatment males receive when they have the courage to seek out a mental health professional to aid in their grief. The article was published in the Journal of New Male Studies.  I suggest you have a look at the other articles.  Some interesting stuff.

Lindsay Watson, Tom Golden. Male Circumcision Grief: Effective And Ineffective Therapeutic Approaches. New Male Studies (2017); 6(2): 109-125. Online: http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/261

[pdf-embedder url=”http://menaregood.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/document.pdf”]

#MeToo — Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Video and Script.

We live in a very dangerous time for men. If they are accused of sex assault or rape they are automatically assumed to be guilty. Whatever happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Out the window, but why? That‘s what we are going to talk about. We’ll examine the ways that feminists have encouraged the disruption of due process. I ran into an excellent article on this topic provided by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity titled “‘Believe the Victim:’ The Transformation of Justice”. This video will give you a summary of that article and some additional ideas.

But wait. Before we go any farther. We know that not all accusations are true. Right? Just a quick look at these gentlemen  (here and here) easily makes that point. These are all men who were falsely imprisoned for rape or sexual assault, many of whom for years. It turns out the Innocence Project has rescued 353 cases of wrongful convictions and 274 of those cases were men falsely accused of rape or sexual assault.   That’s about 77% of those who have been freed. Do we see a pattern here? It’s also worth noting that less than 1% of those who were freed for wrongful convictions were women. That’s with about 18% of the jailed population being women. It seems clear that we are not as careful in convicting our men as we are with our women. And we are simply not very careful when it comes to rape.

But why? One answer is of course gynocentrism which defaults to protecting women and children at the expense of men. That is likely a part of the problem but there is obviously much more. I think that the advent of the feminist driven gynocentrism 2.0 has played a much larger role than most assume. If you want to know what I mean by gynocentrism 2.0 you can check out a video linked here. 

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity paper starts by quoting Lewis Caroll and pointing to the Red Queen’s zany idea that you need to start with the sentence and worry about the verdict after.  Yes the wonderful fantasy of Lewis Carroll, and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.  Think about it. This Lewis Carroll crazy “world upside down” fantasy is now coming true. This is exactly what the feminists are telling us. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

Let’s have a look.

There are lots of women me too-ing these days. And good for them to speak up about possible past trauma but there is another trauma that is running parallel that no one notices.  That’s the cultural assumption that all of the men who are being accused are guilty.  All of them.  Simply because a woman has accused them they are thought to be guilty. The falsely accused men are alone in their awareness of this travesty. It’s a good guess that they are trapped and left to face alone a great deal of trauma, undeserved judgment, and hatred. In some ways this is standard gynocentric procedure since the emotional pain of men is taboo and the emotional pain of women is a call to action. That is, people run from male emotional pain but work to help the emotional pain of females. We see this in spades and amplified with the me too rush to judgment.

But how did it get so bad? Enter the feminists who have proven over the years to be willing to ignore the pain of men.

What did they do?

Look no farther than the violence against women feminists.  The End Violence Against Women International folks have played a role in this. They wanted more rape convictions so what did they do? They wrote a manual to instruct law enforcement how to treat the accusers. Can you guess what they told them?

I bet you can.

They focused on the idea of “Start by Believing”. They basically portrayed rape and sex assault accusers as needing to be believed at all costs. Without exceptions. Involved police officers should start by believing women who claimed they were raped or sexually assaulted. Believe them no matter what. These feminists seem to be saying that the accusers didn’t need an investigator who sought the truth, no they actually need an understanding buddy and the first thing that new buddy needed to do was believe what they said. No matter what! Just like a good friend!

Hard to believe right? When I read this the first thing that popped in my mind was that this strategy didn’t work out so great with Crystal Gail Mangum and the falsely accused Duke lacrosse boys. The faculty at Duke started by believing and kept believing even though the accuser was a liar.

Have a look at the start by believing web site and what they tell law enforcement. This page has testimonials, let’s read one:

My name is Officer Don Kirk. I am a Police Officer at the University of Utah, Department of Public Safety. When someone tells me they were raped or sexually assaulted, I Start by Believing.

Get the picture? These trainings tell police that they are supposed to believe the victim NO MATTER WHAT. Just what do they think this might do to an accused man who is innocent? Wouldn’t believing the accuser necessarily make one not believe the accused? They don’t seem to care. This is the typical only see one side of the picture bully feminists.

They are not even allowed to consider that there might be a false accusation. In essence what they are asking the police to do is to become an advocate for one party, not an impartial investigator. All the while believing that women never lie.

These feminists are demanding that Sgt Friday who asked for just the facts ma’am be transformed into Mr Rogers. You know, the accuser’s best buddy. Now I liked Fred Rogers but surely even Fred knew he was not suited to be a criminal investigator. This is something the feminists don’t seem to care about. The accuser gets Fred while the accused gets Sgt Friday.

An investigater doesn’t pick sides. He gathers that data and lets the courts decide. But If he tells one party he believes them what does that do to the other? Well, the other party must be guilty!

English Jurist Sir William Blackstone famously said in 1765:

‘It’s better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted’

It seems the feminists are thinking just the opposite, it’s better to see 10 innocent men jailed than to let one guilty man free.

It’s worth noting that this hateful stuff doesn’t talk about complainants or accusers, it only talks about victims. It veers away from using typical vocabulary of investigations. Here’s what the Center for Prosecutor Iintegrity article has to say about this

The pro-conviction, pro-victim orientation of EVAWI’s 2006 manual and other documents is evident in EVAWI’s choice of terminology: the words “alleged,” “complainant,” or “accuser” never appear. In contrast, “victim” appears literally hundreds of times

In 2011 they started the Start by Believing Campaign funded by millions of dollars of grants, that is, taxpayer money, from the Violence Against Women folks. (DOJ) They used this campaign to do workshops and spread this philosophy to law enforcement and other professionals such as detectives, criminal investigators and even college administrators. ugh  What did they train them to do? They trained them to believe the accuser, no matter what. Ooops, I mean believe the victim.

So the VAWA folks are asking us to ignore the possibility of women lying and false accusing when science has shown us clearly that women do sometimes lie.

In fact the more likely form of aggression from women is not physical violence but relational aggression and what constitutes relational aggression? Lies, gossip, false accusations, mis-directions and more. So lying is a part of the female manipulative repertoire and the police are told to start by believing? Really?  For more info on relational aggression see a previous video.

2.
Another part of their philosophy is to demand that officers carry out what they call “trauma informed investigations.” In other words, be sensitive to the state of the accuser and adjust judgment due to her having been traumatized. They go on to list many symptoms that they say are due to trauma that investigators need to overlook since they may be due to trauma. Things like memory lapses, or fragmented memories, or even appearing incoherent. Why overlook these? Well, they claim that the neuroscience of trauma explains that trauma will induce such things as memory losses, and inconsistencies of the story. You know, the sorts of things that red flag an investigator into questioning the veracity of the complainant. Those things. But now the feminists are saying that the things that might be red flags are simply symptoms of her trauma and in fact prove she was traumatized! Wow. What a system! But sadly for feminists the facts of neuroscience seem to say something else. There are studies that indicate that trauma actually improves memory! Trauma is remembered more clearly than an uneventful lunch last week.  hmmmmm

If you want confirmation of the misuse of neuroscience look no further than a Harvard Feminist, Janet Halley, who is attacking this nonsense. Listen to what she says:

The remaining third of the document (and thus the entire remainder of the training) provides a sixth-grade level summary of selected neurobiological research.

What she calls a sixth grade summary others call junk science. And how do they use this junk science to get more convictions? She then goes on to explain how this is used. Remember, this is a Harvard feminist speaking:

The take-away lesson of these pages is that a victim of sexual assault may experience trauma, which in turn causes neurological changes, which in turn can result in “tonic immobility.” Tonic immobility, in turn, can cause the victim to appear incoherent and to have emotional swings, memory fragmentation, and “flat affect.” Her story “may come out fragmented or ‘sketchy,’” and she can be “[m]isinterpreted as being cavalier about [the event] or lying.” These problems, in turn, can cause police and sexual harassment investigators to dismiss serious claims, tragically because of symptoms of the trauma itself.

Can you see how devious this is? What we see is a push for the normalization of symptoms such as inconsistencies, incoherence, fragmentation, lack of memory or others as signs of having been traumatized. These claims happen to also be the very things that an investigator might use to dismiss charges. See how it works? The very things that might prove the defendant innocent are claimed to be due to trauma. What a racket!

So far we have that you must believe the victim and now that you must believe her even if she says things that indicate she is not telling the truth!

What, oh what could the last section be?

3.
The third wave of this zany propaganda is that investigations need to be “victim centered.” What they mean by this is that they believe the victim needs to have more control over the investigation and have input over what needs to be discussed and when. Mind blowing idea.

Imagine it was the other way around. Believe the accused, no matter what. Ignore his inconsistencies, give the accused more say in the way the investigation unfolds. Oh boy. It’s easy to see the preposterous nature of always believeing one side when we suggest to only believe the accused. No one would buy that and all would protest loudly. But the other way and people cheer, sign on, and take the pledge. Yes, these folks have been getting law enforcement to pledge they will start by believing.

These bullies are more than happy to force investigaters to become a one sided advocates to the complainant and to ignore inconsistencies while they crap on the accused.

Can you see how for years these zealots have been pushing the idea that accusers never lie and if you have the audacity to think they might be lying you are a real scumbag misogynist. They have been working the public, the police, our universities and the court system to subvert our system of justice. The most infuriating aspect of this is they are doing this with taxpayer money. Your money, my money. Where is the oversight? It is blatantly obvious that they are defying our constitution and our system of justice. Where are those who are willing to say NO to these bigots?

If we are going to give an advocate to one side of a criminal investigation it seems only fair that we do the same for the other. How many accused men could use an advocate? But that will never happen in our one sided hateful system that allows the accuser to be protected with anonymity while the accused is dangled in front of a hungry press that sells more papers by condemning and ridiculing an accused man. Wouldn’t it be more fair to give both accused and accuser anonymity? Not the way the world works now, no.

I don’t really mind family members, friends or therapists to take on the start by believeing support. That is fine and needed by both the accuser and the accused but where we need to draw a firm line is when we try to influence criminal investigations with ideological propaganda. That is way out of line and in need of immediate correction.

The last word goes to Superior court justice Anne Malloy who articulately summed up this situation:

Although the slogan “Believe the victim” has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.

Well said your honor.

I hope you’ll all come and join us on patreon where we’re starting to meet in video hangouts. All menaregood videos now go to patreon first for review, feedback, and suggestions before being finalized for youtube. We could use your input. Special thanks to J, Paul, and Peter for their helpful feedback on this one.

Join us.

And let’s not forget, men are good, as are you.