November 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Let’s have a look at a few facts relating to all of that (from the playlist of man, woman and myth).

Equality — War

Part 1 of 3
Part 2 of 3
Part 3 of 3

Here is another idea that is used over and over to re-write history (the people doing the rewriting call it “herstory”):

Hilary Clinton: “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” — in a speech at the First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, San Salvador, El Salvador, November 17, 1998

A question arises out of that.  If Hilary Clinton is so terribly concerned about all the poor women who have to raise children all by themselves, how come she does so much to fuel the war against the family, a war that deprives far greater numbers of women and children of husbands and fathers now and each year than any war during the last century ever did?
Well, things could be worse.  Let’s be grateful she’s only a junior senator and not a military justice.

The point made by Hillary Clinton was made even more forcefully by Louise Arbour, former Canadian Surpreme Court Justice, now involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, when she commented on the mass murder of Croatian men:

“My mental image of a mass grave was that it would be more of a trench, where the bodies would be lined up almost in file,” she recalled last week. “But these bodies were thrown together indiscriminately in a hole. Then I noticed their clothes. They were young men, and the first thing I thought about was their mothers.” Arbour is a mother of three herself, although “it would be too corny, too sentimental, to suggest that you go back to work suddenly fired up. But it made the tragedy very human, and that’s not something you get here in the office every day. I watched the bodies come out of the ground and it was like they were coming alive again. They were demanding to be identified. They were demanding,” she said, and there was not even a hint of sentimentality in her voice, “that their mothers be told.” (Full Story)

See how that works?  We must not mourn the men who lost their lives.  We must not have concern about the tortures they experienced and their killing.  We must mourn the pain of the mothers who lost their sons, for the simple reason that the primary victims of that war were the mothers who lost their children.  The children, especially given that they were almost exclusively men who were killed, are not what matters as much as does the pain of their mothers who survived and are therefore the primary victims of the Bosnian War.

More at “The execution of men who show cowardice in the face of the enemy”
____________
Today I went to participate in the Remembrance Day ceremonies at the Bruderheim Community Centre and at the cenotaph at the Bruderheim Moravian Church. A few speeches were given, and the sacrifices of men  and women who gave their lives in two major wars were duly recognized.  Exact statistics were not offered, except for those that were included in a handout, in which the sacrifices made by men were duly normalized down to those made by women.  In doing so, the fact that it was virtually and exclusively only men who made those sacrifices is duly and politically-correct obscured.  That is the purpose of the re-writing of history that began some decades ago and is continuing today.

Of course, if you watched the three video clips identified above, you know how that normalizing-down of men’s sacrifices, down to the level of women’s sacrifices in wars, cheapens the sacrifices and suffering by men. So, for the sake of keeping the correct history alive and not having anyone indoctrinate us into accepting what they wish us to come to believe in, let’s take a look at some of those numbers for the sacrifices made by Canadian men and women.  Let’s take an honest look at their respective contributions.

Quoting from that web page:

Canadian Casualties in World War II

Not only was Canada’s war effort in World War II far more extensive than that in World War I, it also had a much more lasting impact on Canadian society. By the end of the war, more than 1,000,000 Canadians (about 50,000 of whom were women [who were employed exclusively in service positions]) had served in the three services. Casualties were lower than in the previous war, with approximately 42,000 killed or having died in service and 54,400 wounded. [Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica]

The more-than 21,000 women who served in the Canadian army during World War II filled an array of roles, although they were excluded from combat duty. More than 2,000 were posted overseas and at least 25 lost their lives in the line of duty. Source: Toronto Star, Sep. 19, 2004. 01:00 AM “Amid fond memories, army women disband Proud wartime service created lifelong friends“

In contrast, more than a million Canadian men served in the Canadian Armed Forces during Word War II, and about 50,000 of them died in the service of their country, one out of every 20 that served, as opposed to the 25 women that died, one out of every 840 women that served, according to the numbers published in the article by the Toronto Star.

More: http://fathersforlife.org/hist/wwiicas.htm#Canada
_____________
Canada never had military draft or military draft registration for women.

Posted in Censorship, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

September 22, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Dr David Evans: Four fatal pieces of evidence (disproving the anthropogenic global warming nonsense)

Dr David Evans lays out four crucial pieces of evidence, and calls for a debate with Prof Andrew Pitman. But the evidence is so unarguably strong for skeptics, we know that the name-calling-team-who-want-our-money will do anything to avoid a public debate. If the evidence is “overwhelming” why are they so unwilling to explain it?  — Jo Nova

(Full Story )

Posted in Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

August 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It’s about time some politicians grew a backbone.

August 5, 2011

Politicians tweaking the nose of radical feminism

By Carey Roberts

Two weeks ago Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chair, met her match in one Rep. Allen West. It seems that Wasserman Schultz waited until West left the House floor, then cut loose with a liberal jeremiad for the congressman’s support of the GOP-supported Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

Apprised of the incident, the former Lieutenant Colonel fired back, calling her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the House of Representatives…If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face.”

It wasn’t the first time the libber-turned-congresswoman saw her grandstanding tactics backfire….(Full Story)

I don’t think that there are as many Canadian instances of radical feminism getting its come-uppance as illustrated in the long list Carey Robert describes in the article for the United States, but the political system does have a bit more freedom and democracy in the U.S.

In Canada, feminism was imposed by the government.  It did not grow from the grass roots as it did in most other nations, but consider that much of feminism was imported ready-made into Canada.  Perhaps, just maybe, it is possible to import the liberation from radical feminism to Canada as well.

_______________
Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Carey Roberts’ best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Posted in Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

August 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It is difficult to find a better introduction to the issues addressed in this Facebook album on Justice for Men than the following YouTube video (7 minutes, 37,468 views as of 2011 08 03) http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=57EWApOypIQ&feature=p​layer_embedded

Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, whether you have or are a husband, father, brother, son, uncle or granddad, you need to watch the video.

From the introduction to the YouTube video: “…Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide and protect have been having the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the needs of men. This short video will give you an introductory glimpse of some men’s issues.”

Men’s Issues

www.youtube.com

What are men’s issues? Watch this short flash video to get a beginning idea. Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide…

Posted in Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Suicides, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Single-Parent, Marriage, Books & Films, Men and Women Work, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Child Abduction, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

July 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

A July 25, 2011 press release by SAVE puts “Dr. Phil” into a totally different light: Dr. Phil’s Testimony was ‘Reckless and False,’ Group Charges.

“Dr. Phil’s” testimony was delivered during a July 13, 2011 hearing on the Violence Against Women Act held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Full Story)

Posted in False Allegations, Violence by Proxy, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

June 9, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Front-page cartoon published in the Dec. 17, 1942 issue of Der Stuermer.

The cartoon shows Jews being afraid of the truth (Purity, manifested by a woman), in relation to the theme of Der Stuermer on racial defilement.  You must realize that even someone who was one-eights Jewish was likely to be sent to the concentration camps and was at the very least barred from holding government jobs or working in any of the academic professions.  His career prospects were finished.  The only work he could have found would have been the performance of menial tasks.

The racial policies of the Nazis were in effect an Affirmative Action program for “Aryans”, with an Aryan being anyone who was obviously not Jewish or who could prove that his ancestors were not Jewish, going back for some generations.

To qualify for membership in the SS, one first of all had to prove, going back for eight generations, that one did not have a Jewish ancestor.

The curious aspect of the Nazi dogma was that women were revered as the spiritual and emotional centres of homes and families, much more so than that has ever been the case in other nations and other times.  Women were important to the Nazis for a number of reasons, such as: to give men something worth fighting for, to give men tangible emotional and physical comfort and support in the home-sphere, and to breed and raise children for the next war that was seen as being necessary and certain to come.

That is where national socialism differed from communism of the kind in place in the USSR and other communist nations who more closely followed the teachings of Marx and Engels.  The Nazis were a bit smarter than the latter, in as much as that they considered the Marxist dream of bringing all women into the workforce and thereby to increase production for the state to be impractical.  It was considered to be impractical because only with a woman in charge of her own children she raised with the support of her husband was it to be expected that the children would grow into worthy members of the State.

Still, women needed to be married to produce children, as illegitimacy and births out of wedlock were frowned upon.  For which reason, towards the end of the war — in the face of the enormous losses of men’s lives experienced throughout the war — Hitler considered to make polygamy legal and desirable and issued a memorandum to that effect through his personal secretary, Martin Bormann, on January 29, 1944.

Now let’s replay that a bit.  Women had to be married to men to have children.  SS-men needed to be married to women to have children.  For women to be able to marry SS-men, they had to become members of the SS and prove, with an enormous amount of digging for documents, birth certificates for their parents and all of the birth certificates of their grandparents and all ancestors, going back for eight generations, that they were not Jewish.  That was only one mandatory requirement.  Another one was that every aspiring member of the SS, including women who wanted to marry SS-men, had to pass a test proving that he was well versed in the doctrine of Nazi ideology.  Only then could marriage to an SS-man be entered into.

No woman could become an SS-member by default, through marriage.  If she wanted to be come married to an SS-man, she had to go through a lot of effort to first become a member of the SS.  The Jews in the front-page cartoon in the Dec. 17, 1942 issue of Der Stuermer had every imaginable reason to be afraid of Purity in the form of a woman, because if a woman would hold them to account, it would quite possibly be an SS-woman and certainly be one of many (nurses, secretaries, cooks, telephone operators, etc., etc.) when they entered the concentration camp.

Gudrun Schwarz, in “Eine Frau an seiner Seite : Ehefrauen in der SS-Sippengemeinschaft,” (”A Wife at his Side: Wives in the ‘SS-Clan-Community’”) reports that, “Between 1931 and 1945 about 240,000 woman married SS-men.” (p. 11)

Not one of those women became an SS-wife by accident.  Read the rest of the story to find out whether or how many of them were held to account.

Posted in Media Bias, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

May 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It puzzles me why Teri C. Stoddard from SAVE insists that we should thank Dr.Phil for running a show on domestic violence against men when that show derives entertainment value by showing battered men as whining idiots and demeans them.

Thank Dr. Phil for “Angry Women, Scared Husbands”

Today, Dr. Phil ran a show on Angry Women, Scared Husbands. Below is the show description from his website — http://drphil.com/   Angry Women, Scared Husbands   You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported. Dr. Phil continues his campaign to end the silence on domestic violence with two couples willing to open up about their abusive relationships. Steve says his wife, Monica, punches him and recently pushed him down a flight of stairs. He says he’s not only afraid of her abuse, he’s afraid of how he may retaliate in the heat of anger. The couple has nine children between them — two of whom are severely disabled — and they’re worried about the effect their explosive arguments have on their kids. Then, Charlie worries she’ll get so angry at her new husband, Gary, that she’ll lash out and inadvertently kill him. Gary says that everything he does makes his wife mad, and he just can’t win. Can these women learn to control their tempers and before something tragic happens? Learn more about Dr. Phil’s End the Silence on Domestic Violence campaign and pledge to become a silence breaker!   Please send Dr. Phil an email TODAY to thank him for courageously covering this important topic:

SAVE for Victims and Survivors

Teri Stoddard asserts that the Dr. Phil website states, “You may know that one in four women will become a victim of domestic violence, but did you know that one in nine men will too? Violence against men is rarely talked about and under-reported.” (Original source: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1661 )

I see no reason why anyone should thank “Dr. Phil” for that, because it is not true, but I heartily agree that we should thank him for telling the truth about domestic violence (DV) against men as soon as he begins to tell not just some but all of the truth about it and tells it correctly. Aside from that, I am reasonably certain that Teri Stoddard knows of many sources of information that proves beyond any doubt that, when it comes to partner violence, women are as likely and even a bit more likely to be violent against men as men are to be violent against women (e.g.: here is a list of abstracts of hundreds of such sources, at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ).

Contrary to what Dr. Phil asserts, when it comes to partner violence, DV is without a doubt an equal opportunity employer. Nevertheless, the website at http://drphil.com/ spares no effort to raise concern about DV against women and most certainly is not silent about the need to “end the silence” about that.

Even that is an erroneous assertion, namely that there is a need to end the silence about violence against women. I wonder which planet Dr. Phil lives on. There is no evidence on the one we live on of anyone being silent anywhere about DV against women. There most certainly is a lot of evidence that Dr. Phil and his employer (HARPO Productions) do all they can to raise awareness about violence against women and that they keep silent about the largest sector of women’s DV victims, children (but they do go on about violence by “parents” and “grandparents” against children, while they do not mention at all that most DV against children occurs in single-mother households).

The DV that causes so many children to become victims of violence is in the majority of the cases (70%) being committed by their mothers, with other women being the perpetrators in the majority of the rest of violence against children in families. Yes, the Dr. Phil Show and HARPO Productions most definitely need to end the silence about that. If they did, we should all thank them for it, but I am not holding my breath waiting for such thanks being deserved any time soon.

Posted in Battered Men's Shelters, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Media Bias, Censorship, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Men's Issues, Child Murder, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

May 25, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Many feminists allege that testosterone is more dangerous.  For that reason they assert that men hurt women more often than the converse, therefore “Men are bad, Women are good.”

Are things really that simple?  The objective reality of inter-personal violence is that women are somewhat more often violent against men than men are violent against women.  All hype aside, domestic or family violence between spouses or “partners” is just a very small portion of interpersonal violence.  Children who are victims of that sort of violence comprise a large sector of that, and most violence against children, by far, is committed by the children’s mothers — an inconvenient fact, which is why feminist propagandists never mention it or at best rarely touch on it.

Still, regardless of whether women or men are more likely to be violent against the other sex, only a minuscule fraction of women or men engage in it.  The vast majority of women and men are quite peaceful, harmless and live in peace with one another, if only the feminist propagandists let them do that, and even though the feminist propagandists do their very best to incite open war between them.

Some feminists go so far that they assert that women can be safe from men’s violence only if the sexes are completely segregated.  To their chagrin, they have difficulties coping with the reality that “domestic partnerships” by lesbians are the ones that experience on average far greater incidence rates of domestic violence than do all others. (Re: Female DV)

Just the other day, a woman insisted that it is a well-known fact that men are more violent than women are, and that men’s violence is caused by testosterone.

I promised that I would provide her with a few facts on what the truth is about that.  The following is from what I sent to her.

What she had asserted reflects the consequences of a considerable extent of feminist indoctrination.  Therefore I can’t resist setting the record straight.

I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage.

— Professor Howard S. Schwartz, of Oakland University in Michigan, USA, 2001

Professor Howard Schwartz once explained to me the difference between objective and subjective reality, between absolute and relative moral standards, with the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists) using the latter to destroy the truth.

That was about a dozen years ago, when Prof. Schwartz was working on the book that is mentioned in the following.  As profound as the quote I showed above is, it would be better to identify not only brilliant thoughts and sayings but also the context in which such things were expressed or published.

Howard Schwartz’ opinion on the crime of the feminist distortion of the truth in the latter half of the twentieth century was expressed in his book, “The revolt of the primitive: an inquiry into the roots of political correctness,” p. 15 (in the beginning of the fifth full paragraph on that page, accessible via this link).

With respect to the ideas the woman had expressed, here is the truth in relation to that, as reported by Prof. Howard Schwartz; and let me assure you that he is reporting it accurately.  I am fully aware of the details of every one of the incidents he describes, including having been in touch with some of the individuals he mentions (especially Drs. Lupri and Dutton and their respective research mentioned by Dr. Schwartz — for obvious reasons — as their research was done right here in Alberta), but here go the details of the research by Lupri and Dutton and how it was spun by the feminists.

That is as far as the excerpt shown on Google Books goes, but I should receive a copy of the book within a few days.

I told the woman that I will be happy to lend the book to her, whereby she will be enabled to address some of the impact that feminist propaganda has had over the years.  Of course, that will work for her only if she wishes to learn about the absolute truth and not just the edited, feminist version of it.

Here is another item that will interest you.  It is a copy of a draft for an article that the Report Newsmagazine had asked me to write for them (for reasons explained in the introduction to the article — the Report Newsmagazine stopped publishing at that time — the article did not appear in print, although the Internet version that you can access via the preceding link has been read many thousands of times and has been accessed 108 times at my website during the past 30 days alone, while it has also been posted at or linked to from a total of at least 77 web pages on the Internet).

Last, but not least, you may wish to have a look as well at this: “The big list: Female teachers with students: Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus,” WorldNetDaily Exclusive, May 17, 2011.

I told the woman furthermore that in case she thinks that the people I mentioned and whose work the cited material identifies present just isolated and distorted views, I have a book here that she may wish to read, “When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence,” by Patricia Pearson (a feminist, by the way), 1997, Viking.  Here is a book review.

It has happened that some people asked me “Why should I believe you?“.  The commentary at the preceding link explains that no one has to take my word for anything, but that the truth is out there whether I tell it or not.  Unfortunately, feminist sources of information on the sexes and on what they do to one another are most often anything but truthful.

–Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Books & Films, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Censorship, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

May 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Another book that should be on your book shelf is Stephen Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody: The WarAgainst Fathers, Marriage and the Family“.

The book covers considerably more than just family law. It is primarily about the systematic deconstruction of our society, but it does show the consequences of using family law to achieve that through the criminalization of fatherhood.

I have known Stephen Baskerville for many years. since he first made contact with fathers rights activists. He differed then already substantially from many other FR activists, in as much that right from the start he was not just angry about what had been done to him and to other fathers who had been expunged from their families.  He asked not only what had happened but why it had happened.

That soon led to the question of whether it was by accident or design that it was happening. Stephen Baskerville at first thought that the criminalization of fatherhood had to be an error in judgment, even though it was real, because no nation in its right mind would deliberately destroy what made it function well, namely to have fathers within families, rather than having families without fathers. However that was only a fleeting thought, and he did not dwell on it.

Many FR activists helped with the book over the years, even though there was at first not even a thought of producing one, but there were discussions, identification of facts and sources, suggestions for clarifications on many of the articles by Stephen Baskerville that were published over the years, and eventually Stephen Baskerville did more than just thank people “too numerous to mention” in the Acknowledgments of his book when it got published, by listing the names of all who had contributed over the years. I am proud of the fact that my name is on the list and that it is in good company.

Years ago, many of the people mentioned in the Acknowledgments of “Taken Into Custody” actively networked. If there was ever a moment in modern times during which a functioning FR movement was in the process of emerging, it was then, during the years “Taken Into Custody” was in the making. I am not proud of the fact that that was only for a moment and that a functioning FR movement did not come into existence, to pursue a common goal in a systematic, effective and organized fashion. However, not all is lost and there is reason for great hopes.

Feminism has fallen into disrepute, and a renewed, much more massive movement for the restoration of traditional moral standards is growing from the grass roots, to compete for a place in the sun of public respect and appreciation, if not admiration.  Feminism fell victim to its success.  People have become bored with it.  After all, feminism’s success is built on the myths that women are not equal and that they are victims of oppression by men.  Outrageous claims like that cannot be maintained for very long in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, after which only one possible conclusion is possible, namely that feminism is not about equal or equitable rights.  It is about something else. perhaps to make women “more” equal than others.

“Taken Into Custody” was published in 2007. Feminism’s popularity steeply increased from the 1960s until 1970, maintained itself (even declined a little) from 1970 to 1988 and rose steeply once more in 1992, declined somewhat and steeply rose once more in 1998 (link), after which it began to decline in earnest. The decline of the popularity of feminism took on serious proportions during 2008 (link), and that is even though in 2008 the media doubled its efforts to promote the ideology of feminism (link).  Mind you, along with the escalation of the media effort to praise feminism there came also increasingly more articles critical of feminism.  That helped to accelerate feminism’s decline, because all along it was clear that the giantess, feminism, had clay feet whenever she engaged herself or was forced to participate in open debate.  There is no effective defence against the truth:

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Books & Films, False Allegations, Maternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Divorce, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 1, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

An organization that propagates anti-male propagandist misinformation like that in the indicated article should not call itself “The Good Men Project”. A better name would be “Supreme Misandry”.

Are Men Natural-Born Cheaters? — The Good Men Project Magazine
goodmenproject.com

Men are more promiscuous than women, but that doesn’t mean we should buy the cultural fallacy that men are programmed to cheat. The vast majority of men are happily, naturally monogamous.

The last few years brought several headline stories about the cheating behavior of guys like John Edwards, (former) South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, and Tiger Woods. The public—or at least the pundits’—reaction included outrage but little surprise. After all, here in the U.S., we expect guys to cheat on their partners. Research on male sexual behavior confirms what we know—that men are more likely than women to have an extramarital affair.

The information in the article presents a pile of findings from feminist advocacy research served on unadulterated B.S. Adultery is not abuse when women do it, but it is bad only when men do it? Women do not lie?
If you believe that, you better have a look at this:
http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/women_do_not_lie.htm

Why do we need misandrist websites like that launched by The Good Men Project? You better consider how much funding such a thing gets and where that funding comes from.

Consider also why the hatred against men needs to be intensified. Do men need it? Does it do them injustice? Thinks about this and play around with comparable and comparative search terms at the following links:

1.) Misandry (hatred of men) vs. Misogyny (hatred of women)

http://www.google.ca/trends?q=misandry%2C+misogyny&ctab=0&geo=gb&geor=all&date=all&sort=0

2.) Jack the Ripper (he killed five prostitutes) vs. Elizabeth Bathory (she killed about or close to 650 girls and young women by torturing them to death) vs. Jane Toppan (a nurse and contemporary of Jack the Ripper who killed as many as or more than 90 patients for no other reason than that she wanted to set a record)

http://www.google.ca/trends?q=Jack+the+Ripper%2C+Elizabeth+Bathory%2C+Jane+Toppan&ctab=0&geo=gb&geor=all&date=all&sort=1

Although you probably know all you want to know about Jack the Ripper (unless you grew up on a different planet), you most likely know nothing about Elizabeth Bathory or Jane Toppan. The following links will help you to learn something about those two women (and there is a large lot of more women like that, as the first of the following links shows).

http://www.michaelnewton.homestead.com/BadGirls.html

http://fathersforlife.org/hist/elizabeth_bathory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Toppan

No one in their right mind will think that men need something like The Good Men Project to help out with promoting the good image of men. It won’t come from that place and organization.

Men need something like The Good Men Project Magazine like they need Ms Magazine or additional holes in their heads.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »