Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Men ignore their wives

Men ignore their wives and spend all their time at work... isn't that a common sentiment nowadays? Men are being shamed into working less and spending more time with their family in public, while in private, men are shamed into earning more so that the fat wife can get even fatter.

Just can't win, can you.

I was reading a blog about technology and here's what it says about the work/life balance.

All of silicon.com's 12-strong CIO Jury IT user panel agreed BlackBerrys and smart phones have improved their productivity but warned it can have a negative impact on work/life balance without judicious use of the off-switch.

I personally have my device setup for push email during the week between 7am and 6pm. In the evenings/weekends I manually synchronise when I feel appropriate or necessary. When I'm on vacation I still take my Windows Mobile device but switch synchronisation off completely. If I continue to work on vacation - how is it a vacation?

Now there are always critical situations that require me to work outside of those core hours but I can choose to change how/when I access email and other systems.

The overwhelming majority of people who choose to accept tethers into their personal time are men. So basically, according to the rules of disparate impact, you are talking about men when you say that these devices tilt the work/life balance.

The man's needs are never thought about - he works and earns money for his family, and he comes home to spend time with his family. He is naught but a sacrificial goat, sacrificed for the betterment of his wife and kids.

In other news, women are equal to men, and men must allow their wives to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them. If they don't, they are weak and must be discarded.

Anyway, the implication is that the man is a fool and not worthy of pussy and a female's company if he doesn't give her his full attention and lick her boots when they are together - whether on a date in the beginning, or years after marriage and kids.

"I think it just takes a little common sense to use these tools outside the office. If you are constantly distracted from your "significant other" checking email and taking phone calls, then you need to learn to set proper priorities."

"You just have to know when to put the toys away and focus on your life away from the office. And most importantly, learn to ignore the "inbox" alarm when she's talking to you!"

"Exactly it's all about balance and learning to detach yourself away from."

"Its all about choices.
If you choose to work during off hours/weekends then its your own fault and not of the device(s) you carry."

This is insane!

Here are my comments...

People are not accepting the flip side of this coin.

This is work we are talking about, not an idle pursuit or a mistress. Work is what pays the bills, and if I need to be on-call when I'm out with my wife, she should be able to accept it since if I was out of a job I wouldn't even need the cellphone.
Some of us earn our salary by being on-call, some of us want to be there when the company needs us so we can get promoted faster and earn more.

Hardly anybody is a workaholic just for the sake of being a workaholic.

It would be like calling a mother evil for attending to the kids when they want attention. You wouldn't do that would you? You would rightly chastise the man for wanting his wife's attention when the kids need it.

The same goes for the job that puts the food on the table.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Women lie, cheat and steal

Like I said in my previous post...

She is as much at home in a web of lies and deceit as a fish is at home in the water. Female supremacists claim that women lie to make others feel good or so others don't feel as bad, but its clearly obvious that they don't give two bloody hemorrhoids about anyone else's feelings. The entire article can be summed up as "Waah waah woe is me, I feel so sorry... for myself."

Here we have an article stating the obvious...

HALF of all women would lie to their husbands or partners to keep their relationship going if they became pregnant by another man, a survey said today.

They also said four out of ten (42%) would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their partner.

The new survey of women's attitudes to truth, relationships, and behavior, said the overwhelming majority (96%) admit to lying.

Almost half (45%) of the 5,000 questioned told the researchers for That's Life! magazine they tell "little white lies" most days.

One bizarre finding was that a third of women (33%) said they would stay with their husband if they found out he was a "secret transvestite", but only half that number (17%) would put up with him if he refused to wash.

And here comes the excuses... don't women get ashamed of defending lowly sluts and whores with no morals of their own to speak of?

Jo Checkley, editor of That's Life! magazine, said: "Modern women just can't stop lying, but they do it to stop hurting other people's feelings.

"It could be argued that these little white lies simply make the world go round a little more smoothly. But to tell a man a baby is his when it's not or to deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn't want a baby is playing Russian roulette with other people's lives."

Yeah whatever, shut it bitch. We know exactly why you lie. You are not fallen angels sent to earth to spare poor humans the hurt of having their feelings hurt, you are just pathetic little compulsive liars who couldn't tell the truth if your Dad's life depended on it.

The rest of the article continues with the rest of all the lies that women tell on a daily basis. Read on if you'd like.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Woman physically abuses children on plane

Ah yes, in a world where fathers are viewed with suspicion and men aren't allowed to sit near children because they might be pedophiles, women commit child abuse with impunity. Just look at the headline and how they try to put it in the least offensive way possible.

Mom charged with beating kids on plane

A California mother was charged with beating her children, ages 2 and 4, on a commercial aircraft and interfering with the flight crew.

Tamera Freeman, 38, who appeared in court on Wednesday, was arrested on Monday at Denver International Airport upon her arrival on a Frontier Airlines flight from San Francisco, California.

An FBI affidavit quotes passengers as saying Freeman appeared intoxicated, was abusive with her children before she boarded the plane and repeatedly hit and yelled at them during the flight.

The affidavit also alleges Freeman threw a drink at the feet of a flight attendant and followed her into an aisle yelling and pointing her finger, causing the attendant, who had intervened on the children's behalf, to feel threatened.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's staff, which is prosecuting Freeman, said the children were handed over to a relative.

If convicted on the felony charges, Freeman faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, but under federal sentencing guidelines her sentence is likely to be much less severe.

So she got drunk and hit her kids. What a fucking wonderful mother isn't she. And the crew didn't even do anything! Can you imagine what the reaction would've been if a father was doing the same to his children? He would have been hogtied and thrown off the plan at 35,000 feet!

Something tells me she's not going to get much punishment at all. After all, she's a member of the virtuous and angelic and self-sacrificing sex right? What a fucking scam women have got going on, it is beyond belief.

I wonder if we'll remember this story next Mother's Day and ask the world, do Moms really deserve a Mother's Day?

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Blog transition to Wordpress

From now on, I will be simulposting to both Blogger and Wordpress.

Blogger - http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com/

Wordpress - http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com/

With Fred X's departure today, I am very worried about this blog being deleted by Google. Anyone know of another blog service that values freedom of speech and won't delete politically-incorrect material?

To the rest of you bloggers, you should strongly consider some alternative, given Google's flexibility with censorship when it suits them. Wordpress also has more features, some that I really like, including comment editing.

UPDATE: I'm going to disable comments on this blog (Blogger) from the next post onwards, so that there isn't a mess with people posting comments in both blogs.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Woman cheats, has baby, boasts about it

This woman cheated on her "The One" (the ox chosen by her to pull her load for the rest of her natural life) with a Mexican fisherman who was 20 years older than her.

Could it be any truer that women only look for niceness, stability and a temperate demeanor when it is time to settle down? Men all over the MRA movement are pissed because American females don't like nice guys like girls from other cultures do, and they are angry that these females spend their prime years fucking and sucking thugs and then want to settle down with a nice guy in the suburbs when the tits start to sag.

But it is only different because the Western world is rich enough to afford it. In a country where even the lowliest of peons can have a TV, a computer and a can of beer in the cupholder, women can afford to fuck exciting thugs until its time to settle/settle down. Of course, the more attractive ones quickly learn the value of their cunt and use it to its full extent, but the more traditional MRA's praise those women.

Women accuse men of having the Madonna/Whore complex, but as usual, it is projection. These women willingly have wild and crazy sex with other men, but don't want to do the same with their husband, because "then he would want me to do that all the time." Can you think of a more selfish thing to do?

These women have the sucker/fucker thing down pat - one type of man to pay for the drinks, one type of man to fuck after the drinks.

So anyway, this cunt goes to Mexico, fucks a fisherman, has his baby and tells her boyfriend that its his - going to the extent of putting him down as the father, and doubtless he will be on the hook for child support for many years all thanks to this evil cunt's lying.

What must it be like to conceive a child during a secret holiday romance, and then have to confess to your long-term partner that you have betrayed him?

That was the dilemma facing Francesca Morosi, 37, when she discovered she was pregnant after an affair on holiday in Mexico. Here, Francesca, who lives in Leicester with her son Julian, aged four, and runs her own financial services business, tells her extraordinary story.


Here are some excerpts I culled from the way-too-long article.

I have no doubt I was deeply in love with him. I remember telling my mother that I'd met 'The One', and he in turn told me that I was the first woman he'd fallen in love with.

Sean dreamed of going to central America to help the street children of Mexico City. We agreed this could form part of a grown-up gap year, so in January 2002, we both quit our jobs - I was working in accounting - and went to Mexico.

He wasn't, of course, my usual bookish type. He was very different to Sean and with his angular face and skinny legs, he wasn't even remotely attractive. Yet there was something about him which was compelling and I found myself looking forward to seeing him when he came in for a drink.

Especially as Sean and I had not been getting along that well since leaving Mexico City. Despite our breathtaking surroundings, there was tension between us and so when Cecilio invited me to join him on a fishing trip, I agreed.

I never planned for anything to happen, but afterwards, as we cooked fish on an open fire on a secluded beach, Cecilio kissed me. To my amazement, I found myself responding, and, carried away by the passion of the moment, soon we were making love on the sand.

Afterwards I felt incredibly guilty at my betrayal of Sean.

Far from our beach tryst being just a brief encounter, it was the start of six weeks of madness during which I slipped away from Sean while he worked in the restaurant, to see Cecilio every day.

He challenged me about my friendship with the fisherman. 'Is anything going on?' he demanded. 'Don't be ridiculous!' I lied. 'How could you think that of me!' To my relief Sean, who'd always been on the jealous side, accepted my denial.

But a distance grew between us and I'd push him away when he approached me sexually. On the few occasions we did sleep together, I'd be thinking of Cecilio. That would make me feel guilty, too. 'What kind of woman am I?' I'd think, hating myself for being so deceitful.

Sean could tell something was wrong, but was stunned when I said I thought I should have a pregnancy test - even more so when it was positive and I burst into tears. I felt panicked. A baby was the last thing I'd planned and I didn't know who the father was!

Though Sean told me how happy he was, I could not have been more miserable and wept hysterical, guilty tears. The two men I'd slept with could not have looked more different and I knew I would not be able to pass off my baby as Sean's if he wasn't his.

I knew he was devastated, but I did not want to break him completely. 'How many times were you with him?' he demanded. 'Only a couple of times,' I lied. I couldn't face telling him it had gone on every day for six weeks.

She is as much at home in a web of lies and deceit as a fish is at home in the water. Female supremacists claim that women lie to make others feel good or so others don't feel as bad, but its clearly obvious that they don't give two bloody hemorrhoids about anyone else's feelings. The entire article can be summed up as "Waah waah woe is me, I feel so sorry... for myself."

Sean must have felt devastated when he learned that she cheated on him. This is what I hate about the societal double standard - a man must prove himself continually, be exhorted to "be a man" and is constantly being judged, while women, they just are.

To be a man implies acting against your own interests, such as to work in a dangerous job to provide for one's family, or to go to war to slake a politician's thirst for blood.

To be a lady (not a woman) implies serving your own interests, such as not having sex outside of marriage so men can't get free sex, not wearing revealing clothes so that men can't get a free peek at her boobies.

Is it any wonder then, that women are the selfish sex?

Perfectly OK to be a slacker if you're the right sex

While researching my last post about the Juggling Act, I happened across this article: 'Beta Moms' drop the juggling act. Looks like there's a fucking epidemic of lazy bitches all over the media - I also found this MSNBC article.

So, now, if you're a member of the royal sex, its perfectly alright to be lazy, proudly call yourself a slacker and neglect your duties.

But sociologists, including Melinda Forthofer of the Institute for Families in Society at the University of South Carolina-Columbia, say there's no evidence Alphas are actually better mothers.

And now an anti-Alpha movement is taking hold. Those moms have it together sometimes. They may forget to send back permission slips or lose track of their turn for team snacks. They don't necessarily have the catchy name, though some call themselves Beta Moms or even Slacker Moms as they urge their peers to chill.

When women hold the power of divorce, of child support, of being able to perform extra-late-term abortions and not having to answer to anybody, you tend to start wallowing in your own shit. It becomes a Lord of the Flies situation - one tends to become barbaric when the reward-punishment system is broken, when the civilizing effect of societal judgement is removed.

Of course they urge their peers to chill! This is what the entire herd mentality thing is all about - some women start thinking a certain way, and if its good, the rest of the herd follows like drooling cows. This is why NOW is so successful and this is why female supremacists constantly talk about the Patriarchy, because they just can't imagine that men wouldn't be just as evil as them if given the chance.

And of course their fathers wouldn't say anything would they? Half of them are petrified of being thrown out of their house with the clothes on their back, the others are too busy licking their wife's boots, seeking approval like a fucking puppy dog.

This is a really long article. Really fucking long article trying to justify lazy females, because obviously it was written by a woman (how many fluff pieces aren't?), picking out other women who back up the claim.

Woman, 39, a somehow important but largely irrelevant person, says that other women are, in fact, right. News at 11.

You know, if you do a Google image search for slacker, I bet you're mostly going to find men. After all, its not men who stay home and live off another person's hard work and claim to be worth $140,000 a year.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Juggling Act

Multi-tasking or scatter-brained?

I'm reading Warren Farrell's "Why Men Earn More" and he makes an excellent point about the "juggling act", which, along with the second shift is part of the women-as-victims popular culture nowadays.

Thousands of articles and cartoons focus only on the women's juggling act. These articles and cartoons play upon and reinforce society's failure to have equal compassion for men; in the process, it helps make us vulnerable to a second bias - that "women are better managers because women are better jugglers" of their dual role as mothers and workers.

In reality, men and women juggle in different ways. As a rule, moms do more juggling at home and dads do more at works.

Mom's juggling at home is well recognized: While the laundry and dinner are on, she's nursing her infant, answering a cell phone, and using eye contact and six fingers to give her seven-year-old permission to visit a friend next door but be back by six for dinner. Men are more likely to contribute to the home in some 50 different ways that are less predictable, more as-needed: repairing, assembling, remodeling; driving under dangerous conditions or when everyone is tired; working outdoors shoveling snow, raking leaves, mowing lawns, coaching kids; climbing ladders to paint or put up screens, check out a roof, or get something from the attic. These kinds of contribution go largely unrecognized because many of them, like driving, coaching, and assembling, are not measured by "housework" studies, so they don't make headlines and we think of only women as having a "second shift."

Men's juggling, though, is more likely to occur at work than at home. For example, although women today are as likely as men to win public office when they seek it, men are still much more likely to seek it. Yet every politician is a walking, talking juggling act - expected to juggle hundreds of conflicting interests yet avoid conflict-of-interest. Governors, for example, juggle the taxpayers' demand for the best education systems and highways; they try to attract companies to their state to pay those taxes by keeping down the taxes companies pay. They cannot stay elected unless they speak and listen most every night to another constituency, yet they are accused by their family of spending every night taking care of everyone except the family. If they don't juggle well, they will soon find themselves praising family values and watching their own family fall apart. The juggle winning with losing-even-if-they-win.

Its a good summary, because everyone recognizes the contributions of women, especially managers who then go on to hold those women to a lower standard and are more flexible with letting the women go home early or come in late or have erratic hours.

If a manager doesn't let women act as they please, either he or the company is accused of being archaic, inflexible and insensitive to women's needs. Basically what this means is that feminists don't give a shit about men's needs, but women's needs are elevated to this-must-be-resolved status. Of course, chivalry then kicks in, and kicks men in the balls.

Women have fertile imagination

Fertile imagination - that's newspeak for "lying bitches."

We have another fucking false rape accusation. This cunt made up a story which had no basis in reality and no connection to what actually happened, and she would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling cops who abuse women by demanding petty, male things like evidence.

Police say woman made up rape story, point to parking lot video for proof

She said she was abducted during trip to get her car tags in Williamson County

FRANKLIN — It sounded like a heinous, frightening crime.

A woman told police she was abducted in broad daylight, driven to an unknown location and repeatedly raped. But that woman, Mary E. Chafin, has been charged with filing a false report after detectives could find no evidence supporting her claim.

Detective David Dixon, lead investigator in the case, said he was baffled by the woman's story but is even more perplexed about why someone would make this up.

"We can't figure out for the life of us why," Dixon said. "Unless it was something to get attention, I don't know why she did this."

Chafin, 30, who lives in Fairview, was released from Williamson County Jail Monday after posting $7,500 bail. She is charged with a felony level of filing a false report. Chafin's story brought emergency medical personnel, six police officers, sheriff's deputies and firefighters to the scene. Dixon arrested her on Friday.

"She did not want to talk to us when we served the warrant for her arrest," Dixon said. "She screamed and carried on. She may believe what happened is real."

Chafin could not be reached for comment.

On July 11, Chafin called 911 and said she had just been abducted, raped and placed into the driver's seat of her car after the two-hour ordeal.

Chafin told officers she was kidnapped while in the parking lot of Williamson County Administration Complex, where residents purchase and pick up car tags. Chafin said she was putting stickers on her license plate when someone put a sack or bag over her head. She claimed that she was picked up, put into a vehicle and driven 15 minutes to an unknown location. Chafin told police there were three abductors, but she never saw their faces because the sack or bag never came off her head.

"She said that over the next hour to hour and a half she was raped repeatedly by one or all three men," Dixon said. "She claimed she fought these guys fiercely."

Chafin said the men brought her back to the parking lot and put her in her van, then left. She called her boyfriend and a family member, drove to a pharmacy and called 911.

Dixon said doctors at Williamson Medical Center examined Chafin and found no signs that she had been in a struggle or raped.

The next day, Dixon examined video surveillance taken at the parking lot. The detective said Chafin could be seen parking her van, getting her stickers, applying them to her license plate and leaving.

You can't figure out why she did this, Dixon?
Why do you care? Do you care so much when its a man caught lying to the police? And I do hope you're booking her for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, both felony offences if I remember correctly.

Mitchell Kline, you tool, do you routinely try to contact men accused of rape or even lying to the police for "their views" on the story? Or are you happy to treat them as guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt?

Excellent point about Child support

You know how Child support debt is retroactive to the day of birth, how it is unforgivable thanks to the Bradley Amendment, and basically once a man is on the hook he is not let off for any reason, including DNA evidence. DNA evidence is good enough for those falsely accused of rape and murder but not for someone convicted of child support.

Child support can also drive a man to kill. The problem with child support as it is applied today is that it is not really child support - it is a form of mommy support. You can dress it up all you want in gender-neutral words, but its a cold reality that women are awarded custody far, far more often and when they aren't, they default (if an effort to collect is made in the first place) much, much more often. When women collect welfare, WIC (now there's a sexist, government-as-husband program if I ever saw one), food stamps et al, they can only spend it on certain items and they are held accountable if they cheat.

Ain't no way you're gonna show that the $1000 handbags, or even that case of Tecate Light is for the benefit of the child. But with child support collected from the man? Its hers to do with as she pleases.

So child support is either a replacement or a side-dish to alimony. 

bluegrass over on SYG made an excellent point about unforgivable child support cases, in which a man is still on the hook years after the children have grown up and moved out. The primary justification is that the single mom expended the money to raise the child and the child support is rightfully hers because that money was spent in the past and can not be un-spent now.

So basically what you're saying then is that in a case like this, the mother is then as morally reprehensible as the father -- in your opinion that is.

So growing up the kid doesn't get the benefit of that money because dad spends it on himself.

Then when the kid's grown, he still doesn't get it because mom spends it on herself.

I'm a parent though not divorced.  I've never heard of this idea that one can be "reimbursed" for taking care of one's own children.
could you please explain?

I know of quite a few cases where, in states where the father has to pay child support till 21 if the kid decides to attend college, the woman keeps the entire child support check for herself. The kid is burdened with crushing student loans and debts even when the father is paying.

After all, the mother is under no obligation to spend it on the child, how can you expect to oppress her by holding her accountable, you patriarchal oppressing bastard!

She may even lie to the kid and tell her that her father is a bastard who doesn't pay. After all, mothers are encouraged to lie and its not like she hasn't used the kids as pawns before.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Man arrested for not having grass on his lawn

WHITE CLOUD -- A Newaygo County man could spend another weekend behind bars if he doesn't take care of his yard.

David Burch says he tried to seed the yard last fall but it wouldn't take root. This all stems from a contractor who failed to sod the yard in the first place. Now a judge is saying, do the yard or do the time.

"The people who work at the court, at the jail, thought it was funny," Burch said. "They said there had to be more. I said, 'No, it's just because I don't have grass growing.' They said, 'You're in here for that?'"

He claims he is not skirting the law. Burch said the contractor for his new house is responsible for the lawn. But a White Cloud city ordinance states otherwise.

"This has been in the courts for over a year," said White Cloud Police Chief Roger Ungrey. "I believe Mr. Burch has made an attempt. He did bring me in some receipts for grass seed."

But when it didn't grow, a county judge ordered the yard planted. It never happened. Again this April - no sprouts. Then, in jail, an inspiration. Burch is sodding his yard with donated turf.

"He has been working on it," Ungrey said. "However, he remains to this day noncompliant."

That is because the backyard must also be green.

But will the patchwork sod qualify as a lawn? "It's not your normal sod that you would have, that you would go to a sod farm and purchase," Ungrey told 24 Hour News 8. "So that remains to be seen. I can't answer that question."

Burch was back in court Thursday. The judge told him he has two weeks to complete the job. If not, it's another weekend back in jail.

Better watch out if you're a man. It doesn't take much to put you behind bars and give you a criminal record nowadays. All this while women who murder and rape children get probation and get to blame everything on the closest man.

Not much at all.

Fawcett society wants equal outcome for less work

Two NOW members in a passionate embrace

A female supremacist organization wants women to receive money and benefits disproportionate to what they pay in. What else is new? This is what feminism is about - it has been about ME ME ME, US US US, WOMEN WOMEN WOMEN since day one.

This is just the latest episode, like an angry pig who starts whining and oinking when she is led away from the feeding trough even though she is full and its the other animals' turn to feed.

Now they want women to get retirement benefits equal to men, even though women don't contribute as much as men because of their propensity for taking the easy jobs, for retiring earlier, and taking long career breaks to "find themselves" and having babies.

Credit goes to neonsamurai on SYG for this piece:

For example, the Fawcett Society is currently campaigning for equal pensions for women. "For every pound of income received by men in a pensioner couple, women receive less than 32 pence." They claim that this is unfair and are campaigning to prevent female OAP's living in poverty.

What they forget to mention is that most pensions in the UK are based on how much you contribute to them and also the fact that the retirement age for men is 65 and for women 60. Men in the UK work an average of 14 years more in their (shorter) life times than the average woman and contribute far more to the countries GDP. That's bearing in mind that the average Briton works around 39 years of their life.

So what the Fawcett Society want is an 'equal' outcome for less work. They're not pushing for women to work longer and contribute more, they're just picking bits of 'equality' and demanding they have it.

You either have equality or special treatment. You can't have one and claim it's the other.

You know, its the same as the fuss over the earnings gap - women make the choices that lead to them earning less, they save less because they are sure that a white knight is going to fight off the evil debt collectors for them in return for a chance to fuck that used up soggy pussy, and they retire earlier even though they live longer.

And then they have the fucking gall to say that women are oppressed into not saving as much and into not earning as much. Fucking bullshit.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support

Yeah. You read that right. He drove all the way from Arizona to Ukiah in California and shot the succubus in the head. And then he walked next door to the courthouse and surrendered. You gotta hand it to him. There's only so much abuse a man can take before reacting. And this is the kind of man that pushes back, violently.

But of course, since he's the wrong gender, the politically-incorrect sex, and the abuse was done under the auspices of the law, heck, the system is what made it possible for the "remote-control" abuse to happen, he is going to suffer. Just imagine the judge's glee as he sentenced him to four life terms.

When a man controls his wife's finances, its domestic violence.

When a woman controls her husband's finances, its child support or alimony and it is business as usual.

UKIAH, Calif.—A man convicted of killing his former girlfriend because she was trying to collect two decades' worth of child support payments was sentenced to life in prison.

Howard Raff, 55, was sentenced Tuesday by a Mendocino County Superior Court judge to four life terms in prison.

Raff was convicted in June of first-degree murder with three special allegations—lying in wait, murder for financial gain and using a firearm—in the shooting death of Virginia Larkin, 60.

Raff said in a videotaped confession that he drove from Arizona to California to kill Larkin. He described walking into the Ukiah law office where she worked in November of last year, shooting her in the head, then turning himself in at the courthouse.

He told jurors the killing was justified because Larkin was trying to bankrupt him. After dodging the court-ordered $200-per-month payments for 22 years, the debt had grown to $85,500 with interest.

"It is incomprehensible to the court how a decision to kill can be motivated by court-ordered child support," Judge Ronald Brown said at the sentencing.

Raff said he planned to appeal his conviction.

Can you believe that? Its so terribly sad that two lives had to be wasted because of an unfair system which profits by nailing men to crosses. How many more men and women need to die before the bigwigs agree that it is time to stop whipping the slaves? Of course, the importance of men is not the same as that of women... I think one woman dying is worth 100 or 150 men. Can anyone refresh me on what the current comparable worth ratio is?

The man probably made a choice - either slave away for the next two decades to pay the ever-growing amount (can you imagine what the interest on $85,500 would be?) with the court-appointed thugs making his life a living hell, with prison only a bout of unemployment away, or end it all and make a statement.

This man is one of the walking wounded. But since he dared to visit harm on a member of the royal sex, he is being punished accordingly.

I wonder how many life terms Clara Harris got? Or how about Mary Winkler? How about any of the numerous women who hire other men to murder their husbands?

Oh wait, they are not punished at all. The same way that a white person could kill a negro and get away just a few short decades ago, women are getting away today.

Raff is planning to appeal - my guess is that he planned to sacrifice himself for the greater cause of men's rights. Its incredibly hard to penetrate the lace curtain in matters like this, but I'll be waiting for more news about his plight.

Choices for women

Suckerfish gave me this link yesterday. Its full of various women gloating over how they have it made, how they have a buffet table of choices and they can make whatever choice they want with no real consequences to them because of all the safety nets they have.

new majority of working moms in the United States would be happiest in part-time jobs, with fewer seeing full-time work as an ideal, according to a study released today.

In a notable shift during the past decade, working mothers overwhelmingly view fewer work hours as the best option for their busy lives with young children. The proportion of mothers who feel that way jumped 12 percentage points since 1997.

And they acknowledge men in the same way that a Queen acknowledges her slaves. The slaves are there like a pillar holding up a roof, and her empire is built on their back, but they amount to nothing in her eyes.

"We found that the younger people are more family-centric than boomers are," Galinsky said. "Most young people have seen someone lose their job, and they have lived through 9/11. It's not that they don't want to work. They just want to work more flexibly."

Rachel Schumacher, 36, of the District agrees that her generation is a factor. She feels lucky to have negotiated a part-time arrangement at the nonprofit organization where she is a policy analyst. This has meant some financial cutbacks and compromises.

"It lets me keep a hand in my career, and it allows me to be home more with my son, who is my priority," she said.

Schumacher's mother worked full time, without such an option, she said. A generation later, "we have the luxury of making these choices because of all the blood, sweat and tears our mothers put in," she said.

Its the same way with women. They barely acknowledge that there's almost always a man behind a woman's ability to choose. There was a father behind her ability to choose college, there was a boyfriend behind her ability to choose to leave her wallet behind every time she went out, and there were policemen, bouncers and countless unpaid bodyguards bound by the code of chivalry behind her choice to wear that revealing slinky little dress and lead on every guy in the bar.

The same is true of a mother's choice to work, not work, to work full-time or to work part-time. It is her husband's work that enables her to be able to make that choice, to enable her to become a parasite, to suck his lifeblood.

"Nowadays, in this society, you've got to be home with teenagers. You need to know what they are doing, You need to know their friends. You need to supervise their phone calls," said Wyche, a teacher. "You cannot do any of that if you are not in the house."

Yeah, teenagers sure are home all day including normal business hours, making calls using the phone in the living room and inviting friends over. Is this woman even connected to reality?

Many women get so used to not working that they would rather work their slave to death than to get their own hands dirty. Let's just say I have a friend who's mother doesn't have anything keeping her at home - the kids are grown up and moved out, and now she's trying to fill the emptiness by traveling to see them and being a good grandparent. No doubt that most people appreciate her being there for the new parents and the grandchildren, but people don't appreciate the fact that her husband is slaving away right now to pay for those air tickets. He is slaving away at that very moment to make enough money for both of them.

It is understandable that they came from a different era, one in which the woman was not expected to work, but its about common sense and a goddamn sense of honor ya know? The husband was likely to get laid off and it probably would have helped a ton if she took some of the bread-winning burden off him by going to work herself, but noooo, her daytime soap operas were far more important. Its not like she can cook and clean house when she's off with the grandkids anyway.

She's only too happy to hasten the inevitable heart attack by not taking responsibility for the financial state they're in and instead dumping it all on him.

And before you say "AW are all fucked in the head," no they are not American. They don't even live here. Every culture in the world treats men like disposable slaves.

You know, I believe that there are two kinds of MRA's and marriage strikers... look for my next post.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

How things have changed

I rented a movie last weekend from the library. As the library is free to use and I rented a little late, there weren't many good titles available. Most people had already rented the interesting stuff.

Or so I thought.

I picked up a classic movie that I had heard about, but never watched or knew the story of. The movie's name is "My Man Godfrey".

Its about Godfrey, a "forgotten man" who is hired by a young, wealthy eccentric girl as the family's new butler. Godfey brings sanity and a dose of reality to the spoiled rich Bullock family.

I had basically given up on movies and TV. With serials like King of Queens and movies like My Super Ex-Girlfriend, turning on the TV felt like kicking myself in the balls repeatedly.

But not so with this movie. There were actually men portrayed as sane, loving and honorable people! Not one step removed from the family pet, a la Tim Allen in Shaggy Dog.

The men were portrayed as having a variety of emotions and reactions, and the women were portrayed the same way! Imagine that, equality before the ERA, before the female supremacy movement.

While watching it, you didn't get the overwhelming feeling of superciliousness that just drips from the TV nowadays. I rather enjoyed the mother's airheadedness and the sister's false sense of superiority that crumbled at the end of the movie. 

Its telling that women were never exclusively portrayed as the dumb buffoons men are portrayed as today, while some people blow it off by saying, "Oh well, the pendulum has swung too far." Bull fucking shit! Women were always on top. Just because washing machines and electricity hadn't been invented by oppressive men in the 1800s doesn't mean that men were off hobnobbing and smoking cigars while the women slaved.

No! It was the exact opposite!

But revisionist history ensures that every movie coming out has to have man-hating baked into it, and nowhere is it more obvious than in the remakes and sequels. Disney is especially guilty of twisting and turning classic plots to make men always the evil ones.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

"Males should be restricted to a total of 10% of the population"

Here is an excellent post by malerightsnetwork, an MRA from Ireland who has a few thoughts on what the future could hold for men in a feminist state.


This is exactly what is going to create what Arnold Toynbee has called horizontal schism: you can compare it to a mirror, broken in two pieces, horizontally. Then with the incoming flux of external and hostile forces, such as Islam, creating a vertical schism, you have all the necessary elements to complete the destruction, or deconstruction of a society.

I agree with you up to where you spoke of the "incoming flux" of people of from Islamic backgrounds. I've said before that the Islam issue is hugely overstated. As one poster said in another thread, the morals of Muslim women will degrade just as those of Western women has, with the availability of the whoring Pill and pro-female educational and divorce systems.

Take even a country like Ireland. Fifty years ago it would have been quite isolationalist - culturally and economically. We would have taken the Catholic doctrine as serious - or perhaps even more so - than most Muslim Middle Eastern countries take their religious doctrine. Since the economic boom of the 1980s and 1990s, our relativist, secular, hedonistic culture is practically indistinguishable from that of Britain or the US, who have sustained such a culture for decades longer. It is not very difficult to break down a morally conservative country or society. It is very easy to instill a liberal culture, which invariably in the West, becomes a Matriarchal culture.

I agree with you that society is undergoing "destruction and deconstruction", and society is already very advanced in that direction. Though one could argue that it the traditional Patriarchal Western culture that is being destroyed, more than any general downfall. It is only when the economy collapses - and I do not predict it will - that chaos really occurs. Nothing brings a society to its knees like economic collapse.

I don't agree entirely with this:


we will be watching it all come down while sipping our cognac and smoking our cigar

If by "we", you mean, the male members of society, I don't think we will have such a comfortable vantage point. Rather, it's more likely that we'll be rotting in the ballooning State prisons (friendly Gulags): already, 1 in every 100 American males are in prison. Or, it's possible we are homeless and destitute as degrees become a necessity as the decline of the manufacturing industry and the rise of services continues. It's possible that employers (which will be either headed by a female, or have a dominant pro-female culture) will openly discriminate against men.

Already, Allied Irish Banks, one of Ireland's top 2 banks has a female-to-male employee ratio of 67:33. This would be quite representative of the financial services sector.

It's possible too that we are sent to die by the millions in wars "manufactured" by the Feminist Government to get rid of the male population. The right of men to own property could be completely withrawn; men could be ordered to work for nothing. (Of course, Divorce Law will have stripped away most of male wealth by then anyway.) Men could be quite literally, slaves.

The female proportion of the population could be 60 or 70% in a couple of decades time, especially in the larger cities. Millions of men have already died by suicide. There could be a preference towards female children and a trend to "abort the males".. There could be a biochemical mass sterilisation of men.

I see all of these things as a possibility. Men are not the preffered gender in society, and women are and will be in control - all socio-economic trends ensure this - so anything can happen. All it will take is one loony female (and there are certainly lots of them) to become leader and convert feminist fantasy to feminist reality.

I'm not so optimistic that we will be able to comfortably observe the vast defacing and re-structuring of Western society. Rather, I think men could well be bearing the brunt of such change.

You know, that stuff sent a chill down my spine. As irlandes would back me up, ordinary men are too busy putting their nose to the grindstone and seeking women's approval to do anything for themselves or their fellow men.

The only way feminism will be defeated is when it doesn't serve women's purpose any longer, or our culture has been taken over by one which hasn't been infected by female supremacism. All this stuff sounds fatalist, alarmist and extreme, but you know, female supremacists have been advocating for male extermination for a long time. It only takes one Hillary to come into power - who knows how much things will change by the end of eight years?

Saturday, July 07, 2007

This is why men are wary of women

Remember this article from a couple of months ago that men don't pay women the "recommended" number of compliments per day? Here's what Eternal Bachelor had to say about it:

Men wary of paying women compliments

Men have become too worried about political correctness to pay women simple compliments, according to a new survey.

We're not worried about political correctness; it's the sexual harassment laws that political correctness bought about that worries us, not to mention the fact that a woman can retort with an abusive insult that you can't respond back to without either getting sacked, arrested or beaten up by a passing Captain Save-a-Ho.

There have been several reports of this today - slow news day I guess - and all invariably have comments or quotes from women saying how they love compliments and want to receive them.

Aw, poor girlies. They're not getting enough attention, or being told how pretty they are. Maybe they shouldn't have followed their 'liberation' movement that demonised and even criminalised male sexuality.

It's like a report from California last year about how career gals were getting all upset because men in the workplace often didn't talk to them or invite them out for after-work drinks because the guys were worried about sexual harassment charges. Back then - like now - there is no talk of relaxing these rules or perhaps changing women's attitudes (like not being man-hating entitlement princesses.)

Fewer than one in five women questioned (16%) received the “recommended” five compliments a day, and 12% said no one had paid them a compliment in the past three months.

What's this about the 'recommended' five compliments a day? Do women fall into a coma if they don't get them?

Another important reason why women aren't receiving as many compliments these days is because many don't deserve them. That seems to have been overlooked by all these news reports on the story.

If women want more compliments, how about acting and dressing as if they deserve them? It's rather hard to find anything about most modern women to compliment (let alone an incentive to do so) when many act and dress like either sluts, or like some bizarre, warped, confused wannabe-man.

Yeah, its not political correctness we're afraid of, its vindictive fucking women who wield their hatred with the full backing of the state.

Like these two women in Denver, who, upon receiving a compliment from a man, promptly called the police and got the man arrested for harassment. Imagine that! Telling a woman that she is beautiful is tantamount to harassment and deserves immediate arrest and a $10,000 bond. I bet even female murderers and rapists don't get that much punishment.

DENVER -- A man who told two women they were extremely beautiful was arrested on charges of harassment last week, Denver police said.

Police said 32-year-old Jeff John Hergert approached the women and "expressed interest in them." He told each woman in two separate incidents that they were extremely beautiful and that they should consider modeling.

Hergert was arrested and is being held on two counts of harassment. He is being held on a $10,000 bond.

What a fucking hellhole the Western world is becoming. He "expressed interest in" a member of the royal sex! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! No wonder that girls are going after bad boys and thugs with such a vengeance, because basically anyone who pays them a compliment has become a thug in the eyes of the law.

Doubtless there will be many chivalrous white knights on their donkeys rolling in to make excuses. They always do. The only thing that sickens me more than women's vehement defending of their own sex is the collaborationists' belief that women are weak, all men are evil, and of course that they'll get sex if they defend women. 

Here its the system that is punishing the men, so it is easy to shift the blame from the women. One could say that if the system were sane, these women's complaint would have been treated like the frivolity it was. But make no mistake, this machinery would not be in place without women's complicity - their knowledge that laws like this will make criminals of their sons, husbands and fathers is what is so damning. Hell, they engineered the systems for exactly this result! They just don't fucking care about anything except what benefits the female sex.

The only purpose greater than more privileges for the female sex, in the mind of women, is more privileges for themselves.

No wonder they're the selfish sex.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Poetic justice - a woman gets her comeuppance

This is a really cool story, in the same vein as my "Reversal of 'This Was No Accident'" post. In that story, a man is cheated on by a woman who claims to be pregnant with his child, but the man has had a vasectomy and knows that the child can not be his. He keeps the charade up for a while, but eventually tells her what's up. Read the story, its very satisfying.

Anyway, this is a similar story in that a woman is forcibly put in the place of a man, but with a less happy ending. In this story, a man spends lavishly on a woman, treating like a princess, but the punchline is that he does it with her own money! He took her bank card when she wasn't looking and spent (most of) the money on her. The relationship was great until she found out. She probably thought she was going to get access to a large fortune by marrying Mr. BMW Driving Department Manager, and instead she got squat.

But the sad ending is that the guy is now in prison. He admitted that he had cheated her by pretending to come from a wealthy background.

Hey guys, you think we should take our ex-girlfriends to court for fraud? They buy bras to enhance their cleavage, they apply makeup to enhance their face, and they have surgery to appear more youthful and sexy - just like a whore, that's all that many of them bring to the table.

Man courts girl with stolen money -- hers

A man in Shanghai's Minhang District courted his girlfriend by buying her luxury goods but their affair ended when she found he was paying for the presents with money embezzled from her bank card, Shanghai Evening Post reported today.
The 24-year-old suspected fraudster, identified as Zhang Guyuan, was arrested over theft yesterday. Zhang admitted he had cheated the woman by pretending to come from a wealthy background, the report said.
"She revealed the password of her bank card inadvertently, and I took away the card secretly," Zhang told police.
Zhang was reported to have embezzled at least 50,000 yuan (US$6,562) from his girlfriend and most of the money was used to buy her gifts to please her.
Zhang's girlfriend surnamed Jin got to know the man via the Internet.
"He told me he's a department manager with a foreign company and he earned 200,000 yuan a year," said Jin, a designer.
Zhang at the beginning of their affair told Jin that he just bought a BMW and would like to invite her to go on a ride to the beach in Fengxian District, said the report.
Zhang had to behave like a rich man though he had been jobless since graduation from university.
"He bought me luxurious clothes and shoes and a 24K gold ring," Jin said. What she didn't realize was that it was actually she who was paying the bill.
She had not realized that her card had been taken because she was careful with money and seldom used the credit card.
Zhang's embezzlement was not discovered until May 27 when Jin went to withdraw some money on the card to pay for her mother's medical treatment.
"I asked to watch the monitoring video at the bank to see who took away my money, and I was so surprised when I saw my boyfriend on the screen," Jin said.

Oh yeah baby, you thought you were In like Flynn didn't you, you gold-digging materialistic bitch? Maybe now she'll realize that all those gifts and "romantic moments" don't come free.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Female pedophilia

Just like most other crimes committed by women, female pedophilia is very much swept under the rug. It has historically been women who have had the trust of society, and we as a people are extremely uncomfortable in suggesting that women/mothers can be anything less than perfect.

So its no surprise that female supremacists have found a way to leverage their claims of oppression into demanding that NAMBLA be legalized - only they want to have the privilege of molesting children solely for themselves.

Here is the website: Butterfly Kisses - Celebrating Love Between Women and Girls.

Just take a look at the homepage:

Isn't that so sweet? A mother's love is so tender right? WRONG! Pedophilia is wrong whether its perpetrated by a man or a woman.

Here's the intro paragraph:
Hello and welcome to "Butterfly Kisses". This web site is about and for women who are attracted to pre-teen and adolescent girls. Our primary goal is to give women and girls a tool for expressing their feelings and their love about this controversial topic, and to get people to open their minds to ideas about romantic and erotic attraction between women and girls that our society in the past has not been able to discuss openly and rationally. We also want to provide a place where women and girls can express themselves and can learn about their love in an atmosphere where they are encouraged to feel good about themselves and their sexuality.
This is some sick stuff, all wrapped up in the "women can't do any wrong" lie and packaged so that it tugs at your heartstrings, like most other things that are women's specialties. The manipulative sex indeed.

Here's a testimony:
My Daughter and I

by Sonali

My daughter and I have a healthy close relationship. I have been separated from her father for a year and a half so it's just the 2 of us. We love to cuddle and give each other tender kisses. Since her father and I separated, my relationship with her has gotten deeper and closer.

We have been in a "consensual sexual relationship", almost 2 months now. Before we admitted that we felt very stong feelings for each other we would cuddle and we would hug for long periods of time, maybe an hour at a time. That started when Jessica was 8, she is 10 now. She is a very giving child, always has been. I am so lucky. :D

I am so happy to find this site. It has helped me deal with what I thought was a strange and un-natural relationship. I thought I was the only one. I thought having a sexual attraction to my daughter was bad. I now do not feel guilty or conflicted. Just recently Jessica asked me about masturbation and I didn't feel at all uncomfortable talking about it with her. What we do is loving and comforting for the 2 of us. Tenderness is an arousing thing. I love putting my nose in her hair and filling my lungs with her sweetness. I love stroking her neck with my hand and feeling her softness. My daughter and I are very happy.

You couldn't make this sick stuff up. Eve Ensler's "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could" is also in there. It says Eve Ensler [editor], so I'm pretty sure the pedo is in there. I wonder if she's taken any vacations to Thailand recently... oh wait, I forgot, she's a woman. She can have all the little girl pussy she wants right here in the USA. If she gets caught, which is a slim chance when you're a woman, female supremacists will defend her "right to make love to whom she wants to" and chivalrous judges will look for the nearest man to throw into jail.

Now I have a little video for you. It is NOT SAFE FOR WORK so don't even open it unless you're sure of your company or don't have any.

Spoiler (highlight to view): Just look at how the mother is forcing the child to suck at her breast even though it doesn't want to, just because she wants to get pleasure. Just because she wants to get her rocks off. These kinds of abuses happen every day, but they are invisible because women are not even suspected of abusing children as a matter of course, while any time a man goes out with his daughter on a walk, he is accused of being a pedophile, a child-snatcher or both.

In Erin Pizzey's Prone to Violence, she writes about how women casually use their children for sexual relief, recounting one time when a mother came in to the living room and gave her son an open-mouth kiss - a lover's kiss, right in front of Erin. That's the kind of stuff that fucks up a child irretrievably. You can imagine what else goes on behind closed doors because women today are brazen enough - they know that the children are their possessions, and they treat them like that.

Here are some comments by typhonblue over on SYG about this issue:

"In Japan there is an entire industry catering to female pedophiles. It's called "Shota".

I would bet that the majority of child-sex-tourists in Thailand come from Japan and not western countries. As for the *precentage* of male vs. female... not sure. Although when they did studies on incest in Japan they found *very* high levels of mother-son. (I think it was the largest incest catagory.)

BTW, this all overlooks one avenue by which women can have a sexual relationship with children: motherhood.

The same hormones that regulate nursing regulate human sexual responce. In other words the act of nursing can lead to a sexual experience, including orgasm, in a woman. The fact that a woman has a legitimate avenue to having a sexual relationship(as any relationship that results in orgasm is, by definition) with a child probably reduces the number of women who have to go out and prey on unrelated children(and thus make their interests more readily visible.)

Puts an interesting twist on all those "earth mommas" who nurse their offspring till they're pre-schoolers or older, don't it? Couldn't be these women are after a sexual thrill and are pedophiles could it?"

"(Responding to a poster who was later uncovered as a troll) And why not? If a woman is nursing a child until said child can have a coherent conversation with her, why *couldn't* it be due to purient interests on her part?

In other words, she's using the child to achieve orgasm for her own gratification. (Incidentally, many children start to become lactose intolerant at around the age of 3-5(2 for Asians and Black people), which means nursing isn't that healthy after a certain age and has little nutritional value.) "

"Just to illustrate the bias: Let's imagine a father cuddling with his three year old boy or girl. The father then, without any penetration (which makes it even less intrusive then nursing), allows the child to play with his genitals to orgasm.

Hold that feeling... the feeling of instant condemnation and revulsion.

Now look at a woman cuddling and breast-feeding a 3 year old. At that point the child has lost much of the lactase that allowed him or her to deride nutritional benefit from his or her mother's milk, or, even more preversely, his or her mother has ceased producing milk yet lets her child continue to nurse. The mother allows the stimulation of the child's nursing to sexually excite her to orgasm.

Why no parallel feeling of condemnation or revulsion? Is it because one is seen as "bonding" and the other isn't? Why?"

"BTW, I've been finding some really interesting stuff on breastfeeding and sexual abuse:



"In this nationally representative sample, self-identified childhood sexual abuse is associated with an increased likelihood of breastfeeding initiation[by the mother]."

In other words mothers who were victims of sexual abuse are more likely to initiate breast feeding with their infant (instead of letting the infant initiate.)

A possible explanation offered by the article was "concern over proper parenting" but perhaps an alternate explanation is offered by the observation that abuse victims often become victimizers and that these women are using their infants to cater to their sexual needs."

"I mean, what if the situation was reversed. What if it were *men* achieving orgasm whilst providing nourishment for their children. Let's say a man decided to prolong the activity long past the time when the child ceases to benefit from it, wouldn't his motives be suspect?
If you're getting sexual pleasure from breast feeding your child, then you are engaging in a sexual relationship with your child.

If the mother tries to avoid orgasming while breast feeding or ceases breast-feeding, she's obviously not a pedophile. However if she seeks out using her child to pleasure herself this way I don't see how thats any different then a male pedophile. I suppose _ignoring_ the fact that it's happening and continuing to breast-feed is a grey area.

Except, of course, this form of pedophilia is completely unrecognized by society and nearly impossible to combat."

"If a man got an erection when-ever he hugged his kids (not so unlikely since I've read about men who become aroused from hugging, even someone they would never have sex with) and then he decided to cuddle his infant while masturbating. Wow! Would he be dealing with a shit storm. Not so with this lady, and countless other shadow-pedophiles like her who have, undoubtedly, abused their own children through breast-feeding.

Imagine what that statistic would be if we were able to quantify the number of women who, like the sexually abusive mother in one of the links I posted above, use their nursing infants for their own sexual gratification? This is currently *invisible* sexual abuse that most probably has an effect on the psyche and when it manifests it may be ignored or, worse, blamed on a father(also like the link I posted.)

Interestingly, there is *no* medical study about the potential for sexual abuse of children via breastfeeding(breast rape, I suppose), yet many mothers seem to be on the defensive against some vague sense of disapproval. Feelings of persecution without any actual persecution (imagine how quickly a M.D. or researcher would be shamed into silence if he or she was to even broach such a topic) usually arise from guilt.

Both men and women have their dark sides, but our society is fascinated to the point of insanity with the dark side of men while ignoring the dark side of women."

"What bothers me is that he never answered my question.

I gave him a plausible scenario about how women could turn a nurturing activity into an opportunity for sexual predation on children (even a few examples of them doing so to prove that it does happen. One could imagine the outrage and immediate calls for studies and research if it were a nurturing activity that only men could do that a few men turned into an opportunity for sexual predation on children.)

And then I asked him, "what's stopping women?"

No answer. Although I imagine his answer would be along the lines of "women are more moral then men." Thus they would never, well not never, but very rarely take advantage of such an opportunity to sexually exploit children.

And I'm sure that his answer is the same reason why research has never been done on women's sexual exploitation of children via common nurturing behaviors. And thus why it *appears* (without adequate research) that there are more male pedophiles.

The bias protects itself."

Here's an damning post by jaketk:
A few years ago there was a woman out in Naperville who forced her 8-year-old son to breastfeed. He told his babysitter, who then informed the police. It was later discovered that the woman forced the boy to sleep nude with her and forced him to breastfeed several times a day. I believe at this point she was no longer producing milk. DCFS removed the boy twice, and then placed him back in her home twice knowing that the woman was sexually abusing the boy. Interestingly, an organization called La Leche International backed this woman's "right" to force her son to breastfeed when he no longer wished to.