Pete Patriarch’s Musings

August 21, 2008

Bikini Baristas scald guy dressed better than them

Filed under: Uncategorized — Pete @ 10:11 am

You know, if you read my blog or any other MRA blog with any sort of frequency you already know that male life is worth an infinitesimal fraction of any given female’s life. She can be a coked out druggie stripper who accuses some upstanding guys of rape, and its curtains for them – even the government will lie and cheat to support her. Thus was born the term “Nifonged”.

But anyway, this story is interesting to me because of the rampant hypocrisy displayed by the women and the complete lack of punishment they will receive.

PARKLAND, Wash. — A man dressed in woman’s underwear and exposing himself drove up to a Parkland espresso stand three times before one of the baristas threw a cup of boiling water at him, said the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office.

Jamae Feddock, a bikini clad barista at Java Girls, said she first thought the man dressed in women’s underwear and exposing himself was a sick joke, until the man came back several times.

The first time he came to the window Feddock said he was wearing a white bra and white panties and touching himself inappropriately.

Then he came back a second time.

“He has underwear over his face, he’s wearing hot pink panties now and the underwear that he was wearing is over his face and there’s a little peephole so he can see,” Feddock said.

Feddock and another barista were working around 5 a.m. last Thursday when the incident happened. They tried to get a look at the man’s license plate, but that too was covered up with women’s underwear.

When the man came back a third time one of the baristas took a cup of 220 degree water and doused him with it.

“Kylie opened the door and threw boiling hot water on his face and his chest and he said oooh yeah,” Feddock said.

Police agencies around Pierce County said they are seeing more and more incidents of indecent exposure — as more coffee stands open — many with women dressed provocatively — or barely dressed at all.

“I don’t think we can make a quid pro quo there that this is causing the effect, and they certainly don’t deserve that behavior, but we do have some of these stands that have been victimized by these activities,” said Det. Sgt. Jerry Bates a Pierce County Sheriff’s Deputy.

Anyone with information should call the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office.

So get this. Here are a couple of bikini baristas. Who are dressed in, you know, bikinis. Something that can reveal a lot more than women’s underwear depending on the style of underwear we’re talking about. Because its a given that the bikinis will have been selected for maximum display while remaining legal. Let me repeat this for you – the women were dressed just as lewdly as the guy. When women can wear pants, blazers and look as butch and unfeminine as they want, who the fuck is to say that men can’t wear women’s underwear? I’m not going to go out in underwear or a skirt because of the social stigma (understatement of the year) but social stigma is completely different from legality. If these women are dressed in a two-piece, the guy has as much right to be there in his underwear as them. Its the same public area, they’re wearing the same amount of clothing, why is there a double standard in which its A-OK to assault him?

And the guy, when they threw boiling water at him, said “Oh yeah”? Really, am I supposed to fucking believe that? Did they scald the goddamn Kool-Aid jug/man?

So this couple of fucking stripper rejects who are working at a fucking coffee shop get so uptight over a guy who, admittedly, is not the cream of the crop, that they take it upon themselves to throw boiling water at him? On his bare skin?

Let me remind you – the famous coffee that got McDonald’s sued was at 180 degrees Fahrenheit. The water these girls used was at least 212F and that kind of temperature leads to third degree burns easily. Those are the kinds of burns that require skin grafts.

I fervently hope the guy comes forward and sues the bitches and the fucking $5 a cup coffee company they work for. Maybe that would send a message that assaulting people is not on. Oh, who am I kidding. If he comes forward he can look forward to a lifetime on the sexual predators’ registry and will end up getting sued by the stripper rejects for visual harassment or something.

Ten Most Common Feminist Myths, busted

Filed under: Uncategorized — Pete @ 12:11 am

Got this from a post by neotruth over on byrdeye’s blog: Ten Feminist Myths

The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths:

1. Myth: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape.

Fact: This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their “attacker” again.

Rape is a uniquely horrible crime. That is why we need sober and responsible research. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria. Truth is no enemy of compassion, and falsehood is no friend.

(Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, “The Making of an Epidemic,” Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993; and Neil Gilbert, “Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape,” Current Controversies in Family Violence eds. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132; and Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. *According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.)

2. Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

(Essential reading: Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, published by the Independent Women’s Forum and the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.)

3. Myth: 30 percent of emergency room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.

Fact: This incendiary statistic is promoted by gender feminists whose primary goal seems to be to impugn men. Two responsible government studies report that the nationwide figure is closer to one percent. While these studies may have missed some cases of domestic violence, the 30% figure is a wild exaggeration.

(National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary , Hyattsville, Maryland, March 1997; and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments: Washington, D.C., August 1997.)

4. Myth: The phrase “rule of thumb” originated in a man’s right to beat his wife provided the stick was no wider than his thumb.

Fact: This is an urban legend that is still taken seriously by activist law professors and harassment workshoppers. The Oxford English Dictionary has more than twenty citations for phrase “rule of thumb” (the earliest from 1692), but not a single mention of beatings, sticks, or husbands and wives.

(For a definitive debunking of the hoax see Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick,” The Journal of Legal Education, September 1994.)

5. Myth: Women have been shortchanged in medical research.

Fact: The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH’s National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trails.

(Essential reading: Cathy Young and Sally Satel, “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine,” Washington, D.C.: The Women’s Freedom Network, 1997.)

6. Myth: Girls have been shortchanged in our gender-biased schools

Fact: No fair-minded person can review the education data and conclude that girls are the have-nots in our schools. Boys are slightly ahead of girls in math and science; girls are dramatically ahead in reading and writing. (The writing skills of 17-year-old boys are at the same level as 14-year- old girls.) Girls get better grades, they have higher aspirations, and they are more likely to go to college.

(See: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000.)

7. Myth: “Our schools are training grounds for sexual harassment… boys are rarely punished, while girls are taught that it is their role to tolerate this humiliating conduct.”

(National Organization of Women, “Issue Report: Sexual Harassment,” April 1998.)

Fact: “Hostile Hallways,” is the best-known study of harassment in grades 8-11. It was commissioned by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1993, and is a favorite of many harassment experts. But this survey revealed that girls are doing almost as much harassing as the boys. According to the study, “85 percent of girls and 76 percent of boys surveyed say they have experienced unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with their lives.”

(Four scholars at the University of Michigan did a careful follow-up study of the AAUW data and concluded: “The majority of both genders (53%) described themselves as having been both victim and perpetrator of harassment — that is most students had been harassed and had harassed others.” And these researchers draw the right conclusion: “Our results led us to question the simple perpetrator-victim model…”)(See: American Education Research Journal, Summer 1996.)

8. Myth: Girls suffer a dramatic loss of self-esteem during adolescence.

Fact: This myth of the incredible shrinking girls was started by Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Gilligan has always enjoyed higher standing among feminist activists and journalists than among academic research psychologists. Scholars who follow the protocols of social science do not accept the reality of an adolescent “crisis” of confidence and “loss of voice.” In 1993, American Psychologist reported the new consensus among researchers in adolescent development: “It is now known that the majority of adolescents of both genders successfully negotiate this developmental period without any major psychological or emotional disorder [and] develop a positive sense of personal identity.”

(Anne C. Petersen et al. “Depression in Adolescence,” American Psychologist February 1993; see also, Daniel Offer, and Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, “Debunking the Myths of Adolescence: Findings from Recent Research,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, November 1992.)

9. Myth: Gender is a social construction.

Fact: While environment and socialization do play a significant role in human life, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 40 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. In general, males have better spatial reasoning skills; females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk takers; females are more nurturing.

Of course, this does not mean that women should be prevented from pursuing their goals in any field they choose; what it does suggest is that we should not expect parity in all fields. More women than men will continue to want to stay at home with small children and pursue careers in fields like early childhood education or psychology; men will continue to be over-represented in fields like helicopter mechanics and hydraulic engineering.

Warning: Most gender scholars in our universities have degrees in fields like English or comparative literature–not biology or neuroscience. These self-appointed experts on sexuality are scientifically illiterate. They substitute dogma and propaganda for reasoned scholarship.

(For a review of recent findings on sex differences see a special issue of The Scientific American “Men: The Scientific Truth,” Fall 2000.)

10. Myth: Women’s Studies Departments empowered women and gave them a voice in the academy.

Fact: Women’s Studies empowered a small group of like-minded careerists. They have created an old-girl network that is far more elitist, narrow and closed than any of the old-boy networks they rail against. Vast numbers of moderate or dissident women scholars have been marginalized, excluded and silenced.

(Essential reading: everything by Camille Paglia; Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge–Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies; and Christina Hoff Sommers–Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women)

August 7, 2008

Tread softly, men. Predators are on the prowl

Filed under: Uncategorized — Pete @ 8:15 am

Two articles posted in quick succession caught my attention recently. Both articles are about marrying and becoming a man-slave to some entitled skank.

First: Shine of super-mum wears off in UK and US.

Second: No kids, no jobs for growing numbers of wives.

Watch the fuck out, because women are looking for an early retirement on your dime.

The first article (Shine of super-mom wears off) talks about how women don’t see the appeal of being a high-powered do-it-all paragon of high-powered careerwoman and caring mother anymore. First of all, let me talk about how its a fucking illusion in the media that women who work at pitiful entry-level and middle management jobs are on some kind of career track.

Sure these chicks are on a career track – but one that they themselves don’t want to continue on because, you see, working is hard!! Yes sir. Working is hard, which is why record numbers of women take themselves out of the workforce with the ease of a bad boy dick plopping out of a liberated skank’s gash. Sorry for the disgusting imagery, its just how I feel about women who work until they snag a man and then decide that they’re done working for a living and want to raise “their kids” on someone else’s dime.

No mention, naturally, of the men who have been working tirelessly in the background. While women were crowing about going to work, while they were crowing about being high-powered executives, while they were crowing about being able to vanquish a man with two words, “sexual harassment,” while they invaded workplaces and made them more and more feminine and pushed men further and further out while adding sex to the workplace, men were working tirelessly in the background.

You know, I keep remembering that Russian women guy while I post this. I think, “Am I really becoming another feminist stooge?” But then I realize that women in the west have no sense of fairness and no sense of family. You give them the opportunity to stay at home doing what they love and impressing upon children the importance of mom, and they claim they are bored and start fucking the poolboy. You give them the chance to get out of the rat race in which the rats inevitably end up dead and crushed under the millions of other rats trying to get ahead, and she claims she sacrificed her career. You think “Yes, maybe she should stay home with the child during its formative years,” and she hatches a plan to get out of the workforce for good. And make you pay twice for it.

She does something in her career or life that’s not even remotely news-worthy, and all of a sudden it needs to be celebrated because a fucking vagina-owner did it.

Western women’s idea of parenting is to drop the kids off at the sitter/daycare/soccer and go to Starbucks/Nails Palace/Mall. For the kids to come home to an empty house, microwave their own meal, while she is out with her other early-retirement friends frittering away their husbands’ money, yakking about how much they hate men.

The second article’s examples are great. They completely show how women are either incapable of dealing with the normal pressures of day-to-day life or how they find a husband to ride on. The first example woman is someone who couldn’t face the extraordinary pressure of earning a living at the same time as living a life. Now, well she’s living high on the hog while her personal slave thinks its so awesome that he has a “traditional” wife. Well, until she gets rid of him and keeps his money and assets and retirement.

This is rich:

Davis says her life isn’t luxurious. “Tuesdays are my laundry day,” she says. “I go grocery shopping on Wednesdays and clean house on Thursdays.” Mondays and Fridays are reserved for appointments and other errands.

But her schedule also allows for charity work and leisure: reading, creative writing and exploring new hobbies, like sewing.

It’s a lifestyle, Davis says, that has made her happier and brought her closer to her husband. “We’re no longer stressed out,” she says; because she takes care of the home, there are virtually no “honey-do” lists to hand over.

I can just imagine her looking at her manicured hands and saying in a plaintive voice, “Like OMG, I’m such a slave! I have do, like, laundry!!” You know what’s my laundry day? Its any damn day of the week where I have an hour and a half that I’m not going anywhere. And if I had a machine in my apartment, it would be any 5 minutes that I can spare to put clothes in the washer, put in detergent and close the damn lid. She makes it sound like such a chore.

Also, no honey-do lists. Yeah right, she definitely ain’t counting all the man-stuff around the house. The dangerous, the disgusting and the scary – “oooh a spider! Quick honey, do!!”

The best part is how their only qualms, their only concerns are about how they’re letting down dead feminists. Dead feminists who were themselves kept women, writing in their New Jersey luxury apartments while being attended to by maids their husband had paid for.

“I worried about gaps in my resume,” she says. And there was something else: “I thought about the feminist movement — all those women who worked so hard so that I could go out and have a good career, and I was kind of saying ‘no thanks.'”

They’re more worried about how they’ll get a job, oops a career when she divorces him, takes his money, sucks him dry and then tells the court to run him through the wringer once every month for the child support. Alimony is going out of style, you see. The latest buzz is exorbitant amounts of child support.

But maybe I’m wrong… maybe I just need to grow up, be a real man and pay for women who may or may not suck my cock. Yeah right!

August 4, 2008

NM Court orders sperm donor to pay Child Support

Filed under: Uncategorized — Pete @ 12:36 am

The rulings are coming to the US from the rest of the feminized world… Now its open season on sperm donors.

Court orders sperm donor to pay child support

The Associated Press
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_10055164

SANTA FE — A court battle over whether a sperm donor should pay a higher rate of child support has ended with a ruling that the man is liable because he has taken an active role in raising the children.
Kevin Zoernig had argued he was not required to pay child support because he is a sperm donor and is protected under the state’s Uniform Parentage Act.
But the state Court of Appeals noted in its July 25 opinion that this was not a case involving an anonymous donor or a known donor who provided sperm to a licensed physician under an agreement in which he agreed to have no parental rights.
In this case, Janna Mintz inseminated herself using what the court describes as a “syringe-like implement.”

The court said Thursday that the opinion, as a formal published opinion instead of a memorandum opinion, can be cited as a precedent.
Zoernig agreed in 1994 to donate sperm so that Mintz and her partner at the time, Deborah Mrantz, could have a child. After the couple broke up, Zoernig fathered another child for Mintz, again as a sperm donor.

Zoernig, Mintz and Mrantz had entered into an agreement in 1994 in which the female couple would be the child’s primary custodians. Zoernig would serve as a male role model but not be financially obligated to support the child. Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.

Although Mintz is the children’s primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.
In February 2000, Mintz sought child support payments from Zoernig. The parties agreed the following year that Zoernig would pay $250 a month in child support, plus $50 a month toward arrears, according to court documents.

In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. A state district judge adopted a new rate of $670 a month.
Zoernig turned to the Court of Appeals, challenging his obligation to provide any support as well as the higher rate, since the children were conceived through artificial insemination.
The appellate court said he must pay support for both children.
The court said he “enjoys the rights of parenthood,” and that the agreements entered into prior to conception “that purport to absolve him of his responsibility to pay child support” are not enforceable.

Mintz, who now has a husband, said she is pleased with the ruling.
“The decision represents a big victory for our children because their father will continue to provide support for them,” she said in a statement.
Zoernig said the battle “shows you that people who make well-intended agreements outside of the court system can easily be swept into the court system.”

This is the archetype of an American woman. First she’s in a lesbian relationship and thus needs sperm from a third-party to make a child, then she’s out of the lesbian relationship and needs money from someone else so she uses the child support excuse to fleece a man who had signed contracts with her in good faith, and now she’s married and still wants more money. Meanwhile, the man who wants to provide for his own family is screwed because of this “non-traditional family” witch.

Meanwhile, you have to wonder what “rights” the poor man enjoyed to the child. I have no doubt at all that he was allowed no say whatsoever in the raising of the kids. Rights enjoyed? Maybe he was allowed to tickle their tummy from time to time and had the privilege of babysitting when the lesbo bitch went out to screw around. How do you think she got her husband?

Have no fear, women. There are still plenty of dumb men, manginas and suckers out there for the taking. You might have to search a wee bit harder, but you’ll find yours. Just keep hating men and using them, they will just keep on popping up like a game of Whack the Weasel. After all, men are just weasels, right? How dare they love women and appreciate and cherish them!! It is women’s bounden duty to use their sexuality and men’s good nature to exploit men as much as they possibly can.

What a sucker, right? Believing that he could trust a woman’s word. Hahahah he sure got what was coming to him huh.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.