Search This Blog

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

How To Destroy A Country in 7 Easy Steps

Well we all know that good old Juju himself has now started a lovely new political party that he intends using to contest the 2014 national elections - the Expelled Frustrated Fools Economic Freedom Fighters. All this is good and well and any vote taken from the ANC is fantastic. His appeal is mainly to the uneducated, impoverished masses who know only the ANC version of the Apartheid times and those youths who are suffering from a small thing called "entitlementitis".

Now, on the whole it would be something to laugh off and support just enough to water down the ANC's majority and thereby protect our Constitution which has been under attack by the communist criminals since day 1. However, after reading through the recently released manifesto I now worry about just how much support this baboon will be able to attract.

The extract below is from the manifesto published last week and has several worrying overtones. In my honest and humble opinion, while appealing to the masses, if these policies were ever to be implemented, or there was an attempt to implement them, SA could quite literally become Zim 2.0 over night.

Julius Malema - can afford luxury vehicles, clothing, accessories and homes on a R20 000/m salary - accused of corruption, money laundering and racketeering as well as recently sequestrated by SARS for an unpaid R16m tax debt - a man the poor can trust.

And here it is, the EFF 8 Point Plan - How to Destroy a Country in 7 Easy Steps: (and maybe a little of my own opinion thrown in in places)


25.          These political, economic, social and ideological realities are the basis upon which the ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS is founded. The ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS is a radical and militant economic emancipation movement that brings together revolutionary, fearless, radical, and militant activists, workers' movements, nongovernmental organisations, community-based organisations and lobby groups under the umbrella of pursuing the struggle for economic emancipation. 

26.          The EFF is a radical, leftist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement with an internationalist outlook anchored by popular grassroots formations and struggles. The EFF will be the vanguard of community and workers' struggles and will always be on the side of the people. The EFF will, with determination and consistency, associate with the protest movement in South Africa and will also join in struggles that defy unjust laws. 

27.          The EFF takes lessons from the notation that "political power without economic emancipation is meaningless". The movement is inspired by ideals that promote the practice of organic forms of political leadership, which appreciate that political leadership at whatever level is service, not an opportunity for self-enrichment and self-gratification. 

28.          The EFF draws inspiration from the broad Marxist-Leninist tradition and Fanonian schools of thought in their analyses of the state, imperialism, culture and class contradictions in every society. Through organic engagement and a constant relationship with the masses, Economic Freedom Fighters provide clear and cogent alternatives to the current neo-colonial economic system, which in many countries keep the oppressed under colonial domination and subject to imperialist exploitation

29.          The EFF is a South African movement with a progressive internationalist outlook, which seeks to engage with global progressive movements. We believe that the best contribution we can make in the international struggle against global imperialism is to rid our country of imperialist domination. For the South African struggle, the EFF pillars for economic emancipation are the following:

a.             Expropriation of South Africa's land without compensation for equal redistribution in use. (Still wondering who is going to be paying back the banks and what will happen when the banks come and claim back the property in payment? And who is going to be liable for rates and taxes and water and electricity etc?)

b.         Nationalisation of mines, banks, and other strategic sectors of the economy, without compensation. (Just curious – where is the expertise to run these banks? Haven’t we seen what happens when government controls access to the peoples’ money? Rampant theft and corruption and giving away of all independence to a group of ignorant, power and money hungry draconian communists will mean having to stand in queues waiting to collect your weekly ration of potatoes.)

c.         Building state and government capacity, which will lead to the abolishment of tenders. (And where is all this money coming from? Sure you can save money by spending state funds on infrastructure development, but we all need to know where this money will be coming from? What will happen to the independent businesses that are supplying the tax money? And do we really need to ask who will really be benefitting?)

d.         Free quality education, healthcare, houses, and sanitation. (Again – who is paying for all of this? And we of course need to ask whether or not whites will also enjoy this free education, healthcare, houses and sanitation? And will it actually work and not be shoddy as hell? Who will be monitoring this system? How do you determine what quality is – reminder that Juju failed WOODWORK let alone academic subjects. Who will be training and paying these teachers and doctors and architects and engineers etc?)

e.         Massive protected industrial development to create millions of sustainable jobs, including the introduction of minimum wages in order to close the wage gap between the rich and the poor, close the apartheid wage gap and promote rapid career paths for Africans in the workplace. (Ok, so government is now employing millions of people, all paid for by taxpayer money as well as what is left after the looting of the mines and banks etc – and how is this sustainable? Is government going to run these as well? Where then is the incentive? And minimum wages to close the wage gap? Really? You will be paying the illiterate kid that chose to drop out of school because its too hard say 1/3 of the salary as the guy at the top who is making policy decisions and taking responsibility both legally and socially for what happens in those companies as well as the guy making the decisions and bringing in the work? Sure – we’ll see how long you guys stay open – and how you’ll enjoy the strikes.)

f.          Massive development of the African economy and advocating for a move from reconciliation to justice in the entire continent. (So basically that you’re saying is that whites better watch out because you will be exacting retribution for perceived ills that have been rendered outright lies by communistic and Marxist propaganda over the last 50 years? What should we expect then? You’ll come in and take our homes from us in totality, including the clothes on our backs? Make it illegal to employ a white person? Well I suppose I can see you racists doing that – if you don’t go so far as an all out ethnic cleansing – but I should warn you that it will not go down well with the international community nor will it stop us prom prospering – unlike you we know the value of hard work and don’t sit back crying about our position in life without making an effort to better it.)

g.         Open, accountable, corrupt-free government and society without fear of victimisation by state agencies. (Now hold on just one stinking minute – did your leader not try to cover up his involvement in criminal activity through several business vehicles and is still pretending that he was never involved in it? And should I point out that this actively contradicts point f above where you state categorically that whites will be in for punishment.)

Read the whole piece of trash here

See how much this party cares about the poor? This is Kenny Kunene - if he really cared all that much why wouldn't he share his wealth instead of trying to steal others' wealth? Oh yes, that's right, communists like to give away other peoples' money...

Monday, 29 July 2013

Then and Now

I have just come across a lovely opinion piece by Chris Moerdyk. he has things down pat in this one and I happen to thoroughly agree... The same thing is going on here.

I want a government, not a nanny

2013-07-29 08:31

I know I have written a number of quite serious articles on the dangers of South Africa becoming a nanny state and to the best of my knowledge no-one has taken the slightest bit of notice.

So, I thought perhaps it might be an idea to show how incredibly stupid other countries are when they take it upon themselves to tell their citizens how to live, how to bring up their kids and particularly what and what not to do. 

I read this story a while ago and had to do quite a bit of homework to make sure that it wasn't just some sort of April Fool's joke.

The quiet little county of Kent in England had been thrown into social turmoil by a spate of thefts from garden sheds.

The garden shed for the Kentish mink and manure set, is not just a place to keep a lawnmower or non-toxic, bunny-hugging, 100% organic "Mole Dispersal" elixir, but something more like a shrine - the domestic equivalent of the Sistine Chapel.

So, the shed-owners got together, formed a committee and decided to replace the windows in their sheds with glass panes with embedded wire mesh. You know the sort. We use them a lot in South Africa. A far more subtle approach than putting in burglar bars or an alarm system which would be admitting to the world that you have no backbone or maybe even shit-scared.

However, Britain being the global hub of the most ridiculous Health and Safety regulations, the police banned the use of mesh in windows "because burglars might hurt themselves when breaking in". Seriously.

Which now brings me to the following demonstration of the lunacy of political correctness sent in to me recently by one of my readers.

It is a sobering comparison on the difference in the UK, between schooldays in 1957 and those in 2013. 

Johnny and Mark get into a fight after school.  

1957 - A Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends.

2013 - The police called and arrest Johnny and Mark. They charge them with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it. Both children attend anger management programmes for three months. School governors hold a meeting to implement bullying prevention programmes.

Robbie won't be still in class and disrupts the other pupils. 

1957 - Robbie is sent to office and given six of the best by the principal. He goes back to class, sits still and behaves himself.  

2013 - Robbie is given huge doses of Ritalin because his parents are too busy with their careers to really care too much. Robbie gets tested for all sorts of psychological and physiological problems and is sent to remedial classes which he also disrupts when his Ritalin and various other medicines run low. His parents and school don't understand why in later years he becomes a drug addict and starts killing people.

Billy accidentally breaks a window in his neighbour's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt. 

1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2013 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang.

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 - Mark gets glass of water from the principal and takes the aspirin.

2013 - The police are called; Mark is expelled from school for drug taking. His desk is searched for drugs and weapons.

Johnny takes apart leftover fireworks from Guy Fawkes night, puts them in a paint tin and blows up a wasp's nest.

1957 - Wasps die.

2013 - Police and the Anti-Terrorism Squad called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism and the authorities investigate his parents. Siblings are removed from home, computers confiscated. Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to travel by air again.

Johnny falls while running during morning break and scrapes his knee.  He is found crying by his teacher Mary who hugs him to comfort him. 

1957 - Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2013 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in Prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.

I sincerely hope that you didn't laugh at any of this. It is not funny. It is our future and in many cases it is already our present. 

- Follow Chris on Twitter.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24
- News24

I have been able to trace it back here  - please let me know if it goes any further back?

Lets Not Discipline Our Children - Government

Its been a trend in  the last couple of weeks really - this discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to discipline your children through corporal punishment (ie: giving them a swift smack on the backside when they misbehave). I have read two conflicting opinion pieces about the issue - the first was written by Khaya Dlanga and he is all for it, stating that "Many black children were disciplined with a beating and don't see it as abuse. Because we were not abused – we were disciplined. Looking back, many feel it was necessary."

The second piece was written by Lorenzo Wakefield who states that "More and more research points to the fact that corporal punishment of children as a form of “discipline” has adverse effects on their physical, emotional, cognitive, neurological and, extremely important in light of the high levels of interpersonal violence in SA, behavioural and social outcomes. In fact a recent PhD conducted at Wits university by Dr Amelia Kleijn found that there is a strong link of convicted perpetrators of rape — especially those who raped young children under the age of three — who were all corporally punished when they were younger.

This thesis was actually entitled "The demographic profile and psychosocial history of a group of convicted perpetrators of the rape of children under the age of three years." and she only interviewed 10 perpetrators, and the main aim that she went for was a touchy feely, "lets-make-the-baby-rapists-feel-ok" while interviewing them. The research methodology can be seen here and insofar as she found that "corporal punishment was a factor she had this to say in her own thesis summary "One of the findings from my study concerns the appalling maltreatment received by all the respondents – including corporal punishment. As children, the respondents were subjected to frequent and severe beatings with animal hide whips (called sjamboks in South Africa), fan belts, broomsticks, school rulers and blackboard dusters, shoes, handbags, and adults’ fists and feet. The respondents’ mothers most often administered this “punishment”, as well as older male relatives, community members, and school teachers."

Hmmmm... now let me think quickly - there is a definite difference in how she and I view "corporal punishment". You see, as far as I am concerned corporal punishment is a smack on the bum or over the hands when misbehaving. We already have something called "abuse" which incorporates the whole "sever beatings" issue. If the physical punishment is of such a nature so as to cause excessive bruising (let us not mistake red marks with excessive bruising) then it is labelled as abuse and is naturally not encouraged. However, should a parent, who is responsible for the upbringing of that child which includes instilling morals and common sense, should decide that the child needs its backside smacked who the hell is this woman or anyone else to tell then not to because its "damaging"?

I personally believe that subjecting your child to hours of isolation or manic tirades where one, possibly inadvertently, ends up comparing children to each other and tearing them down for something they may have done wrong, inflicts more damage - psychological damage. where physical pain goes away after a while, the psychological damage that is inflicted by parents by NOT smacking their child causes more problems and is abuse as well.  The pathetic politically correct libtards are doing everything that they can to make sure that the idea of a cohesive family unit where the parents are actually in control and kids are raised with morals, values, respect and common sense is destroyed in its entirety. The point to note is that the definition "corporal punishment" (which is directly translated as physical punishment) has been corrupted by the same group of spineless libtards to include any act which would be assault when perpetrated against an adult. 

Interim poll results on 

We hear from Lorenzo in the comments section (an idea accepted by several others) that "Sweden banned corporal punishment in all forms since the 1970′s and today it is a peaceful society." I thought it prudent that I respond on this issue:

"Sweden, which banned corporal punishment in the 70′s, is a beacon of social enlightenment and peace? Are you so sure? And if so, how do you explain the recent spate of RIOTS by the YOUTH in Sweden then?
You know, the youth here is the generation that was obviously raised without a swift smack to the bottom when misbehaving. The same generation whose parents were stripped of their authority over the children which THEY are meant to protect and TEACH. In life all lessons are hard and cause pain and so too should parental discipline when appropriate and within reasonable bounds. A smack to the backside (which is often more shocking than painful – rather like whacking a puppy over the nose with newspaper during training) is a valuable teaching tool.
Just go and see what happens when a generation of entitled youth, whose parents have NO disciplinary authority, take their disrespect for all and sundry too far. And our own population is heading in that same direction. I often come across spoiled brats in malls and shops etc who could use a smack on the backside.

The point to note is that you should not harp on about the smack. A quick whack and a short explanation of what the kid did wrong and then the issue should be forgotten by the parent in their interactions with that child. The child should know that mommy and daddy love him/her - but will take him/her to task when he/she do wrong. That is the meaning of respect for your parents.

Now be that as it may (and I can go on at length on this issue but will refrain from  doing so here), in South Africa it has never been illegal for a parent to use reasonable physical punishment as a way of disciplining their children (see abuse again for how I know this to be a fact). This looks set to change according to Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini who says that a law is in the pipelines that will make it illegal for parents to spank their children in their homes. So now they are actively trying to destroy our children from within our homes.

In 2006 corporal punishment was outlawed in schools in SA - and look what happened, we now have kids gang-raping other kids, kids killing other kids, no respect for teachers, truancy, illiteracy, criminality of all other sorts - and all are a direct result of the failure of both parents and the schools to instil discipline in our children. When the government took away the power of the teachers to PUNISH children for their infractions (and they cannot be kicked out of class because education is a basic human right you know, writing out lines is a waste of time - what happens if you don't write them? You just get more lines. Detention is now also not happening - the kids never arrive anyway) they took away a functioning educational system. And at the same time they destroyed an entire generation of children who will never know what self respect is - let alone respect for another. They know they can do what they like and get away with it and that is where the problem lies. 

I do not yet have children, but I swear that when I do no one must try and tell me what to do in my own home or how to raise them - if their backside needs a smack they get one and good luck to the person that tries to stop me.

New spanking law in the works

2013-07-28 14:17
Johannesburg - A new law is being drafted to make it illegal for parents to spank their children at home, the Sunday Times reported.
"If a husband beats a wife it's a crime, but if a parents hits a child who is helpless, it's not illegal," Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini told the newspaper.
She said parents had to take responsibility and raise their children with proper values, to ensure they "don't end up killing your own children".
Corporal punishment has been outlawed at school since 2006.
The Sunday Times reported that, under the draft law, parents would be charged with assault if, at home, they used a flat hand on a child's bottom or enacted other forms of corporal punishment.


Thursday, 18 July 2013

Zimmerman Fall Out - God Is A Racist

I knew that the outcome of the Zimmerman trial would inevitably lead to the morons, black racists and self-hating whites oozing from beneath the rocks they live under but this is a new one for me. Her is a blatant attack by an "educated" black feminazi on not only the trial decision (which is naturally the result of racism) but also on Christianity. 

An "Ivy League professor" (if Ivy League professors use language like : “As a black woman in an [sic] nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god." then I should be very glad that I never attended one of those useless fine institutions) has recently hit out not only at white men in America but also at God.

It is now plainly clear to any and everyone that the agenda is not only to destroy "whiteness" but also "maleness" and now "Christianity". I bet this pathetic human being was either simply trying to be controversial or has been utterly brainwashed (a trait I would NOT look for in a university professor but that's just me).

Ivy League professor calls God a 'racist' after Zimmerman verdict

An Ivy League professor blogged after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin that the verdict shows God is a “white racist” who stalks “young black men.”

Anthea Butler, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Religious Studies, made the unusual comments in a blog post released on Monday on, where she is a regular contributor.

“God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us,” she wrote in the post. “As a black woman in an [sic] nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god.

“As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men,” she added.

Butler adds that Trayvon Martin’s killing was the result of racism that was influenced by Christianity.

“As a historian of American and African-American religion, I know that the Trayvon Martin moment is just one moment in a history of racism in America that, in large part, has its underpinnings in Christianity and its history,” she wrote. “Those of us who teach American Religion have a responsibility to tell all of the story, not just the nice touchy-feely parts.”

“When the good Christians of America are some of its biggest racists, one has to consider our moral responsibility to call out those who clearly are not for human flourishing, no matter what ethnicity a person is. Where are you on that scale? I know where I am.”

According to her biography, Butler holds doctorate and masters degrees in religion from Vanderbilt University as well as a masters in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. She is the author of a 2007 book titled "Women in the Church of God in Christ, Making A Sanctified World," published by University of North Carolina Press.

Butler, who did not respond to requests for comment, is also an associate chair for the school's religious studies department and is a regular contributor and guest on both MSNBC and CNN.

Josiah Ryan, editor-in-chief of Campus Reform, which first reported Butler's comments, said the professor's reaction to the verdict was bizarre. 

"No amount of heartbreak over the Zimmerman acquittal justifies these hateful posts," Ryan said. "Professor Butler's remarks were clearly designed to hurt when Americans needed healing and to divide when we needed unity.”

"In tumultuous times students must be able turn to their professors for calm and wisdom. In stoking the flames of hatred, Professor Butler has betrayed her students' trust. UPenn administrators ought not to allow her back in the classroom."

Officials for the University of Pennsylvania declined to comment.


Monday, 8 July 2013

Genocide of the South African European Minority

Its a travesty that in 9 months this video has only been seen 5 338 times. Slightly outdated but no less true and accurately reflects the pain and suffering of the victims of these savages.

State Coffers Bled White

Well folks, here we have it again, the wonderful transparency of the Zuma government - the same government that in a single financial year managed to steal, misappropriate, mismanage and abuse taxpayer money to the tune of almost R1 billion.

And what steps have out responsible and dedicated governmental department heads taken in recovering those funds? Well they have managed to recover less than R1 million. So what does that tell you? That they have only managed to trace less than 1% of all of that tax money that was meant to be used to better the lives of the people living in those Provinces.

Well, I'm sure that there are some people whose lives have been bettered by that money - but politicians and their family members don't count seeing as they earn obscene sums of money already.

But then again I may just be a little cynical here - perhaps the money was used legitimately and those involved simply forgot to submit the receipts? *rolls eyes*

But either way, investigations will be launched to determine who is not to blame and into finding extremely good excuses that will mollify the majority of the population and keep them voting ANC in the next set of elections. And naturally this investigation will cost the taxpayer many millions more Rands which will be paid to a politically connected an independent firm to get to the bottom of things but in a report that will be branded top secret...

OLEBOGENG MOLATLHWA | 08 July, 2013 00:31

Nearly R1-billion lost through fraud in the public service has not been recovered.

Government departments have managed to get less than R1-million back into the state's coffers.
The Public Service Commission has found that the public service lost R932.3-million to financial misconduct in the 2010-2011 financial year.
According to the commission, misconduct relates to theft, mismanagement, misappropriation and abuse of funds, fraud, corruption and gross negligence.
North West - where fighting between rival factions in the ruling ANC is rife - was the worst offender.
Financial misconduct by public servants cost the province R673821980.45, but the authorities managed to recover only R4530.
Limpopo, which had several departments placed under administration by the cabinet, performed much better than North West.
Financial misconduct cost it R16123114.64 - but only a measly R1367.37 was recovered.
Figures for the 2011-2012 financial year show that the cost of financial misconduct has dropped dramatically to R230-million but cases monitored by the commission rose to 1243 - up from 1035 the year before.
In 2011-2012, departments in Gauteng misused R14-million of public money.
Only R27000 has been recouped to date.
Gauteng flushed away R18463258 and recovered a mere R4259.
Public Service Commission member Mike Seloane said the drop can be attributed to two factors.
"The systems are becoming effective or departments are simply not declaring financial misconduct. There are departments that have declared no financial misconduct," he said.
The commission will launch an inquiry into the reasons for the low rate of recovery of misused public money.
In addition to financial misappropriation, the commission observed that efforts to deal with the problem were being frustrated by political heads of department.
It expressed displeasure at the "reluctance by departments to disclose fully the financial misconduct cases".
And it noted that there were "no concrete plans to ensure that money lost to the state was recovered fully".
The report detailing the latest national financial misconduct figures is expected to be published and presented in parliament in August or September.

Wednesday, 3 July 2013

Who Needs Feminism?

Recently I've been seeing a new meme all over the place where people hold up signs stating why they "need" feminism. Apart from the fact that about 90% of the reasons given have nothing to do with feminism this just pisses me off. Its quite simple really, if you truly think that men and women are equal why the hell do you need a bunch of manhaters pushing an ideology on the world that will benefit you and disadvantage men instead? Isn't that contrary to the point of "feminism"? Forgive me for being politically incorrect again but how empowered are you really if you need other people to push for a system which puts you ahead without the hard work simply because you happen to have breasts and a vagina as opposed to a penis?  Where is the equality in that? If you really are equal to men and can compete on the same level and can add the same value why do you need feminism at all? 

And for the record, I happen to be a woman. I happen to be a successful woman. I also happen to be a woman that understands and appreciates the fact that men and women are different and that men are inherently suited to certain things whereas women are not. I also see no reason to have a system in place that gives me an advantage because I happen to have a uterus while disadvantaging those with a penis because they have had it good forever. I am comfortable in my femininity and accept that masculinity is a necessary attractive and worthwhile trait. And I also believe that men are in no way oppressing me if they are better suited to something than I am.

On that note, here are a few of my "favourites":

You "deserve" equal pay you say? Do you provide equal value? Do you put in the hours, the work without complaint? Have you ever used "women's problems" to get out of work? Will you expect paid maternity leave for months on end? If so then how do you "deserve" anything? 

So using your logic novel's written from a teenager's perspective shouldn't be called "teen fiction"? What would you like it to be called? How many men do you know that read romance novels? It is almost ENTIRELY women who read those crappy books (women who have no meaningful relationships). Get over it - if there was a section called "male fiction" you'd say its sexist and ask why there is no "women's fiction". 

So? People have died due to disease, jealousy, insanity, accidents, stupidity, communism and a million and one other things. To say you need an ideology which emasculates men simply because people have died is pathetic. Why don't we just outlaw meanness? Because men being in a position of authority automatically means people will die?

Ok... lets think about this logically for a second - I know that logic is like poison to you feminists but just bear with me. Does your office job, which runs from 9 to 5 every day with weekends off,  place you in the same kind of physical danger as those men working on oil rigs, fishing boats and in coal mines? Does it put you in a position where you could die at any moment due to the tiniest of errors? No? Well then why the hell do you think that you deserve the same pay? Go work on an oil rig, a fishing boat or in a coal mine and then you can ask for the same pay. But until then just because you want it does NOT mean you deserve it. 

Newsflash dear - no one can "guilt" you into anything you don't want to do. You behaved like a whore and now you feel ashamed - stop blaming someone else. Just because someone asks you to do something repeatedly does NOT mean that you have to say yes. Be strong enough and have enough self respect to say NO and stick to it. Otherwise just shut up and stop blaming men because you chose to do something you feel ashamed of. And twice? If you hated it so much the first time why do it again? You liked it, someone found out and judged you and now you blame him? Grow up and take responsibility for your own stupidity.

So you're great at your job and you earned the respect of your colleagues? You are a strong and valuable employee? If you truly believed that you would be able to laugh off what was said because you would be confident enough in your own abilities. But no, you THINK you're good at your job and have "earned" respect and that you are strong and valuable and that is why you need a pathetic ideology that effectively treats you like a child to feel better.

You don't care what they think so much that you had to say that you need feminism because of it? Sure. And so what if they feel uncomfortable around you and they dislike you? Its almost like you feel they should automatically approve of and give you validation for being "outspoken" and "confident"? Doesn't seem too confident to me... 

I highly doubt that has anything to do with the fact that you're female. Its more to do with the fact that you're white and the guy obviously wasn't. Not every insult you receive is because you're female. 

a) How did he not respect or value you? All he did was acknowledge the fact that you are female. And its a good thing I promise unless you would like to be viewed as "one of the boys" by every man you meet? And its actually a sign of respect - now you're little feminist self can't get mad when he talks about finding women attractive or discussing sex with his male friends etc simply because he will not be doing that in front of you.

b) Hmmm... you need feminism because your friend failed to report a crime to the police? Or do you need feminism because she is ashamed of what she did or allowed while she was drunk and to get herself out of trouble with her parents she shouted sexual assault? And if she is routinely drunk (a sophomore? 15/16 years old?) she is behaving recklessly - and how do you know she didn't instigate it? I am not condoning crime here but if she has so little self-respect so as to routinely be drunk then how do you know that she isn't routinely promiscuous or simply shouting "sexual assault" because she was rejected? There are 2 sides to every story. But trust me, you do NOT need a feminism to get to the bottom of it.

I don't think you understand what feminism is either. How is the fact that you judge your friend for having an opinion reason for you to need feminism? And if more young women thought about the possible consequences of their promiscuous behaviour and dress there would be no need to "slut shame". (see my opinion on "slut shaming" here)

Its your own mind that makes you ashamed for having condoms - not society. And can I tell you a little secret? When women go out they already know if they are going to have sex - men are hoping. 

You need feminism for that? You need to have people fight battles to put a system in place that would disadvantage men so that you can be advantaged just to prove something to your father? Why not go out and DO it instead of relying on a school of thought that treats you like an invalid and imbecile? Unless you are UNABLE to do it on your own?

Forced into sex? Never.
But "guilted" and "manipulated"? Please? How weak willed are you? How desperate for validation are you that you are unable to say no and stick to it? And how pathetic of you to blame someone else because you did something that you are not proud of? You can be forced into sex - but not guilted or manipulated. Feminism says you can be promiscuous without having to feel like slut - is that why you need it? To say that your actions are OK and that its the man's fault? Put on your big girl panties and deal with it - and stop blaming men! If you didn't want to have sex you should be strong enough to say no - or do you need feminism to say no for you?

How much do you really need feminism if you feel that being associated with it is an insult? And have you ever wondered why people see feminists in a bad light? Ponder it for a minutes and you'll see how your backward and insulting school of thought can rub people (men and women) up the wrong way.

Well I'm not surprised she thinks that way - I would have to agree with her - especially if you were my best friend. Nothing is more mind-numbing than constantly hearing women put men down simply because they are insecure in their own femininity. And its true that men are usually less shallow and have a working knowledge of a wider range of topics than women simply because women are more worried about feminism. I also prefer talking to men as I find women (on average) to be shallow, vapid, manipulative, selfish and woefully clueless on most issues. You need a matriarchal system to make her change her mind to fit with your narrow opinions because you don't like hers?

Well you actually should feel embarrassed and ashamed the second YOU allowed it to happen more than once. The first time you are the victim of domestic abuse is never your fault, the second you refuse to take a stand and leave him instead choosing to go back knowing he has no problems with hitting you, you chose to be a victim and you chose to stay where there is abuse. Not asking for help is what you should be ashamed of and not speaking out is what should embarrass you. being abused is not. So what do you really need feminism for? Is it not common sense and instinct to retaliate when attacked and then flee and then avoid that situation in the future? Why should you need to disadvantage and demonise men because you are an idiot?

Oh really? So pregnancy is not for women anymore? How about rape laws that only apply to forced penetration of women? How about faking orgasms? Or not be judged negatively for drinking pink drinks? Multiple orgasms? Take sick days because of periods? Be a cougar and not a dirty old man? get aroused without the world knowing? What do men have that is exclusively for them - standing while peeing?  

Sexually harassed at the age of 8 or 9 by an 8 or 9 year old - really? Are you certain it was SEXUAL in nature? Are you sure it was INTENTIONAL? Or are you just finding any excuse to hate men?

Ever wondered why that is? Maybe because you harpies make it impossible for anyone to like you if they disagree with any of your nonsensical ideas? Maybe because you are as annoying and irrational as liberals and that annoys people? Or how about its simply because you keep ramming your man-hating ideas down our throats? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you get pissed off when Christians do it to you right? Well the rest of us normal people don't want your religion thrown at us all day either in your judging tones and sanctimonious reactions.

Really? Didn't choose to become a stripper? Because society told her that (despite there being plenty of "gender specific" careers available such as nursing, teaching, secretaries, hairdresses, nail technicians etc) the only thing she could do was strip? Are you saying that because she chose the route of easy money via stripping rather than education and a less provocative job it's men's fault? Sure *rolls eyes* because its always everyone else's fault when people decide that they want to take their clothes off for money. No one can make you believe anything about yourself - you already believe it. Its a choice you make. Stop blaming others for your mistakes because it makes you feel better. But then again, shouldn't you as a feminist feel that there should be NO stigma attached to stripping because promiscuity and dressing like a prostitute is just fine? So stripping should then be seen as the sign of a strong confident women shouldn't it? Definitely not something to be ashamed of according to feminists...

Oh really? So you now find it problematic that men find you sexually attractive? What happens if its a woman who finds you sexually attractive? How would you feel if no one ever found you sexually attractive at all - would that be better? And you never ever find men sexually attractive and never fantasise? If you do then you are a hypocrite. Ever thought that men are crude because they know it gets a reaction out of you? Or how about taking it a compliment that someone finds you sexually attractive? After all, your feminist leaders say that its ok to behave like a slut - so why complain when men give you the opportunity? Or is it simply a case of you being unable to behave like a grown up when people do or say things that you don't like? Men will look at women in a sexual way - its hardwired into them. Women look at men sexually and can sexually harass them too or did you forget that fact? But you're right - you need a group of past their sellby date women who no man would ever look at sexually anyway to protect your honour and make men feel bad for being attracted to you. And FYI - men can only view you as a sexual object while they don;t know you. If they know you and they see you that way only then you have to ask yourself what you're doing to enforce that perception.

I would then assume that you are either pathetically shy and therefore need to be helped in this sense or you simply have horrid taste in companions.

Can we logically think why that would be? Plainly said its because all of the notable revolutionaries in history have been men! How then would you depict the non-existent female revolutionary? Bring on a female revolutionary that doesn't preach that men are useless, inferior, animalistic sub-humans who's only aim in life is to subjugate women to make themselves feel better and should not display any masculine traits because its "oppressive" then we can talk seeing as that is the message all feminist "revolutionaries" have come up with.

For the most part I agree with the sentiment regarding how women are portrayed and that they should not be forced into thinking that only one type of body shape etc is attractive.
What I disagree on is the following:
1. I have never come across any teaching that women are objects for men and I happen to be a devout Christian. Any parent teaching that people can or should be owned by others is child abuse. But teaching little girls that they are different to little boys is very important.
2. How is dressing provocatively empowering? If feminism didnt teach that girls don't need self-respect to demand respect from others or that any and all kinds of sex with any and everyone is perfectly acceptable then they would not feel the need to dress this way at all. And how about mother stop teaching their daughters that they can dress how they want but should NOT allow men to view them sexually? Hypocrite.
3. Taking drugs and drinking excessively is NEVER ok - especially if they want to. Addition can kill you. So no, I will NOT "lay off" when I see a CHILD involved in that kind of destructive behaviour.
4. Have sex at any age? So if a 6 year old wants to have sex because it feels good they should be allowed to? With any partner of their choosing? There is a reason why CHILDREN cannot consent to sex - they are not mature enough mentally, emotionally or physically to deal with the consequences of sex. That kind of opinion is what leads to teenage pregnancies which ruin lives. And then you promote abortion because they girl should be allowed to choose? You will murder a baby created by your approval of children engaging in the act that creates children? How about we teach girls to keep their legs closed until they are ready to have sex and their partners cannot be arrested. When a child is coerced into having sex with an adult you call it a crime - but if that child chooses to have sex with an adult its ok? You must be sick in the head. That kind of thinking simply leads to more promiscuity and drug and alcohol abuse. 
5. CHILDREN do not need sex education at all. Teens yes but CHILDREN no. Half of the world's violent crime and rape problem comes from the fact that we are exposing children to sex too early. 
6. You might teach your children to have no self-respect and to sleep around but trust me I shall not. Any daughter I have will have a childhood that is NOT interfered with by sex, drugs, bad influences and the teaching that dressing like a hooker is acceptable. The reason kids are trained this way these days is simply because of the feminist movement! Go back to the 1950's and before and see if little girls behaved this way I bet you that they didn't. That was because mommy was mommy, daddy was daddy and there were no instances of 2 mommies or 2 daddies.

How insecure are you that you are unable to laugh at yourself? Jokes glorfying rape? Go ahead. Jokes about men telling women to "go make him a sammich" or which highlight stereotypica aspects of female behaviour? Please - get a grip, get over yourself, brush the chip from your should, stop being the perpetual victim, get a sense of humour, stop taking yourself so seriously, put on your big girl panties and get over it.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you're a girl and everything to do with you being a teenager. Guess what? Teenagers generally ARE idiots and that you will only realise when you're an adult. So where is the need for feminism again?

Why do you need feminism? Are the women authors not good enough to get reviewed on the basis of their work that you need to force the magazine to do it? Instead of forcing the magazine to review more female authors, how about getting female authors to write books that are worthy of review? Too difficult? Must be seeing as the most notable female authors in recent history (and made so by female readers) wrote books like Fifty Shades of Grey  and the Twilight series. I rest my case on that basis alone.

No one is stopping you from doing just that. But when you dress like a hooker don't take offense when people treat you like one. (See my earlier post on that issue here)