Trump wants domestic abuse program fund cut.
Protest weekend before Valentine’s Day.
Saturday, Feb 11, 2017, worldwide
Trump wants domestic abuse program fund cut.
Protest weekend before Valentine’s Day.
Saturday, Feb 11, 2017, worldwide
Donald Trump’s latest stunt is planning on cutting funding for domestic violence victims.
Low blow, Mr. President.
This article lists a few programs that will lose out if he gets his way.
Domestic violence programs are already very underfunded, and often shelters do not have enough beds to house survivors who flee.
Some feminists and internet users are planning a widespread protest calling on Donald Trump to buck up and support women for a change, and to spread awareness about woman abuse, how to spot it, and where to get help.
The weekend before Valentine’s Day is a great date because women who attend and get educated about warning signs, hotlines, and shelter facilities can bring what they know to a Valentine’s Day date they go on.
Help us spread the word about the march, especially if you can’t attend!
Also, please check out these eye opening quotes on abuse.
When A Man Says You Nag:
We’ve all heard the bullshit- men ignore because women nag. Men “don’t know” how to have a conversation and women should pity them and leave them alone. Women want a “talking” relationship in which they change the man into a conversation obsessed woman and don’t allow him to be himself. The poor dear.
What is really happening is this: the woman is talking not because she is nagging, but because the man is shutting off and not answering questions. He is not answering questions because he is trying to keep something secret. He is trying to keep it secret because he is doing something wrong.
One partner’s stonewalling forces the other person to ask more and more questions to address necessary issues. The stonewalling partner labels this “nagging”, even though in context it is really not, and the questioner begins to have low self esteem and becomes ashamed every time she feels the need to get info or clarification, no matter how normal or average or common her level of questioning is, nor how necessary it is in context of the particular conversation or situation.
Since more men than women behave in a nasty way, they are more likely to become secretive in order to hide responsibilty for that nastiness. Since they become secretive, they become allergic to questions, even normal and necessary levels of questioning. They label their wife a nag to shut her up, and label all women as nags, even though the women are not asking any greater level of questioning than a man would.
(Similarly, whites often call blacks nags, or “troublemakers”, as a whole, because since white people harm black people with their behavior, naturally the blacks are the ones who complain! Same with Jews- ever hear of the “complaining Jew” stereotype? This is because Jews were pushed around in Christian Europe and it was in their interest to discuss it, while is was in Christians’ interest to ignore them. The abuser is benefited by silence while the victim is benefited by openness and discussion).
Talking, furthermore, is not a female thing. It is a necessary human tool- how can information be conveyed without talking? Nor is it even true that females talk more than males. Studies show that men talk MORE than women- it’s just that men are more ANNOYED at women’s talking than they are at other men’s and more than women are annoyed at either men’s or women’s talking.
The husband feels more annoyed at his wife’s speaking…so he twists reality and labels her behavior as more annoying (nagging)…because his REACTION to it or FEELING about it is different. This is lying. Your feelings about something do not change what the thing is. If you start to feel annoyed at me speaking, this does not mean I have started speaking more or in a different way, It is you who have changed, not me or my behaviour.
Of course, the man can be the one being gaslighted by the woman, too, and there are men who are the victims. But mostly, it is a greater number of men who stonewall than women, because a greater amount of men behave in ways that cause the person living with them to have to complain. So this is why I titled this piece “When A Man Says You Nag.”
For Women: Violence in Pakistan
Women in Pakistan do not have economic, social, civil and political rights. Women are denied the right to education, and also the right to control their marriage and divorce. Girls and women who are born into poverty and are sold as sex slaves. They are also forced into marriage, prostitution or work exploitation such as bonded labor. This proves there is discrimination against women and girls in Pakistan.
Pakistani women endure domestic violence and physical abuse, which includes rape, acid throwing, burning, and “honor” killings. This is still widespread in Pakistan. Acid-throwing is increasing. The government has not restricted the sale of acid. It has not punished those who use it to injure women. “Honor” killings continue daily.
Women and girls are sold into sexual slavery. Pakistan is a country of origin and a transit country for the selling of women for domestic labor, forced marriage and prostitution. This form of slavery is organized by crime networks that exist in all of South Asia. Both local and trafficked women are killed if they refuse to earn money in prostitution. Forced marriage of young girls continue. Even though slavery is illegal in Pakistan, girls and women continue to be traded to settle debts or conflicts. The sale of girls and women in markets is reported in underdeveloped or poor areas such as parts of Balochistan.
Physical abuse of women in police custody continues often in Pakistan. Despite promises of police reform, police continue to use torture to intimidate, harass and humiliate detainees. They do this to extract money or information.
Almost no positive changes have taken place for women’s rights. The government in Pakistan still fails to provide enough protection for abused women in the custody of the state, and in the family and community. In fact, the number of victims of violence appears to have risen. There are very few laws to help women who are escaping honor killing and other domestic violence. There is a lack of safe houses for women. There is an absence of reliable laws to save women from parents who do not accept women’s rights to freedom of choice in marriage. There is an absence of reliable and prompt protection by the state.
This is not acceptable.
Even though some progress has been made, much remains to be done. More women are aware of their rights, thanks to the Pakistani women’s rights groups, working women, and the human rights movement.
However, the killers of Samia Sarwar and many others remain free. ( http://www.amnestyusa.org/women I apologize it is in English)
The Parliamentary act that was supposed to explicitly outlaw “honor” crimes did not pass. In one survey by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, it was reported that in the year 2000, almost 90 percent of women did not know they had the right to divorce. This includes women who were highly educated!
The government of Pakistan has made general statements on the protection of women’s rights, including condemning “honor” crimes. The Pakistan Council of Islamic Ideology was asked whether “honor” killings are lawful according to Islam. It replied in a letter in the year 2000
“Although sexual immorality is one of the major sins according to Islam for which Islam has prescribed very severe punishment, nobody is allowed to punish others on the behalf of this law. Willful homicide, no matter what the the motive, is the same as murder.”
However, legal and procedural changes have not occurred. Human rights organizations are calling for repeal of laws that discriminate against women. One example is the Zina Ordinance and the Evidence Act. Another is the Qisas and Diyat law. This allows the family of a murder victim to forgive the perpetrator and save him from prosecution.
Have a nice day.
View SSP Office in a larger map
STEP 2. After entering the premises, turn right and proceed to a big room.
STEP 3. Give them the Police Certificate Form, photos, and application. The personal would give you 4-5 days time. That is the normal time and it can be reduced to 1 day if you have approach.
STEP 4. A police officer would visit you at your home in a few days (he might call before coming). He would fill Police Certificate Form by asking you questions.
STEP 5. Go to SSP office after 4-5 days, and go to the same room.
STEP 6. Find your application and get it stamped and submitted to a batch. This batch would appear in front of SSP Lahore.
STEP 7. Make a queue and go to SSP’s office, who would call your name and sign the certificate.
STEP 8. You have a Police Certificate for immigration.
This information is valid as of May 2009. I highly doubt there would have been any change in the process/system.
The 50 Million Missing Campaign often gets emails like this one [click here ] from women being blackmailed for dowry before their wedding.
INDIAN WOMEN – YOU MUST KNOW THE DOWRY LAWS BELOW AND PROTECT YOURSELVES!
Q. Is Dowry legal in India?
Dowry is illegal in India under the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.
Q. Who is the offender under the Dowry Prohibition Law?
Under the Dowry Prohibition Law it is an offense to both take dowry OR to give dowry. So the groom and his family who have taken dowry can be charged. And if the bride’s family has complied with the dowry demand and given dowry, they can also be charged as guilty as under…
View original post 757 more words
I liked this one a lot. If Jews had 6 million murdered in the Holocaust, and women have had may more times as much murdered, maybe we should have OUR own country too!
View original post 162 more words
“A backlash against women’s rights is nothing new in American history…It returns every time women begin to make some headway toward equality…” says Susan Faludi, on page 46 of Backlash.
She says people who view the feminist revolution as a straight line getting better and better over time, rather than a cycle that goes back and forth, up and down.
I’ve recently started to be haunted by a terrible thought…perhaps our current liberation in only a tiny peak sandwiched in the middle of a sea of oppression- one in the past, and perhaps one in the future. Hearing about this, about how women’s liberation has been existent in the past and has come and gone, rather than progressed in a straight line, this really started to worry me: is our current liberation permanent…or is it just a tiny speck in a huge sea of darkness and oppression?
Is there really anything special about the present, compared to the rest of history? Are we really safe for good or are we going to cycle around again…into another Dark Ages?
On the next page she says these backlashes we are seeing against women’s rights are a normal historical occurrence, like the financial penalties ancient Rome gave to unmarried or childless mothers, or the charges of heresy against early women disciples of Christ, or the witch killing in the medieval era.
She guesses that maybe since American culture isn’t founded on class distinctions, maybe men clung to the idea of male supremacy to elevate themselves socially. Who knows? Sounds like a good theory to me. She says on page 48 that free women in America usually just used their freedom to choose to go back into dependence again, and that nearly a good half of all the anti-feminist books were written by women.
Recently, the driving force behind the brainwashing of women to make them willfully choose to be subservient to men has been popular culture peddled by the mass media, Faludi says. The Victorian Era- the middle to late 19th Century- was when this all kind of started.
I’m getting especially worried about the very current backlash against women’s rights, from Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Rush Limp-baugh, and others. Will they send us back to a new Dark Ages? Don’t say “but that was a million years ago! We are civilized now!” because if you look at history, lots of times the most uncivilized periods were preceded by periods that were highly civilized and tolerant.
I sure hope this current 20th-21st Century trend of women’s liberation isn’t just a speck among misogyny of the past…and misogyny of the future. I hope that this time, for good, we can be liberated.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to hold off of having sex (PIV or any other type), if it’s for a good reason (i.e., not “because the guy in da sky said so”).
Sometimes people are assumed to be abstinent just because they haven’t had sex by a “reasonably old enough” age, but that is an obviously wrong assumption to make. Sometimes people aren’t avoiding sex. It might be that they just haven’t had the opportunity or they just never went out purposely looking for it (but weren’t avoiding it either).
I have been called “prude”, “Christian”, asked “how is that possible your’e so pretty?” (apparently that means I didn’t have any reason to reject the OTHER person!),
“But you’re 23! It’s just…unusual!” (a HUGE exaggeration- BTW, “unpopular” and “unusual” don’t mean the same thing”).
“Are you a lesbian?” (Wish I was. But no, I don’t dislike men sexually, I just am not ready for sex with anyone I’ve happened to have datet yet.),
“Are you celibate?” (No, I don’t avoid it, I just haven’t been in the right situation yet. Have you ever ___ yet? Why not?? You don’t like it???)
“You said you aren’t comfortable until you get to know or love someone- so do you like sex or not?” (Idiot, I like it IF I’m in love with the person, would hate it if I;m not. Just like I like eating foods I enjoy the taste of, hate eating those I don’t).
“Did you get sexually molested as a child?” (Um, NO)
“Then why are you so afriad of sex?” (I’m not, retard. I’m not ready or interested in having it until I get that spark.)
“Well, when would that happen? Like how many months does it take generally take?” (Oh, usually it takes 2 months 22 days and 38 minutes exactly. Idiot! I don’t know. It depends on the person. It depends on the situation. Yuo’re being very rude by trying to “make” me like you.)
“You’re confused.”/”you’re confusing.” (No. I’m not. Just because I’m not robotically predictable in who I’ll love [who is? are you, sir?] doesn’t mean I’m unpredictable. You’re just sore at me because you didn’t get what you wanted.)
“I think we should stop seeing each other.” (Loser. Good for me, then. I’m not the one losing out.)
I think the subtle demonizing of chaste and conservative women is not what the feminist movement needs. We have thrown away valuable ties with conservative and old fashioned women for what? So we can be “liberated” to have more sex with men? (I can see all the “feminist” men grinning right now!)
Is that what benefits women? Or is that what benefits men?
Conservative women may not sound like “fun”, but they know how men are. They are wise and safe. They understand the lure of the “sexual liberation” movement was hiding dark intentions. Sure, it’s good to allow women to experiment sexually, and it’s right to fight for women’s right not to be punished more for performing the same sexual lifestyle as a man, but is that really what “liberal” men are clamoring for?
Or are they waiting for the pussy gate to come down so they can get some more meat?
We’ve all noticed the fact that most modern men are uncultured: they don’t care about art, music, languages, history, etc. They have to ask what a “duvet” is, they don’t like scented candles, and they are not able (or willing) to distinguish between colors. Women then have to settle with having partners who have no class and no imagination.
I’m wondering if this is how it played out in history: Women in the, say, 1800s, were told that art, and science, and music, and literature, and such were masculine things- things only men were allowed to do. They resented the fact that only men were allowed to do these things, because, well, they were normal humans, and normal humans don’t like being denied the liberty to do things they enjoy.
When liberal men came along, they promised to tear men down, take them away from so-called “snobby” culture and intelligence which they were entitled to, and to make them more “real”. This appealed to the women, who welcomed the idea of equality.
But what happened was this: these decultured men were LESS appealing to women, because they acted like ANIMALS. What the women didn’t realize, or didn’t admit to these liberal social revolutionaries, was that it wasn’t culture they hated- it was the idea that men were allowed culture and they weren’t. It was equality they originally wanted, but instead of asking to be allowed to practice culture in addition to men, and since men wouldn’t let them, they were so desperate for fairness that they were content to take culture away from men…which had consequences.
That culture that men had was at least in some ways a benefit to women. A woman back then could more likely count on a man to be civilized and knowledgeable and art-loving and sensitive. Now, all she can count on is a man who might like watching the Wizard of Oz only if there’s a kid around, and who doesn’t know the difference between turquoise and indigo. Peachy.
What women have benefited from in regards to this liberal social revolution, is knowledge about the true nature of most men. Now, at least women can be sure which men to avoid, since they are allowed to be their animalistic selves. Their freedom actually had some benefits to society.
The “men shouldn’t have to be cultured” revolution was a revolution to free men from culture, not for women’s benefit, but for men’s benefit, by giving them the option to ignore the responsibility of civilization and intelligence and altruism, and allowing their subhuman side to show through, their culture hating, morality-ignoring animal nature.
Perhaps this is what “freedom”, to these social revolutionaries, means: freedom of MEN to get back in touch with what they see as MEN’S nature, to the detriment of women. Women have to deal with the mess these men’s “freedom” has left them.
These revolutionary “dudes” tricked women into believing that intelligent, cultured, protective, moral men were their enemies, by painting them as oppressors, and leaving women with Mr. Hyde in the place of a kindly, though patronizing, Dr. Jekyll. (of course, not all men were nice, and many were abusive, but there was at least the pretense of better behavior then, and at least the hypothetical male, the male model that men were supposed to imitate, was more likeable than today’s).
It’s just like what they did with monogamy. They highlighted the bad aspects of the old system, only to replace them with a worse, more unpredictable system. While no women would enjoy being under the “protection” of a male patriarch a la The Victorian Era, I’m sure a good portion of them prefer that sometimes-responsible adult patriarch to the porn-watching, Xbox playing, culture-hating dood who doesn’t know Shakespeare from Mark Twain, and who doesn’t have a moral system- even a skewed one- to prevent him from abusing females even MORE than his 19th century counterpart.
I think the whole reason today’s historians, especially the male “feminists”, want to convince us that the old days were so horrible, is because they want us to feel like we’re totally safe nowadays. “Those old days were terrible and patriarchal! You’re much happier now!” they say. They are really just trying to get rid of any inkling of responsibility and personality men were once supposed to have.
Many women tend to prefer the god Apollo’s virtues- logic, reason, predictability- and are intimidated by Dionysus- the god symbolizing disorder, drunkenness, orgies, and destruction. BOTH, however, are gods, not goddesses, and as such are attempts to keep women under the palm of men, no matter what form that palm may take, right palm or left palm.
As for me, I prefer not having to choose between shit and crap, and I think that women should have the choice to marry and date other women, who are more likely to love and respect them. If there are good men, then forced monogamy should be abolished so we can share them.