Home > Issues > Theoretical Issues > Radical Feminism — Flotsam and Jetsam From the Past 50 Years

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Radical Feminism — Flotsam and Jetsam From the Past 50 Years (slightly edited)

by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A. 2018

 

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

May 8, 2018

For nearly two decades the Equal Justice Foundation has been pointing out that under current laws a man
has to be functionally insane to marry, and a drooling idiot to sire a child.
It seems redundant to state that no modern nation can long survive under such conditions.
Here are some of the reasons why this is true.

It is past time to take a look at some of the flotsam and jetsam of these feminist-inspired “laws.” I speak of
domestic violence and abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, child abuse, harassment, no fault
divorce, child support, paternity fraud, manspreading, among others. All of these “laws” are so broadly written and
ill-defined that virtually every human action or interaction can be found to somehow violate them. And these “laws”
do not define a “crime” in the conventional sense of the word. Instead, whether the accused is guilty of one of
these “crimes” is almost entirely dependent on the emotions and feelings of the “victim.” For example, is it
“domestic violence” or a lovers quarrel? Is it “rape,” or morning after remorse? Is it “harassment,” or simply a
disagreeable email? And so on...
With few exceptions, only heterosexual males and Christians (see Baskerville, pp. 216-257) are guilty of
these “crimes,” which now include such things as a man sitting on a subway with his legs spread too far apart.
Worse, hearsay is often admitted as evidence, perjury is virtually never prosecuted. Due process, as well as
presumption of innocence are quaint artifacts of the past.
In the process feminists, and the useful idiot legislators who kowtow to their demands in order to “protect the
children,” “make it safe for women,” “stop rape,” among other agitprop so well known and developed by tyrants in
the 20th Century.
Ultimately, feminist ideology is fatal to civilization and, with it, most females. But feminists of my acquaintance
are too often narcissistic and self centered to care about the future. Fortunately, these viragos seldom reproduce,
and when they do it is virtually always as a single mother, or in a lesbian couple, so their children are quite unlikely
to have the education and drive necessary to sustain this totalitarian movement over time.
However, while the feminist movement is running its course, the flotsam and jetsam in their wake continues to
build in the form of destroyed men, children, families, and the women who depend on them.

A brief history

Over the past twenty years the Equal Justice Foundation has compiled a large number of articles by both
men and women. These sad stories describe the progressive destruction of the Constitutional Republic provided
us by the Founding Fathers, i.e., “dead white males” in feminist parlance, in order to bring us today’s socialist
paradise. Recently Prof. Stephen Baskerville has summarized and comprehensively referenced this destruction in
his book The New Politics of Sex. Interested readers should either review his work for further details; or the
many articles, statistics, stories, and reviews compiled by the Equal Justice Foundation concerning these
injustices.

It is useful to look at the steps taken, and events that have brought us to this point before reviewing the
resultant flotsam and jetsam. Wendy McElroy has provided an overview of The Roots of Individualist
Feminism in 19th-Century America but it is worthwhile to highlight some of the major events:

1960 — The Pill
It is likely radical feminism could not have flourished without the invention of The Pill circa 1960. Oral
contraceptives gave women the freedom to enjoy sex without fear of becoming pregnant, and without the hassle
and embarrassment of a condom. That freedom is generally recognized as the basis for the Sexual Revolution
of the 1960s. Without the danger of becoming pregnant accidentally, women and men began to regard marriage
as a prerequisite to sex as outdated.

1964 — The Feminine Mystique
Radical feminism in the United States can be traced back at least to the publication of Betty Friedan’s book
The Feminine Mystique in 1964. Written while she was living in what she describes as a “comfortable
concentration camp” of New York City suburbia, her book is credited with sparking a “second wave” of feminism.
As a young girl, Friedan was active in both Marxist and Jewish circles. While she later became disenchanted with
Judaism, her Marxist training remained; and the methods and techniques of Marxists and communism have
remained prominent, if not dominant in the feminist movement.

1970 — No fault divorce
Ignoring the failure and destruction of the Russian Effort To Abolish Marriage, radical feminists were greatly
helped in their crusade by California Assemblyman James A. Hayes who introduced and got passed a “no fault”
divorce law in 1969, which was then signed into law by conservative icon Governor Ronald Reagan.
“No fault” divorce quickly became the national standard, virtually without debate or question, and either party
to a marriage contract could now end it without reason or justification. That proved a great boon to neo-marxist
feminist attempts to destroy families and marriage.

1971 — Domestic violence
Erin Pizzey’s book Scream Quietly of the Neighbors Will Hear brought the problem of domestic violence to
the world’s attention. After opening one of the first shelters for abused women in 1971, Ms. Pizzey quickly
realized that “...62 women out of the first hundred women who came to the refuge were as violent or more violent
than the men they left. Also many were prostitutes taking refuge from their violent pimps." But when she
published her findings about violent women in 1982, feminists drove her into exile for a decade.
Born in China in 1939, her parents and brother later captured during World War II by Chinese communists,
Erin PIzzey was well versed in socialist and communist dogma and techniques and quickly recognized these
elements in the feminist movement, and later documented them in her 2001 article From The Personal To The
Political. As she notes, many of the women were "trust fund bunnies," living off their rich father's money. What
made the feminist movement so immediately violent, was the fact that it was founded in England by American
women who were on the run from the FBI.

By 1972 the women's movement had run out of money. Unfortunately, Pizzey had attracted two things
feminists wanted: (1) A just cause to clothe their political agenda; and (2) money to fund this agenda. Marxist
feminists quickly moved to successfully make the domestic violence industry their own in order to finance their
agenda, claiming that all women are “victims” and all men are “batterers,” agitprop that persists to this day.

1973 — Roe v. Wade
The US Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade in a 7-2 decision issued on January 22, 1973, affirmed the legality
of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Thereafter, even if a woman neglected to take her Pill and became pregnant, she could, with minimal cost and
danger, abort her baby. This freedom from responsibility for any consequences of her sexual activity allowed
women to run wild, a basic tenet of feminism.

1980 — Duluth model and the cycle of violence
A group of feminists in Duluth, Minnesota, grouped together in an attempt to treat and control domestic
violence. They formed what is known as the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (DAIP) as an initiative to
reform the local criminal justice system. At that time, victims of domestic violence had little recourse when being
assaulted by their intimate partners. Choices for victims were limited — initiate criminal justice charges, endure
the abuse, or flee the relationship.

Commendably, DAIP activists in the battered women’s movement set out to understand the laws, policies,
and procedures of the criminal justice system; as well as understand the cultures of each of the involved
agencies. In doing so, they built relationships that allowed new interventions for abused women to be proposed
and tested. Eleven community agencies agreed to work together to continue to make positive change in the
criminal justice system around battering in what became known as “The Duluth Model.”
From that evolved what is known as the Cycle of Violence, which is still widely used despite a complete lack
of evidence for its general validity. Even DAIP co-founder Ellen Pence has written,
"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a
conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were
working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual
experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of
our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to
articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to
men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated
such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding
what we had already predetermined to find."
But it does make an effective graphic for feminist agitprop.
Unfortunately, DAIP based their work entirely on the false premise that domestic violence and abuse occurred
mainly in married couples. It doesn’t! They also presumed, without evidence, that violence between men and
women in intimate relationships was entirely the male beating and abusing the woman. Research at the time, and
consistently since, shows both partners are violent half the time. When only one partner is violent, women are
as, or slightly more violent than men. Worse, from the feminist standpoint, is that studies suggest the most violent
couples of all are lesbians.

1980 — Behind Closed Doors: Violence In The American Family
In 1980 Drs. Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetiz published the first large scale study of
family violence in their book Behind Closed Doors. As had Erin PIzzey before them, and every scientific study
since, they found that both men and women in intimate relations were roughly equally violent. That finding
elicited death threats against Dr. Steinmetz, who was regarded as a traitor to the sisterhood, who now depend
heavily on taxpayer-funding to support their neo-marxist agenda.

1994 — Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
By the end of the 1980’s feminist propaganda efforts based on the false claim that domestic violence was
always a man beating and abusing his wife to maintain power and control in order to support the patriarchy was
dominant and widely accepted. Unfortunately, none of the feminist agitprop has been, or was supported by
research. But facts seldom deter ideologues or politicians seeking female votes. and the political answer to all
problems is to pass another law. Drafted by then-Senator Joe Biden and with Clinton in the White House, a law
presumptively to protect women almost couldn’t fail.

Nonetheless, to insure passage of VAWA, feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women,
founded by Betty Friedan, and even secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, pelted legislators
with facts and figures in the manner perfected by Hitler, and known then as "The Big Lie." Feminist "factoids"
included such prevarications as: "The leading cause of birth defects is battery during pregnancy." "In emergency
rooms, twenty to thirty percent of women arrive because of physical abuse by their partner." "Family violence has
killed more women in the last five years than Americans killed in the Viet Nam War." This agitprop, isn’t true, of
course, but as Nazi and Communist propagandists found, a lie repeated frequently enough by enough people is,
unfortunately, taken as the truth by most of the population.
For example, in January 1993, Sheila Kuhn of the California Women's Law Center made the unfounded
claim that Super Bowl Sunday was the "biggest day of the year for violence against women." That stunning
statement quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland
Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to "explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and
children beaten."

All lies and fake news!

In pushing for VAWA, feminist advocacy groups were able to create new bogus statistics faster than the
experts were able to shoot the old ones down. And some of the agitprop — like the fiction that wife-beating soars
on Super Bowl Sunday — have become American myths as durable as the story of young George Washington
chopping down the cherry tree.
Thus, the Violence Against Women Act was born.
Dr. Richard Gelles reviewed the origin of the feminist factoids in 1995, but a rebuttal is seldom as effective, at
least initially, as the first lie. That is particularly true where the government is the source of the lie, as in the case
of HHS Secretary Donna Shalala. And, of course, by 1995 VAWA had already been passed into law.
In 1998 Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard is quoted as saying that:
"...Women's liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-marxist movement in
America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin
is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity
and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from
which all other social institutions draw their strength."
In the January 24, 2000, issue of U.S. News, on p. 12 John Leo writes:
"The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite
knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin's word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for
the North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that
the only possible explanation for the bill's popularity in the Senate was the 'senators don't understand the
meaning of the legislation that they pass.' [emphasis added]"
Further, Mona Charen has commented that:
"The trouble with ideologues is their simplemindedness. Communists saw a world full of evil: Conniving
capitalists arrayed against virtuous, long-suffering proletarians. Fascists saw the world divided between
master and inferior races. Modem feminists see violent, aggressive, uncivilized men victimizing helpless,
innocent, peace-loving women. It is the mark of small minds that they seek to eradicate nuance and
complexity."

In 2007 Dr, Murray Straus published a tabulation of the Processes Explaining The Concealment And
Distortion Of Evidence On Gender Symmetry In Intimate Partner Violence, well worth reading. But the
feminist agitprop continues unabated. Worse, the useful idiots in our government continue to give them massive
amounts of taxpayer funding to continue their quest for domination.
In the process, Congress generously authorized $1.6 billion to fund VAWA, and continues to do so yearly. Few
taxpayers would begrudge this outlay if it actually resulted in the protection of women. Instead, there is overwhelming evidence that the money is primarily being used to further an ideological war against men and
families. And the federal funding is supplemented by state and local funding, as well as charitable contributions.
Originally VAWA was based entirely on the presumption that only men were violent in intimate relationships
and that women were always the victim. While later versions of VAWA include gender-neutral language, the
money and support still go almost exclusively to neo-marxist feminists.

Of course, with billions to spend, and VAWA mandating such draconian measures as:

Of course these are acts of a police state and the policies of tyrants. But feminists were ecstatic.

 

Flotsam and jetsam — Lives destroyed

The best estimates I can make suggest the lives of some 3 million men every year are damaged or destroyed
by feminist ideology and dogma, and the resultant laws and practices. In addition, the destruction includes at
least that many children as well.
As this destruction has now been going on for over a generation it is possible to trace some of these men’s
stories to, or almost to their conclusions. Allegations of domestic violence, abuse, or sexual assault are standard
tactics in a divorce today. Under current laws such false allegations give an adulterous wife the house, the car,
the kids, the bank account, and anything else she wants with no questions asked, i.e., due process is a thing of
the past and allegations now suffice as “proof.” She will also almost certainly receive child support even if the
child(ren) prove not to be her husband's. And there is no penalty for her perjury, adultery, or fraud.
I often see the same results from vengeance-bent or mentally-disturbed girlfriends. And some women
simply use these laws for criminal purposes, e.g., robbery.

 

Below are summaries of the destruction feminists have wrought on the lives and deaths of a family doctor, an aerospace engineer, and an Army soldier.

The Second Amendment — Emerson story

One of the most-widely published tales of feminist destruction is that of what was done, deliberately, and with
malice aforethought, to Timothy Emerson, M.D.
Timothy Joe Emerson was born in 1956, in Dallas and grew up in San Angelo, Texas. He graduated summa
cum laude from Angelo State University in San Angelo, Texas, in May of 1980 with a degree in
biology/pre-medical and a minor in chemistry. From there he went to the University of Texas Medical School in
Galveston and graduated in 1984. A heart problem kept him from joining the military. He later married and they
had a daughter.

At the time Dr. Emerson was the lawful owner of approximately 30 firearms of varying types that he had
owned both before and all during the marriage. His collection included a 9 mm model 92F Beretta pistol that he
kept in his office. It is fairly common, and prudent for medical doctors who have many drugs in their offices, to
also keep a firearm there.
According to court records Emerson’s wife, Sacha, began an affair with her hairdresser and petitioned for
divorce on August 28, 1998. She requested a restraining order against Dr. Emerson, claiming he had threatened
her paramour during a telephone call. A temporary restraining order was entered against Dr. Emerson on
September 14, 1998. This was essentially a form order frequently used in Texas divorce cases and contained
standard language prohibiting Dr. Emerson from engaging is various financial transactions and from making
threatening communications or actual attacks upon his wife during the pendency of the divorce case. Specifically,
there was no finding by the court that Dr. Emerson had threatened his wife.
Unbeknownst to Dr. Emerson the state court's order made him immediately subject to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)
that makes the possession of any firearm or ammunition a federal felony with a mandatory prison term. Neither
the order or the state judge informed Dr. Emerson he would be subject to federal criminal prosecution merely for
possessing a firearm or ammunition while the temporary orders were in effect.
Dr. Emerson was then in the position of being required by court order to refrain from disposing of any marital
property and at the same time being in violation of Federal Law for possessing this property.
On November 16, 1998, Sacha, quite the drama queen, barged into Dr. Emerson's medical office with their
four-year-old daughter and refused to leave. After an argument in his private office she ran out and told San
Angelo police that Dr. Emerson had pulled the Beretta pistol and pointed it at her and their child.
As a result of Sacha's allegations, charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangering a
child were brought against Dr. Emerson he was arrested and jailed. Additionally, his firearms collection was
seized, and he was charged with a federal felony; ending his medical career.
On December 8, 1998, a Federal Grand Jury indicted Dr. Emerson on five counts under 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(8). But District Judge Sam Cummings, San Angelo, Texas division, granted Dr. Emerson's motion to
dismiss the federal case on February 26, 1999, on the basis that his Second and Fifth Amendment rights had
been violated. This was the first time any Federal court had confirmed that the Second Amendment is an
individual right and that made the Emerson case history. But the government, under the Clinton administration
and Attorney General Janet Reno of nearby Waco fame, appealed.
On October 23, 2000, he was acquitted by a jury of all charges brought by the state after a showing that he
was defending his business property and patient medical records against criminal trespass.
Now one would think that after being acquitted in a state court and having the case dismissed by a federal
judge that he would be a free man. The Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution clearly states that "No person
shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." But the Clinton administration
was anxious to win the feminist vote, VAWA was being challenged, and Janet Reno was the Attorney General. A
minor thing like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights means less than nothing to feminists unless, of course, one
of them is on trial.
In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans affirmed that the Second Amendment is
an individual right but remanded Dr. Emerson's case back to the District Court for trial, reversing Judge
Cummings dismissal of the case.
A request for a rehearing en banc (by all the judges of the Fifth Circuit) was denied November 30, 2001. Dr.
Emerson's case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court the first time.
On June 10, 2002, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. However, Attorney General Ashcroft
stipulated that the Second Amendment is an individual right in the government's response to Dr. Emerson's
appeal.
The case was then set for trial in Federal District Court in Lubbock, Texas, Judge Sam Cummings again
presiding. The trial lasted 8 hours. On October 7, 2002, a Federal jury of six men and six women found Dr. Tim Emerson, age 45, guilty of three counts of possessing firearms while under a restraining order in violation of 18
USC §922(g)(8).
On October 19, 2002, Dr. Emerson successfully underwent open-heart surgery for a defective heart valve at
the taxpayer’s expense. The State of Texas has taken Dr. Emerson's medical and driver's license away for
non-payment of child support. As a result he is indigent and the taxpayers are obliged to pick up his medical
expenses, including roughly $650 a month in prescription drugs. So citizens now pay for his wife's adultery as
well.
On December 11, 2002, Dr. Emerson was sentenced to thirty (30) months detention in a Federal penitentiary.
Dr. Emerson's conviction was again appealed to the 5th Circuit On January 28, 2004, judgment and
sentencing was affirmed in an unpublished opinion. His case was then appealed again to the U.S. Supreme
Court. However, on July 2, 2004, the Court denied certiorari.
After his sentencing he was placed on release supervision pending the outcome of his appeal under the
following conditions:
"The defendant shall not commit any offense in violation of federal, state, or local law while on release in
this case."
Back in the infancy of television in the 1950's a man was offered a substantial amount of cash, $64,000, if he
could go 24 hours without breaking a law. He lasted about five minutes after leaving the studio accompanied by
lawyers. In his nervousness he opened a pack of cigarettes without destroying the tax stamp as required by
federal law.
It has become even more impossible to avoid breaking a law today. Silverglate points out that the average
citizen now unwittingly commits Three [Federal] Felonies A Day.
Dr. Emerson did none of these so far as is known. Mostly he stayed at home on his computer as testified to by
his father and two other witnesses. But that didn’t save him from feminist vengeance. Since he had dared to
defend himself against feminists cherished Violence Against Women Act, he had to be punished further by the
sisterhood.
What Dr. Emerson did is occasionally go shopping at Wal-Mart in company with his father, where there was
some flirtation with a check-out clerk, Ms. Nicole Weber, age 21. As best we can determine she asked Dr.
Emerson to fill out a credit application, which she lost, and then had him fill out another one for her. She
reportedly inquired about information concerning her rather nasty divorce that she thought was available on the
Internet. Dr. Emerson found that information for her and brought printed copies to her at the store. There appears
to have been the usual byplay between a man and woman during these exchanges but no contact between them
outside the store. Dr. Emerson went through Ms. Weber's checkout line in company with his father, Joe Emerson,
whose age-related palsy makes it difficult for him to write legibly. Nicole Weber, because of her acquaintance with
the Emerson's, would help Joe fill out his checks to pay for their purchases.
On February 6, 2003, Nicole Weber filed a complaint with the San Angelo Police Department claiming Dr.
Emerson was stalking her at Wal-Mart by repeatedly coming through her checkout lane. In that complaint Ms.
Weber states she had found out that Dr. Emerson "had been convicted of an act of violence towards his ex-wife"
and that she "is in fear for her safety based on [Dr. Emerson's] behavior, comments, and past history." She further
claimed she had seen Dr. Emerson in places outside of Wal-Mart in the small town of San Angelo.
Once we would have been astounded to find that going through a cashier's checkout line at Wal-Mart once or
twice a week can be construed as a basis for a stalking complaint. But time and feminists have educated us; and
we hope mankind. Anyone who still doubts that injustices like this happen routinely should definitely read Prof.
Baskerville’s book The New Politics of Sex.
On February 10, 2003, Dr. Emerson's probation terms were modified to include the condition that he not have
any contact with Nicole Weber directly or indirectly, or with any members of her family. No notice was given to the
Emerson's that Wal-Mart no longer wanted their business.

In what we now recognize as a standard feminist tactic to destroy men; on February 12, 2003, Ms. Weber
again contacted the San Angelo Police Department and stated that Dr. Emerson was seen sitting in his car
outside the Hunter Run Apartments at 4404 Southwest Boulevard in San Angelo. According to the police report:
"The complainant [Nicole Weber] advised that she was at the location of offense [Hunter Run Apts.] and
observed [Emerson]. She said [Emerson] was sitting across the street from the [Hunter Run Apts.] in a white
vehicle. [Ms. Weber] said she it was facing the [Hunter Run Apts.] She said she drove away from the location
of offense and [Emerson] pulled in front of her. She said she turned and [Emerson] went another direction.
[Ms. Weber] advised that this has been going on for about a month."
On the basis of these unsubstantiated, and unlikely complaints as testimony showed Dr. Emerson’s father
strictly prohibited him from driving, the San Angelo Police Department notified Dr. Emerson's pretrial release
officer, Gloria H. Ramirez, on April 1, 2003, that he was alleged to have been driving a motor vehicle. Ms.
Ramirez called Nicole Weber and Ms. Weber further stated that when Dr. Emerson pulled out in front of her she
was forced to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision. However, the police report does not contain a car license
plate number and no description of Dr. Emerson by which his identification was confirmed by Ms. Weber. Note
that in the timeline of events established by Blue Moon Investigations there were a number of stalking incidents
and arrests of individuals driving white vehicles in San Angelo during this time period.
A warrant was issued for Dr. Emerson's arrest and he was taken into custody on April 3, 2003. A hearing on
the revocation of Dr. Emerson's bond pending appeal was scheduled April 22, 2003, in the San Angelo Federal
District Court by Judge Cummings dated April 3, 2003.
Dr. Emerson's father and friends arranged for witnesses to testify about his whereabouts on the date and time
of Ms. Weber's complaint. However, in a move we find common in such cases, at roughly 4 PM on Monday, April
21, 2003, Dr. Emerson was taken from the Tom Green County Jail to the Federal courthouse. His attorney met
him in the holding cell in the courthouse and informed him that the judge had already signed the order revoking
his appeal bond. Dr. Emerson was not allowed to testify or present any other witnesses at this impromptu and
unscheduled "hearing." Dr. Emerson was then sent to federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas.
Although Dr. Emerson's witnesses were not notified of the change in hearing date and time, Ms. Weber was.
According to the April 22, 2003 San Angelo Times:
“The woman [Nicole Weber] testified in federal court Monday that Emerson came through her line [at
Wal-Mart] almost every day, often reciting intimate facts about the woman and her family, like the name of her
physician, her living arrangements with her husband, the make and model of her car and the type of child care
she was using. One day, Emerson toted in printouts of the woman's divorce filings and paperwork related to
her husband's probation.
‘That's none of his or anyone else's business. I felt scared that he would even want to know that,’ the
woman said in court Monday. "He had just told me so much information and I was getting scared to death.’”
Such faked emotional feminist perjury is, of course, standard practice and often they are coached by
attorneys and victim advocates as to what to say and how to act; what used to be known as subornation of
perjury, Even though judges commonly recognize perjured testimony, nothing is done about it. Nor is it unusual
for hearing dates to be changed without notifying the man.
Once again the unsubstantiated word of a woman has served to place a man behind bars and we have many
similar cases where the man is sentenced to 6, 8, 12, and 14 years. Thirty months in the gulag is almost nothing
by the standards of Big Sister today. As Erin Pizzey has famously noted: "Any country that has tried to create a
political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags."
The Equal Justice Foundation tried various means to obtain additional information in order to refute Ms.
Weber's testimony. In December 2003 Bobbi Sue Bacha of Blue Moon Investigations in Houston, Texas,
volunteered to undertake an investigation of Nicole Weber pro bono. Contributions from members and supporters
enabled the EJF to cover her travel expenses to San Angelo.
As a result of her investigation Bobbi Sue Bacha produced a comprehensive report that refutes everything
Ms. Nicole Weber alleged and testified to with regard to Dr. Emerson. She even obtained a written statement
from Ms. Weber that denies Dr. Emerson was driving the white car she alleges to have seen outside her apartment the evening of February 12, 2003, together with a telephone interview. In these statements Ms.
Weber identifies another man as being her stalker. Further, Blue Moon's investigation found that Nicole's
ex-husband was not with her the evening of February 12, 2003, as she testified. Unquestionably Nicole Weber
perjured herself in federal court to help send a man to prison. This is a disgusting indictment of our justice system.

Blue Moon's investigation also noted:

"Further, our investigation shows the complainant Nicole Weber has a unusual history of filing police
reports in San Angelo (a total to date of approximately ten (10) police reports) for various allegations including
and not limited to alleged reckless drivers, missing picture frames from her apartment less than $20.00 in total
value, employers holding pay checks, scratches on her car, accusations against her husband's brother of
molesting her child, accusations against her husband of hitting her child (later Nicole Weber recanted the
allegation against her husband via a letter to the judge, however the charges remained and Nicole Weber's
husband Zack Weber was convicted anyway), and other miscellaneous reports, including the allegation of Dr.
Timothy Emerson allegedly stalking her at her apartment in an unidentified white car."

Clearly, Ms. Weber is a troubled individual given to making police reports with or without foundation but filing
false reports is a common feminist tactic.

In summary:

Do Sacha and Ms. Weber sleep well at night knowing the damage they have done? The motives of an adulteress are clear. But one can only speculate as to Nicole's motives: It is not unreasonable to imagine that she
may be a BATFE agent. Nicole Weber quit her job at the San Angelo Wal-Mart two days after filing her second complaint against Dr. Emerson, and only worked there a couple of months. Just long enough to wreak further
havoc with a man's life.
Dr, Emerson’s daughter is now a grown woman but he has only been able to see his daughter once for about
an hour after his parole in 2005 while she was visiting her grandmother. But when Sacha, his ex-wife, found out
she took a policeman and forced him to leave and never brought his daughter back.
As so often happens with children estranged from their fathers, in early 2009 his daughter, now 15, wanted to
see her father. They were texting back and forth, exchanging email, and they were friends on MySpace. But his
daughter told Dr. Emerson that whenever she missed the bus her stepfather would get mad and spank her
because she wasn't home early to clean the house.
Personally, I have a problem with stepfathers "spanking" teenage girls.

Apparently as a result of such actions his daughter told her mother that she wanted to go live with her real
father. As you who have been through these nightmares know, the manure hit the revolving steel blade. Her
mother and stepfather cut off her email, MySpace page, cell phone, and contact with her boyfriend.
Shortly thereafter an anonymous (Sacha?) phone call was made to Child Protective Services (CPS) claiming
Dr. Emerson and a female friend were living together and he was molesting the woman’s little boy. However, his
female friend and he had never spent a night together, he hadn't lived at the reported address for almost three
years, and had never been alone with the boy for more than a few minutes. As many others have seen, after an
"investigation" CPS was "unable to determine" that there was any basis to the abuse claims. Of course, the
"investigation" was completed without ever talking to Dr. Emerson.
His daughter now has two children but is a single mother. So in addition to being a burden on the public purse
it is almost certain his daughter’s children will end up in trouble as they go through their teens.
Dr. Emerson completed parole from his five-year sentence mandated by the Lautenberg amendment to the
Brady gun bill in April 2008 with no further problems.
As of early 2018 Dr. Emerson is living in a travel trailer on a friend’s lot. He has required a second open-heart
surgery, at taxpayer expense of course. As a convicted felon he is ineligible for most relief programs but Catholic
Outreach Services, First Baptist Church, Salvation Army, and other charities have helped. However, at least his
medical expenses are paid by taxpayers and he does receive some public support such as food stamps but is
able to eat only every other day or so. A few of his former patients help him out by driving him places. The Equal
Justice Foundation has also been trying to help and donations marked "Emerson Fund" can be made through
PayPal, or by sending a check to the EJF at 455 Bear Creek Road, Colorado Springs, CO 80906-5820. All such
donations are tax-deductible and Dr. Emerson receives 100% of your contribution.
Naturally he is in arrears on child support. Of course the reason he can't pay is that his wife's adultery resulted
in his imprisonment and the loss of his medical and drivers licenses. And, at last word, he has not been able to
get his drivers license or medical license back since being released from prison.
Thus, one harlot and her feminist cronies have deprived San Angelo, Texas, of an established and
eminently-qualified family doctor who no longer pays taxes or for his medical expenses. No crime was
committed in commonly understood terms. And Dr, Emerson is not the only medical doctor we’ve heard from
who has had his career and practice destroyed by feminists. The EJF mailing list currently contains over 30 M.D.s
who have seen similar problems. That number is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg.
So taxpayers now support four people, with more to come, as a direct result of Sacha fornicating with
her hairdresser, an obvious boon to feminism.
However, in terms of civil liberties Dr. Emerson’s case did a valuable service. It led directly to the case of
District of Columbia v. Heller wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an
individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
However, the price paid seems high!
Dr, Emerson can be reached at mylogan94@yahoo.com or on FaceBook. Words of encouragement would
also be appreciated. If you’ve read this far, more details are available here and this was by no means the end of
his travails as once the “justice system” has you in their claws they don’t let go.
Dr. Emerson's odyssey through a feminist legal system gone mad is but one example of thousands the Equal
Justice System has witnessed and hundreds we have documented. It is an open question as to how long a
nation can endure based on such practices. It is worth noting that the Soviet Union began with such practices and
endured for just 70 years.
In no way is Dr. Emerson's experience different from now millions of other men driven from their children,
families, homes, and businesses on to the streets. One only need to look along the nearest creek to see the
flotsam of tent cities of homeless. Many of them are combat veterans as well in our neck of the woods.

 

Steve Bandusky — A Boeing engineer

When we first heard from Steve on August 10, 2000, he was a successful engineer with Boeing in Mesa,
Arizona. He had built what his boys called the "big house" for his family: wife, her two daughters, and two boys of
his and his wife Sylvia. With about 5,000 square feet and a full basement, it truly was a big house. The boys loved
to play in it. Unfortunately, about a year after they moved in, things started to get a bit stressed with his wife.
Maybe it was the money, which was thin then, or maybe they grew a bit distant because of his schedule at work
and trying to make ends meet.
Without prior notice or warning, a typical feminist objective, at approximately 11:30 PM, on Monday, January
31, 2000, Steve was awoken by the sound of someone knocking on his bedroom door. It turned out to be two City
of Mesa police officers informing him that he was being forced from his residence under an ex parte domestic
relations restraining order.
All that he could think was that he had been woken up by the Gestapo in Germany. In utter disbelief he asked
to see the court order. Yes, there it was in black and white, an order stating that he had committed an act of
domestic violence against his spouse, his two stepdaughters, and two young sons.
After futilely trying to convince the officers that this was total nonsense, he asked them if they saw any
evidence of domestic violence against his family members. They said no, but reiterated that they had no choice in
the matter but to follow the letter of the court order. One of the officers even mentioned that the action he was
ordered to take against Steve was wrong, yet he still had to act on the direction of the court order. So after
packing an overnight bag, Steve said goodbye to the house he had just built for his family. He then found himself
driving around Mesa at midnight looking for a place to stay. Eventually he went to work instead.
It turned out that Steve's wife had gone to his mother and borrowed $100 that Monday and used the money to
go to court and file the ex parte restraining order against him. The story of what happened after that follows.
With the house being just a year-old, Steve was still doing landscaping. When hit with the restraining order
there were dangerous open trenches. Being an engineer, Steve was concerned about the danger to pedestrians
and others if the trenches were left open. Thinking the legal system was just, he obtained a modification of the
restraining order to return to the house and fill in the trenches. The modification expired at 5 PM but Steve was
still working away at 5:30 trying to finish up. His wife then called the police and had him arrested for violating the
terms of the order.
As usual, Steve was convicted of domestic violence for violating the restraining order in the kangaroo county
court after some dispute between the City of Mesa and Maricopa County as to who got to put the noose around
his neck for trying to be a good citizen. He vainly attempted to get a jury trial for the criminal charge but was
denied.
Steve's pro se appeal through the state courts was denied and certiorari was denied by the US Supreme
Court.
With a domestic violence conviction for violating a restraining order he was denied custody of his two boys in
the divorce; although he did have two weekends a month visitation; more than many fathers get in these
circumstances.
Real domestic violence
Meanwhile, Sylvia’s new boyfriend had moved into the house with the stepdaughters and the two boys. Within
a year she had a new baby by him to add to the "family." Note that she now had five kids by three fathers. As
often happens with women looking for a little "excitement" in their lives they take up with an abusive male.
Apparently Sylvia still couldn't keep her knees together, or something else set off the resident boyfriend.
On April 27, 2002, Steve visited the former marital residence to discuss the re-positioning of some trees in the
front yard that she had planted directly over the septic system. When he arrived approximately 10-12 police
vehicles/officers/detectives were parked in front of the house.
Steve quickly got out of his car to find out what was going on. He approached one of the detectives and was
told there had been a shooting. After just about passing out from fear that his sons had been injured he was told
they were safe with a neighbor down the street.

As it turned out, Sylvia had been shot in the back of the head with a 12-gauge shotgun by her resident
boyfriend while the children were in another room. Fortunately for Steve the police had the perpetrator in custody.
So Steve was not considered a suspect, as would usually have been the case.
After finding out from the detective that the boys were safe and sound with some neighbors, Steve informed
the police that he was going to go get them. They informed him that he couldn't due to the fact that he did not
have sole custody and couldn't take them without a court order. They also informed him that this was a criminal
investigation and that they wanted to question the boys, who were in the house at the time of the shooting.
At the time, despite all evidence to the contrary, Steve still naively believed he had rights as a father and made
the mistake of getting mad at the police; never a good thing to do, especially when they are conducting a murder
investigation. The police then ran a check on Steve and found he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. He
hadn't attended the DV treatment courses after being convicted of violating a restraining order when he
attempted to finish the landscaping project. So Steve got arrested and taken to jail once again.
After posting bond he went back to get the boys only to find the police had taken them into custody for
questioning.
Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Steve was lucky in that, after an investigation, child "protective" services gave him custody of his two boys
after his wife was murdered. My understanding is that the new baby went with its maternal grandparents. I don't
know what happened with the stepdaughters. Perhaps they went back with their father but Steve did keep in
touch with them.
As with everyone who goes through these injustices and traumatic events, Steve developed PTSD, severe in
his case. The stress caused him to perform poorly at work and he went on medical leave until he used that all up.
Eventually, though, he lost his job with Boeing and remained unemployed as he was emotionally unable to
concentrate.
After cleaning his wife's brains and blood off the wall he managed to sell the "big house" and the boys
certainly didn't want to go back there. That gave him money to live on but, like many, he self-medicated the PTSD
with alcohol. More alcohol was required as time went on and eventually his kidneys and liver failed.
Restraining orders kill
Through all the many emails from Steve he was trying to fix the problem, fight the issues and injustices in the
courts, and care for his boys. There was never any violence in his marriage, only some arguments about money,
and probably some estrangement due to his working too hard to try and pay for a new home and support a wife
and four kids. For this, which we should admire, his life and family were destroyed.
If Sylvia had not taken out the restraining order there is a very good chance she would be alive today. And we
can be reasonably certain Steve would not have crawled into a bottle to compensate for the incomprehensible
injustices done him and his children.
Before he died Steve did arrange with the older of the stepdaughters to care for his now orphaned sons. We
can only hope the resilience of youth allows these now young men to go on to normal lives despite the tragedies
their parents endured at the hands of a society and justice system gone mad, but the odds don’t favor them.
May he finally rest in peace
While Steve lived I asked him many times to write his story so that others would know what was being done to
him. After buying flowers for the grave of the boy's mother on March 15, 2004, he wrote me the following
message:
"People have been after me for a few years now to write this story. I don't know why it has taken so long to
complete. I have started many times, but I am still in utter disbelief as to what has happened. I always
seemed unable to finish. Maybe it was the pain, maybe the horror or probably just the absolute incredulity of
the way our government 'protects' us.
The flowers were for the mother of my two young sons that we recently placed on her grave on what would
have been her 39th birthday. This was the first time that I've taken them to view the gravesite of their mother. It was the first time that I thought that they were ready to be reminded of the horror of what had happened a few
years ago in the 'big house,' as they fondly called it. I found it a bit ironic as I watched the tears form in their
eyes, to notice that just a mile away on the horizon, stood the hospital that Johnny and Robbie were born in,
some 6 and 8 years ago. They were just 3 and 5 when the nightmare began."
It was with great sorrow that I learned of the death of EJF charter member Steven Bandusky on August 27,
2008, from liver and kidney failure; and even now this man’s death brings tears to my eyes.
Go with God, Steve, for you the nightmare is finally over. I hope my few futile words provide some evidence of
the horrors inflicted on you. Know that as long as I draw breath I'll continue fighting these injustices in your name.
Death of a soldier — In honor of Paul Charbell Boulos
The intention is to pay tribute to the brave men who go forth to fight our nation's battles and condemn the
injustice they face upon return. We do not wish to speak ill of the deceased but to encourage the development of
better methods of dealing with, and preventing tragedies like this.
If we accept the premise that a primary mission of the justice system is to provide for public safety then the
unfortunate history of Paul Charbell Boulos provides a depressing example of how our courts are failing both
veterans and the public weal.
We can, and must do better!

The following events are assembled from public records.

Paul Boulos entered the Army from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in March 1999 at age 24 and served until
March 2012, rising to the rank of staff sergeant. During his enlistment he endured three combat infantry tours in
Iraq and was highly decorated.
His problems with the Colorado justice system began in July-August 2001 with a couple of traffic tickets in
Denver and another one in May 2002. He also had some trouble with an apartment complex in Arapahoe County
in 2003, the sort of problems many young soldiers have.
Boulos first combat tour was in 2006.
Second combat tour in 2008
At some point he married Marina I. Gonzalez. As young couples with children often do they had money
problems in 2008 after Paul completed his second tour in Iraq.
Beginning of the end
Life really started downhill for Paul Boulos before his third combat tour in 2010. On February 26, 2010 his wife
Marina filed charges of domestic violence against him including criminal mischief, obstruction of telephone
service, and harassment claiming he shoved, struck, or kicked her. On the following day he was charged with
twice violating the mandatory protection order.
On April 13, 2010, Paul pled guilty to harassment and violating the restraining order and was given a deferred
sentence. The other charges were dismissed.
From that day forward he was a dead man walking.
He completed probation for those offenses on September 18, 2012. But troubles with his wife were just
beginning. On March 3, 2010, Marina was granted a temporary restraining order against Paul. That order was
vacated on March 15th. But probably with the help of her attorney or TESSA, Marina immediately filed for, and
was granted another temporary restraining order the same day. The second order was vacated on April19th.
During this Marina filed for divorce on March 12, 2010, and custody and financial battles in the divorce
continued until October 22, 2012. With a domestic violence conviction for Paul custody of their daughter went to
Marina.
2010 – Third combat tour in Iraq

In the midst of this domestic chaos Paul completed his third combat tour in 2010. [Note that with a
domestic violence conviction he should never have been deployed a third time.]
There can be little doubt that Paul Boulos was engaged in heavy combat during his three tours in Iraq.
Together with the emotional devastation of a divorce and losing his child he certainly suffered from post traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). It would be remarkable if he didn't also suffer from multiple traumatic brain injuries (TBI)
after years of combat.

 

Driven to death

Somehow Paul managed to stay out of the justice system after his third combat tour in Iraq until July 2011. But then his life completely disintegrated and the El Paso County, Colorado, jail and court records show the following:

 

Admitted to the veteran treatment court

After missing a number of court hearings he was admitted to the local veteran treatment court after finally
attending a hearing on January 19, 2012. As required of all veterans in that court, he pled guilty to F4 felony theft
and was given a deferred sentence on April 5, 2012. This case was closed on July 24, 2014, just three days
before his death, apparently after he paid restitution of $17,321, court costs of $1,624, and completed 50 hours of
community service.

But Boulos problems were only beginning:

 

Chaptered out.

Following these multiple arrests Paul Boulos was reduced in rank to private (E-1) and, in lieu of a court
martial, was separated from service under other than honorable conditions under Chapter 10 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) in March 2012.
That left him without VA medical treatment, a disability check, or any other benefits despite his obvious
injuries and three combat tours.

Arrests and jailing continued

 

Home is the soldier

Despite his obvious injuries after three combat tours Paul Boulos was chaptered out with a less than
honorable discharge after being reduced in rank to a private.
The available evidence strongly suggests that the cumulative strains of three combat tours in Iraq coupled
with family destruction, together with his repeated incarcerations led to his premature death on July 27, 2014,
presumptively from a heart attack, shortly after his fortieth birthday. He was also reported to be on a number of
drugs, which is almost always true in cases like this.
Despite being highly decorated and surviving three combat tours he was buried without any military
honors to the shame of our nation.

 

Conclusions

Before considering conclusions it needs to be firmly understood that the function of a justice system is public
safety, not personal safety. And law enforcement is but one component of the governmental function of
providing for public safety. Further, law enforcement and incarceration should be tools of last resort.
Then there is the question of how large an impact feminist ideology has had on the citizens of America; most
notably the men and their children. The examples given above demonstrate the destruction of a medical doctor,
an engineer, and a soldier. These are not professions a society can live without and there are now millions of men
in similar, vital professions who have been subjected to the same destructive feminist tyranny.
In a recent essay Heather MacDonald firmly establishes that “equality” in feminist ideology requires equal
or majority numbers of females in all professions. Unfortunately, few women are capable of, or interested in
combat roles in the military; or becoming engineers, scientists, linemen, machinists, miners, etc. The feminist
solution then is to lower the physical and educational standards for such positions. After all, why does an
engineer need calculus or differential equations when AutoCAD and programs like Mathematica are available?
Wars are now fought entirely by pushing buttons, right? Isn’t medicine better practiced and performed by robots?
Of course, these fallacies will inevitably result in mediocrity at best and inevitable failures at all levels, but at least
there will be equal numbers of women involved. Nonetheless, men will receive all the blame!
In our justice system feminists have cleverly circumvented the centuries old requirement that prosecutors
must establish both mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a criminal conviction.
Restraining orders, plea bargains, torture, making crimes of civil cases such as child support, ignoring
jurisdiction, judge shopping, admitting hearsay as evidence, allowing perjury and subornation of perjury are all
standard practice today in feminist-dominated jurisprudence.

A basic question, however, is how vast an impact feminist dogma and ideology have had on our society?
While an exact answer to that question can’t be determined, it is possible to make some estimates.

 

First step — Take away the guns

It is a hallmark of tyranny and tyrants that their first move is to ensure the populace they aim to control is
unarmed. In the United States the Second Amendment of our Constitution makes that quite difficult to do; as
was the Founding Fathers intent. Liberals and progressives, i.e., socialists/communists/neo-marxist feminists, are currently flanking the Second Amendment by methods such as the Brady Act, and the Lautenberg Amendment
of that act; as well illustrated by Dr. Emerson’s story above.

 

Domestic violence and abuse as a gun takeaway

Statistics of how many citizens are impacted by current gun control laws vary widely. Wikipedia suggests 2.3
million men and women a year are raped or physically assaulted each year by a current or former intimate partner
or spouse; but goes on to reference a report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2000 that suggests 1.3% of
women and 0.9% of men reported experiencing domestic violence in the past year. With a current adult
population around 250 million, that would imply at least 5 million men and women are being criminally assaulted
each year. Of those, a reasonable estimate suggests roughly one million men are arrested each year. While
conviction rates are currently unknown to me, at least half these arrests probably result in a conviction, usually via
a plea bargain. Thus, in the 24 years since VAWA passed, upwards of at least 12 million men have had their
weapons taken away as a result of a domestic violence conviction.
The Lautenberg Amendment also applies to domestic abuse restraining, or protection orders that are issued
ex parte like candy to any woman claiming to be in “fear” or “emotionally abused.” Estimates of the number of
such orders suggest 1.7 million to 2,4 million restraining orders are being issued per year. That implies that in
the 24 years since VAWA was passed in 1994 somewhere between 26 and 58 million such orders have been
issued. If just half of these orders are still in effect some 13 to 29 million men are currently barred from owning
weapons as a result; in addition to the multitude of other penalties associated with these heinous orders.

 

Felons can’t have guns either

While domestic violence cases are typically misdemeanors, the Brady Act also makes it illegal for anyone with
a felony conviction to own a gun. A reasonable estimate suggests that today ~20 million U.S. residents, almost
all are men, have a felony conviction.

 

Comparing apples, oranges, peaches, pineapples, blueberries, etc. to get a gross estimate

Now lets add all these figures up, always a dangerous thing to do with statistical estimates.
That sum suggests that at least 45 million men have had their gun rights taken away as a result of the various
“laws” that largely reflect feminist ideology.
The adult population in 2016 was ±250 million total, or ~123 million men. Of those, I estimate, as tabulated
above, that ~45 million (~37%) men have already lost their gun rights. All the while politicians have avoided the
dangerous step of directly attacking the Second Amendment under cover of allegedly “protecting women.”
Arranging so that the various laws, e.g., domestic violence, sexual assault, prohibitions like the War on Drugs,
etc., conveniently make everything a felony, or at least a heinous misdemeanor, has proven an effective and
politically-expedient method of disarming the population by sidestepping the Constitution.
But from the perspective of tyrants it matters little how citizens are disarmed, only that they are.

 

Adding insult to injury

 

Impact of these arrests

Many of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction flow not from incarceration but from the collateral
consequences. These consequences are shown in the following table for anyone convicted of a felony or many
misdemeanors, e.g., domestic violence:
In general, these are lifetime penalties, far too often incurred for violating feminist ideology expressed in laws
with no fixed definition and illustrated in the stories above. These cruel penalties can be incurred, and often are,
for such heinous crimes as driving down the street, sending an email, staring or whistling at a woman, and
whatever else a woman claims caused her to be in “fear” or “emotionally distressed.”
The numbers of men, children, and women destroyed by neo-marxist feminist ideology and the “laws” they
have instituted with the help of the useful idiots in Congress and state legislatures increases by millions yearly.
Already it appears that over one-third of the nation’s manpower is subject to the atrocious consequences of
feminist dogma.
Our “justice” system has now entered an era where jury trials have virtually disappeared, due process is an
antique relic; and allegations, hearsay, and unsubstantiated claims that a women is in “fear” now suffice as
“proof.” What matters now are “emotions and feelings;” logic, reason, facts, and evidence are of little or no
importance today.
The open question is how long this tyranny can continue without societal collapse?
While the arrests and incarcerations for “domestic violence,” “sexual assault,” “harassment” (both sexual and
personal), continue to increase, neo-marxist feminist ideology only makes the problems they claim to solve
worse. Evidence available to me demonstrates quite clearly that feminist dogma is criminogenic. Of course that is
their goal, as only by breaking down families and marriage can they eliminate the patriarchy and return to the
primitive matriarchy feminist claim to want.
The above is merely an outline of the problems caused by feminist dogma. In his latest book, The New
Politics of Sex, Prof. Stephen Baskerville provides a more complete review of the sexual politics resulting from
feminist ideology and his work is strongly recommended.

 

Principles of the Feminist Majority Foundation

Clearly, feminists are not satisfied with their current accomplishments, i.e., destruction. The Feminist Majority presents a very good outline of what a feminist future looks like:

My comments are in square brackets [ ].

These thinly-veiled socialist/Marxist objectives are common to many feminist organizations. The fact that these ideologies have killed an estimated 94 million people should not be ignored in reviewing feminist objectives.

It may be too late...

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

10 May 2018

Top