According to dictionary.reference.com “racket” is defined as follows:
1.a loud noise or clamor, especially of a disturbing or confusing kind; din; uproar: The traffic made a terrible racket in the street below.2.social excitement, gaiety, or dissipation.3.an organized illegal activity, such as bootlegging or the extortion of money from legitimate business people by threat or violence.4.a dishonest scheme, trick, business, activity, etc.: the latest weight-reducing racket.5.Usually, the rackets. organized illegal activities: Some say that the revenue from legalized gambling supports the rackets.
Not withstanding its provocative title, The Woman Racket is a serious scientific investigation into one of the key myths of our age that women are oppressed by the ‘patriarchal’ traditions of Western societies. Drawing on the latest developments in evolutionary psychology, Moxon finds that the opposite is true ??? men, or at least the majority of ordinary males have always been the victims of deep-rooted prejudice. As the prejudice is biologically derived, it is unconscious and can only be uncovered with the tools of scientific psychology.The book reveals this prejudice in fields as diverse as healthcare, employment, family policy and politics.
The complainant was 22- years old and living in New York when she had a dream that prompted her to recall the abuse. Four years passed before she summoned the courage to return to Israel and submit a police complaint about her father.
I am sparing the reader the satirical remarks coming to anybody’s mind. The trial:
(…) [J]udges accepted the testimony of prosecution witnesses Prof. Eli Zomer, Dr. Zvia Zeligman and Dr. Anat Gur, all experts in dealing with sexual assault victims.
In over a hundred pages of testimony, the expert witnesses said that the complainant’s dream was inspired by real memories, and pointed to the fact that she had experienced similar nightmares previously and had told her cousin that she felt her father had “done something to her.”
The complainant had also expressed discomfort about her relationship with her father and felt disgusted by him, they noted.
These facts suggest that the complainant was repressing memories, and were signs of post-traumatic stress, the experts said, who testified that uncertainty and doubt over memories of abuse are characteristic of incest victims.
And the conclusion reads:
“The evidence shows a very clear picture that is very hard to doubt of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by someone very close to the victim, starting at a young age and continuing over time,” expert witness Gur testified.
“The clinical symptoms, personal and interpersonal dynamics and the way the complainant tells the story fit the characteristics of fathers who harm their daughters.”
She had marital duties
An 80-year-old Australian man accused of raping his wife half a century ago on Tuesday urged the nation’s High Court to dismiss the case because rape in marriage was not a crime in the 1960s.
The man, known only as PGA, was in 2009 charged with the rape of his then-wife in 1963 but is challenging the case on the grounds that prior to 1976 in Australia a woman could not refuse sexual intercourse with her husband.
His lawyer, David Bennett, told a full seven-judge hearing of the High Court the rape was not therefore a crime and the prosecution “would be doomed.”
(…) “No change in the common law can have the effect of criminalising conduct that wasn’t criminal at the time,” he added.
“One cannot apply contemporary values to apply what the law was. That would be a total oxymoron.”
The laws of 1963 included a “presumption of irrevocable consent on the part of a wife to sexual intercourse with her husband”, and though reforms were made from 1976 they were not retrospective, according to documents in the case.
A straight case of applying basic rationality, common sense and fundamental decency, it seems. Not to contemporary judiciary, not in Australia. The woman rape racket precludes sanity and decency.
From The Australian:
South Australia’s Solicitor-General, Martin Hinton, acting for state Attorney-General John Rau, yesterday challenged Mr Bennett’s argument, saying there was no marital exemption to rape.
Mr Hinton said the community attitudes towards women in 1963 could be understood by examining laws from that time that gave women equal treatment, such as those relating to separation, child custody and property ownership.
Instead, he said, the critical question was whether the wife withheld consent to sex.
For a glimpse on the marital and juridical dynamics concerning the complaint of rape:
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was charged in early 2009 with two counts of rape, assault and carnal knowledge that allegedly occurred from 1961 to 1963 when he was married to the woman.
The man separated from the woman who has brought the charge in 1969 and they divorced in 1971. It was not clear why it took her so long to take her allegations to police.
The answer might be simple and obvious. Neither the general feminist corruption of the power-elites and the media was progressed enough to try to have a law applied retro-actively in favor of women, nor the rape hysteria had gained enough acceptance to be used in this obvious breach of the most fundamental sense of justice.
He had marital duties
From The Telegraph (05 Sep 2011):
A Frenchman has been ordered to pay his ex-wife £8,500 in damages for failing to have enough sex with her during their marriage.
The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.
A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”.
The rare legal decision came after the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom.
This decision is not the same as condoning rape within marriage in the true sense of using physical violence but yet implies a history of unsuccessful or sometimes successful coercions with all kinds of threats, most logically the threat with divorce and financial damages.
Taken into account the major instrument of the woman rape racket, the widening of the definition of rape into the use of coercion and the next extension of mere absence of “consent” independent of behavior plus the latest assignment of the burden of proof of consent to the accused, the divorced husband in France could complain about multiple instances of rape perpetrated by his ex-wife, in all probability she would have to be charged for serial rapes over many years, and given American law she would go to prison for life.
Why is it that American, Canadian, British or Australian courts are not filled with trials for rape suffered by men from coercion by women, men who did not ever mean nor give verbal “consent”? Though experienced boyfriends and husbands all have a long story of performing the sexual act to their women in order to avoid the psycho-terror resulting from non-compliance with the women’s wishes, or even just from courtesy of a gentleman who does not want to hurt her.
A rhetorical question. Because men do not act like women. They just don’t blame their actions on the other. They don’t deny the responsibility and they don’t reject the accountability for what they did. They do not fuck her or smack her and follow up with, “It’s your fault!” Nor do they blame their acts on their emotions, their psyche, their hormones or their childhood experiences. They do not take refuge in gross magical thinking and frivolous childish excuses.
The woman racket as well the rape sub-racket depend on the willingness of men to act the gentleman and accept the most outrageous, irrational, unreal and phantasmic blames from women.
The protective instinct of man towards women and children is so powerful and so easily triggered that men who do not emancipate themselves from the rule of instincts will fall for the female victim act and the pity-appeal like insects burning themselves from circling the light-bulb.
Even among the men’s rights activists, the masculists and antifeminists the concept of “statutory rape”, referring to age difference between the sexes as well as status and power differences, has gained widespread acceptance, although it is one of the major weapons of the submission of male sexuality to the status of dangerous, subhuman and brute. The same concerning the acceptance of the term “sexual predator”, which was not coined for the unforeseen lot of women who are put to trial for “statutory rape” but exclusively for men and boys charged with one of the myriad of “sexual crimes” feminism has provided us insects of the Occident.
In the case of female school teachers having sexual relations with 14, 15 or 17 year old students, the proponents of men’s rights are applauding every sentence of years in prison with sardonic satisfaction. Thereby degrading themselves to blind, spiteful vindictive brats like contemporary women have become under the propaganda of “women’s rights”. They buy into the feminist strategical nonsense of sex being a hazard to one’s mental sanity and destructive for one’s personality structure and future happiness if the other is of higher social status and power.
Can you get the absurdity? Since the time of the hunters and gatherers the higher status men were the only ones able to attract women and to procreate their gene-pool, whereas the lower ranking majority was relegated from participating in the evolution of the species. Only 40 percent of the men are in the line of our ancestors, whereas 80 percent of the women. Polygyny was the standard model of what we call marriage for 99 percent of the time of evolution.
The marrying up the social ladder is a common knowledge among sociologists and constantly referred to by the men’s rights activists. The statistical age difference for marriage is 4-5 years between women and men, even at this time with our decades of “equality” propaganda. All through civilization the much older man and the much younger girl were deemed to be an acceptable couple, in the times of polygyny as well as after the Greek instituted monogamy. It is only since feminism got its success that this is being depicted as perverse or offensive or distasteful, and it is one of the tactical derogations of marriage traditions smeared onto society by the feminist usurpation with the purpose to bash men as well as to demean marriage.
Any and all definitions of rape which extend the actual use of physical violence have to be rebuked and abolished. Concerning age and definitions of sexual child abuse, sexual maturity in the physical sense has to be re-instituted as the demarcation line, insofar legal consequences are at stake.
A major outrage is due when reading someone is charged for an alleged crime of 50 years ago. What the hell is going on there? Rape being qualified as of a similar unforgivable degree of severity as murder? What a bad joke! What a sinister plot of the dark ages! You can do this in times when virginity was the precondition for marriage of a girl. When illegitimate motherhood meant being treated as an outcast, when infidelity was punished by death, when the laws around nakedness, sexuality and marriage were of draconian severity. In the times of the Old Testament. But not when premarital sexual experience is seen as sign of maturity, when 14 year old girls are legally entitled to intercourse, when pornography is on the cell phone of 10 year olds, when gang-banging is a test of coolness among teenage girls, when abortion is a girl’s human right, when social scientists recommend the exploitation of erotic capital and business women admire college girls who use prostitution to finance their school years. That is, not today.
In the same archaic spirit of Moses’ times the USA apply atrocious lenghts of prison terms, even the death penalty for the crime of rape. Much and enough has been written about the bigot puritanism of the “land of the free”, but little about the uncoincidental coincidence of the immune deficiency against the infection with feminism, the sexual racism and feminine supremacism of today which is and has been nothing else but neo-victorianism. The retarded primitive mentality, otherwise known and condemned for Saudi Arabia or Iran, of the Old Testament pre-christian principle of “an eye for an eye”, the loathed principle of the Sharia, is in full application and instrumentalization by the generally pre-enlightened average American jock as by the generally pre-moral average academic feminist. An unholy alliance of the most abominable kind. Europeans are to be lauded and taken for a model in their – still – rational and realistic stance towards rape and its criminal weight.
To reiterate it more explicitly: The archaic pre-individual, pre-literate and pre-enlightened primitivity of the American man who is proud to teach his son to never ever hit a woman, not even if she hits you first, is the fertile ground of the victory of feminism, which in itself is nothing but the strategic rationalization of gyno-narcissism unleashed. Compare it to the literate average Frenchman or Frenchwoman, who needed no masculist revolution to institute double residency after divorce and to strictly sanction the boycott of the right of undisturbed contact with the father, by law. Who have retained the basic understanding of man’s erotic nature from his polygynous evolutionary heritage and therefore do not make a hysterical fuss over some public figure like Dominique Strauss-Kahn when he gets involved with casual sex.
To the address of men’s rights activists and the so-called manosphere: Get your act together and become men instead of spiteful boys. Use rationality and discard vindictiveness and the insincerity of joining in with the feminist racket, be it rape’s or any other sub-racket!
Otherwise there is no counterforce and no possibility for a counterstrike to the feminist subjugation of all men, beast and thought of male nature and spirit.