#MeToo, Thy Name is Hypocrisy

Part 1: “The levels of hypocrisy here are unfathomable.

The #MeToo movement should be called the #MeTwoFaced movement.

But don’t get me wrong. #MeToo originally had a valid point. No doubt some men can behave abysmally. Men like Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer probably deserve the scorn and ostracism that they have received. And don’t even get me started about the contemptible Bill Cosby.

But #MeTwoFaced has gone too far. It has morphed from a movement for the expression of legitimate complaints by women about the sexual misbehavior of some men into a two-faced juggernaut that allows any man to be accused, tried, and sentenced in the court of public opinion, hounded out of his job, and made a social pariah without a shred of due process, often by anonymous accusers.

And the movement fails to recognize women’s own corresponding bad sexual behavior or of the female contribution to men’s sexual misconduct.

#MeTwoFaced desperately needs to address its own raging hypocrisy.

Five Examples of #MeTwoFaced Hypocrisy

Let’s start an examination of this “#MeTwoFaced” hypocrisy by considering five examples: The Vagina Monologues, Lena Dunham, Asia Argento, former congresswoman Katie Hill, and a twofer, Monica Lewinsky and Helen Gurley Brown.

The Vagina Monologues

The Vagina Monologues provides a premier example of the double standards applied to women’s bad sexual behavior. This crude and vulgar play denounces rape and “violence against women” yet, incredibly, glorifies the lesbian rape of a 13-year-old girl by a 24-year-old woman in a disgusting monologue called The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could. (Prepare to gag. Also note that “coochie snorcher” is slang for vagina.)

A 2007 article, Vagina Monologues do more harm than good for women (from which this article’s epigraph was taken), describes the rape scene:

“The lady invites the girl over to her house, gives her vodka to drink and a ‘teddy’ to wear. She then proceeds to kiss the young girl, teaches her to bring pleasure to herself and then asks her to demonstrate what she had learned.

“Wait a second. Isn’t a 24-year-old getting a minor drunk while sexually taking advantage of her considered statutory rape in most states?

“How can a play that gives proceeds to rape funds actually condone this type of behavior?

“The levels of hypocrisy here are unfathomable.”

Even more unfathomable is the monologue’s final declaration, “… if it was rape, it was a good rape.

So, #MeTwoFaced, the rape of a minor is a good thing, as long as it’s a woman who’s doing the raping?

Lena Dunham

Lena Dunham, best known for her HBO TV series Girls, is a self-admitted pedophile. In her memoir, “Not that Kind of Girl” she confesses to sexually abusing her sister:

“As [her sister] grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a ‘motorcycle chick.’ Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just ‘relax on me.’ Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying. [emphasis added]”

Dunham is also a false rape accuser. In her memoir she accused a “campus Republican named Barry” of raping her. Unfortunately, her claim has been proven to be false.

So, again, #MeTwoFaced, the abuse of an underaged sister by a self-admitted sexual predator is OK, but only when it’s a female who’s doing the abusing? And making false rape accusations is OK, but only if the accuser is famous?

Asia Argento

You may know Asia Argento as the girlfriend of Anthony Bourdain, the American TV celebrity chef. (Bourdain committed suicide, some say, over his difficult relationship with Argento.[1])

Or you may know her as the #MeTwoFaced woman who accused Harvey Weinstein, 20 years after the alleged incident, of performing oral sex on her against her will.

Or, less likely, you may know her as the hypocrite who, even while spreading the #MeTwoFaced gospel to the world, paid nearly $400,000 to child actor Jimmy Bennett, who claimed Argento sexually assaulted him in 2013 when he was 17 and she was 37.

One of few articles to challenge #MeTwoFaced’s hypocrisy had this to say about Argento calling the young male victim a liar:

“Imagine, please, that the accuser was a woman [who] was treated the way that Asia Argento, the strident Joan of Arc of the #MeToo movement, was treating [the male] actor who, at the age of 7, had played her son. We would have hordes of ladies in black dresses and linked arms singing some random song from Lilith Fair.”

Former Congresswoman Katie Hill

Then there’s the stunning #MeTwoFaced hypocrisy of Katie Hill, the disgraced former congresswoman, who had to resign after revelations of her bad sexual behavior—including a three-way affair with a 22-year-old female congressional staffer and a (one-on-one) affair with a male campaign aide. Oh yeah, there were also photographs of the good congresswoman (for God’s sake!) showing off a Nazi-era tattoo while smoking a bong, kissing her female staffer, and posing nude on “wife sharing” sites.

If that’s not enough for you, Hill’s breathtaking hypocrisy was on full throttle in her resignation announcement, where, instead of introspection, she blamed her husband, “misogynists”, and everybody but herself for her X-rated downfall.

Monica Lewinsky / Helen Gurley Brown

#MeTwoFaced, and women generally, are quick to condemn men for the male role in sexual misconduct. But what they really need to do is to think about the female contribution to this male misbehavior.

Monica Lewinsky, who vowed “to bring my presidential kneepads” before leaving for Washington and nearly destroying a presidency, and Helen Gurley Brown, editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, are classic examples that illustrate women’s own contribution to sexual misconduct between the sexes.

Lewinsky’s case is living proof that “power is the best aphrodisiac”: Would she have performed oral sex on, or even been interested in, Clinton if he had been, say, a farmer from rural Arkansas? Was Lewinsky herself complicit in the scandal, or should we give her a pass for simply being female? Oh, that’s right, they did.

And Brown wrote two books, “Sex and the Single Girl” and “Sex and the Office” that encouraged women to dress sexily at the office and to use their sex appeal to get ahead. A chapter in the first book titled Nine to Five was subtitled Mother Brown’s Twelve Rules for Squirming, Worming, Inching, and Pinching Your Way to the Top“. Shouldn’t we hold women who dress in overly sexual ways or who “squirm, worm, and pinch” at the office accountable for their contribution to the problem at hand?

So far, the answer is a resounding I-Am-Woman-Hear-#MeTwoFaced roar: “Hell no!”

These five examples are only the most egregious of many thousands available that illustrate  #MeTwoFaced’s thundering hypocrisy.

Next, let’s continue our examination of #MeTwoFaced hypocrisy by cataloging just some of ways that women sexually behave just as badly as men—or even worse!

Female Sexual Predators

Men like Bill Cosby who spike drinks with “date rape” drugs to rape semi-conscious women are sexual predators, vile and reprehensible.

But women, too, can also be sexual predators, every bit as vile and reprehensible as their male counterparts. They just have better PR.

Female sexual predators appear in the form of teachers, mothers, and others who rape and sexually abuse minors, or in the form of groupies who exploit their bodies in their hunt for the attention—and money—of rock and roll stars, athletes, and other rich and powerful men.

Female Teachers Who Rape

Who can forget Mary Kay Letourneau, the former teacher who, two weeks after being released from prison for the rape of an underage male student was found by police with the same boy? She is but one of hundreds or even thousands of female teachers who raped their underage male students. Lists of these teachers-who-rape are readily available online, for example here, here, here, here, here, and …. well, you get the point.

Sexual Abuse by Women of Children and Teens

Women commit a significant share of the sexual abuse of children and teens. Lena Dunham is just one of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of cases of this abuse by females. But, according to the Female Sex Offenders – Female Sexual Predators Awareness page of the Canadian Children’s Rights Council web site, 86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren’t believed, so the crimes go unreported and don’t get prosecuted. (Perhaps we should amend the fraudulent “Believe women” slogan to something more accurate: “Believe the victims of women”. Also, be sure to visit the prior link for accounts of female sexual abuse, including an interview by Lisa Ling of a woman who admitted to raping or sexually abusing over 100 children.)

Even more disconcerting is the prevalence of sex abuse by mothers of their own sons! According to one Australian study described in New research shedding light on sex abuse committed by mothers against their sons, an estimated 4,800 Australian males had been sexually abused by their mother or step-mother before the age of 15.

As one (female) sex therapist said in the article, “Everybody wants to put their mother on a pedestal. Nobody wants to think that they’re mother did something that is so horrible.” Just add “or other females” to the quote and you’ll see part of the reason for #MeTwoFaced’s hypocrisy: women have been on a pedestal for so long, they’re no longer capable of admitting, or even seeing, their own dark side.


Perhaps the most socially-accepted—and devious—female sexual predators are groupies, who use their sexuality to entice famous men into relationships and often “pregnancy-induced” marriage, like Juanita Vanoy, ex-wife of Michael Jordan. These groupies prowl rock and roll, NBA and other sports venues, and include Predatory Teenage Girls. And there’s even a wikiHow page on How to be a Groupie!

(To be fair, we must note that in the great groupiedom arena, some men, especially rockers, have had underage sex with groupies.)

Women Who Use Their Sexuality to Entrap Rich Men

This discussion wouldn’t be complete without mentioning predatory women who use their sexuality to entrap rich men. I’ve already mentioned Juanita Vanoy. But the gold medal in the Gold-Digger Olympics surely goes to Anna Nicole Smith, the former stripper and Playboy magazine Playmate of the Year, who in 1994 at age 26 married 89-year-old Texas oil billionaire J. Howard Marshall II. Is there anyone deluded enough to actually think that she married him for love and not for his millions? Do feminists lie? Shouldn’t there be a law against women taking advantage of (likely) senile old men?

She Works Hard for the Money


Other Female Sexual Misbehavior


False Rape Accusations

Feminists tell us—and far too many blue-pill citizens gullibly believe—that we must “believe all women” and claim that the rate of false rape accusations is two percent. And the sky is green! According to this analysis, “As far as can be ascertained, no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the ‘two percent false rape complaint’ thesis.

Rebutting these feminist lies is like shooting bicycle-riding fish in a barrel. Here are four bullets for their tiny fish brains[2] that should finally put these fishy feminist false rape-figures fantasies to rest:

  • Rolling Stone’s 2014 A Rape on Campus, a completely fabricated and ultimately debunked false rape accusation by a Jackie Coakley about a purported gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity
  • The 2006 Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax, where members of the lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape by stripper Crystal Gail Mangum (who was later convicted of 2nd degree murder of her boyfriend)
  • The 1955 Mississippi murder of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old African American boy from Chicago, and the confession, years later, by Carolyn Bryant Donham, the white woman who accused Emmett of assaulting her, that she had lied.
  • Or two simple words that completely rebut the feminist denial of false rape accusations: “strange fruit”.

Strange Fruit” is a song written by Abel Meerpol, a Jewish man who wrote it after seeing a gruesome picture of a lynching of black men, and recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939 to protest these lynchings. Strange fruit is a metaphor linking a tree’s fruit with lynching victims.

Why bring up the dreadful history of lynching black American men, you ask? Because, as revealed in this article,

The history of lynching in the United States is inextricably interwoven with the history of women lying about sexual assault.

(Even if you don’t read the article, you really need to click that last link for a horrible, unflinching image with a startling juxtaposition. Also note the preamble: “History’s interjection to the notion that #MeToo accusers are incapable of lying or being motivated by malice or financial gain.” A small glimmer of hope.)

So let’s close out this section with a 1991 quote from Catherine Comins, a former dean at Vassar, also known as “The Bigot of Vassar College”:

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience.

I wonder if Ms. Comins thinks these black men somehow “gained from the experience”?

False Claims of “Campus Rape Culture”

The false rape accusations just discussed affect individual or small groups of men.

As bad as these individual false accusations are—and they are horrible—monumentally worse is the feminist claim of a widespread “campus rape culture”, itself part of a global rape culture, a one-sided gender gospel lie that is even propagated by the United Nations.

Rape culture is false rape accusations writ large.

Unlike individual false rape accusations, the alleged rape culture advanced by feminists promotes unfair, generalized, and indiscriminate false rape accusations about an entire class of people—men. The belief of a rape culture is every bit as credible as the accusations made by the Nazis about an entire class of people—Jews—who allegedly collaborated in a vast “Jewish conspiracy” that worked against the German people.

And it’s every bit as credible as the 2% false rape statistic pushed by feminists.

Finally, it’s every bit as credible as Rolling Stone’s 2014 “A Rape on Campus” article, a piece that was written because the author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, swallowed the campus rape culture myth hook, line, and sinker, where (in her words) “…not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture.” It’s clear that Erdely’s unsubstantiated belief in this fantasy rape culture—and her bias against men—drove her bigotry.

To see how biased and unfair the rape culture doctrine is, imagine if we were to declare, based on the evidence presented in the prior section, a “false rape accusations culture”? First, here’s one definition of rape culture:

Rape culture is a culture in which sexual violence is treated as the norm and victims are blamed for their own assaults. It’s not just about sexual violence itself, but about cultural norms and institutions that protect rapists, promote impunity, shame victims, and demand that women make unreasonable sacrifices to avoid sexual assault.”

Here’s how we might define things from a male perspective:

False rape accusations culture is a culture in which “believing women” is treated as the norm and male victims are often falsely accused of rape, historically often with deadly consequences. It’s not just about false accusations themselves, but about gynocentric[3] cultural norms and institutions, combined with chivalric foolishness, that protect false rape accusers, promote female impunity and irresponsibility, shame and degrade men and boys[4], and demand that males make unreasonable sacrifices to avoid these false accusations. In other words, men must ‘Man up!’

As they say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. [5]

False Abuse Allegations

Feminists also deny the prevalence of false allegations of abuse and domestic violence.

How about a fifth bullet for those tiny fish brains? To rebut these feminist denials, let me offer a single quote made in 1993 by an Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association:

Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply . . . In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.” [source]

Another dead fish.

Paternity Fraud

Regular visitors to A Voice for Men almost certainly know what paternity fraud is. For those who may have Google-stumbled into this article (Welcome!), here is the definition from the Wikipedia entry:

Paternity fraud, also known as misattributed paternity or paternal discrepancy, is when a man is incorrectly identified to be the biological father of a child. The underlying assumption of paternity fraud is that the mother deliberately misidentified the biological father. [emphasis added]

As should surprise no one, feminists lie, obfuscate, or actively work to prevent legislation that addresses the problem. For example, the National Organization for Women,

“… pressured [California] Governor Gray Davis to veto the ‘Paternity Justice Act’ which would have helped curb the thousands of paternity fraud cases and protected innocent men from being victims of psychopathic women.” [source]

How about several more bullets for those tiny fabulist fish brains? Here are a few facts and examples that rebut these damned feminist liars:

  • According to a 2006 study printed in Family Law Quarterly by attorney Ronald K. Henry, The Innocent Third Party, Victims of Paternity Fraud, the prevalence as determined by the American Associations of Blood Banks, found that close to 28% of paternity tests in California excluded the man as being the biological father. And this number doesn’t include cases where the father hasn’t challenged paternity, most likely because he’s completely unaware of the deception! [6]
  • Henry’s report included a high-profile example of paternity fraud, the case of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, whose wife admitted that the four-year-old girl for which Kerkorian was paying more than $320,000 in support was not his, and that she faked DNA tests.
  • It’s bad enough for a woman to falsely and knowingly accuse a man to be the father of her child, but even worse is “sperm jacking” or “spurgling”, the collection of a man’s sperm, committed by women who want to have a child with a man without his permission.

In other words, it’s women stealing men’s sperm.

If you think women might feel guilty about it, think again. One woman, a Reddit poster named feminista8 actually brags about it, and instructs other would-be-spurglers how to do it!

The levels of hypocrisy here are more than unfathomable, they are unbelievable.

But we’ve killed a bunch more fish, haven’t we?


For years, feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon (not worthy of links, you can Google yourself for info on these man-hating monsters) railed against pornography as the “objectification” of women and as male sexual domination. They also claimed that pornography was a form of that old feminist bogeyman—sorry, bogeywoman— “violence against women.”

In the 1980’s these two hateful, close-minded women ran a campaign to impose censorship laws against all forms of pornography, although there are myriad views on pornography, even among feminists!

The unspoken assumption was, of course, that women who appeared in pornographic magazines and films were the oppressed, innocent victims of men’s evil sexual desires, with little or no agency in their own decisions to take part in pornography.

Perhaps anti-porn feminists, instead of complaining about male behavior, should ask themselves about female behavior, about the female contribution to pornography. They should ask themselves “Why do women actually participate in pornography?” Or “Why is there lesbian pornography, or even feminist pornography?”

There is a simple answer to these questions:

“Because women like it.”

Women like to view porn and they like to be in porn. A Psychology Today article, “Why Do Women Become Porn Actresses?” [7] lists a variety of reasons, with “money” at the top (53%, making porn “prostitution-with-a-million-men”), followed by “sex” (27%), “attention” (16%), and “fun” (11%). Note that “coercion” was less than 1%.

So, as Herbert Purdy says in his book Their Angry Creed: The shocking history of feminism, and how it is destroying our way of life, women are active, willing participants in creating porn:

“…it is stating the obvious that liberated women are the primary players in the pornography that excites men. These are liberated women exercising their freedom from hitherto guiding social mores; they are hardly unwilling victims. Pornography is everywhere. From the organised industry it is in California, to the plethora of amateur web sites where ordinary women are uploading their own explicit acts for the world to see [emphasis added]. Yet this is all, somehow, men’s fault? The sheer hypocrisy of feminists, let alone their totally disjointed thinking, is astonishing.

So, #MeTwoFaced and you close-minded, lying feminists, instead of just blaming men, how about considering the active female role in pornography, most notoriously exemplified today by women who [Porn Warn: sexually explicit content ahead!] upload their own explicit sex acts? It’s long past time for women to climb down that damned pedestal and do a little less self-filming and a whole lot more self-reflecting.


Feminists and I agree on at least one thing: forced prostitution is real, it is worldwide, it is sexual predation at its worst, and it is evil.

Where we likely disagree—no surprise!—is that it’s also perpetrated by women!

Although exact statistics and their interpretation can be complex, studies show that women also force other women into sexual slavery. (So much for the sisterhood!) One such study, Female offenders of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, summarized the situation:

Female offenders are seldom studied by criminological scholars. This is certainly the case regarding offenses like human trafficking and sexual exploitation. However, the number of women suspected of being a perpetrator of human trafficking should not be underestimated. [emphasis added]”

Don’t believe it? Just Google “woman pleads guilty to slavery”. Even I was surprised by the number of results: 5,310,000! One notable example is the participation of women, including Smallville actress Allison Mack and Seagram company heir Clare Bronfman in a strange-as-hell sexual slavery conspiracy.

Why can’t women see their own #MeTwoFaced, sex trafficking hypocrisy? It’s simple. As was noted in the discussion of mothers who abuse their sons, women won’t, or possibly even can’t, admit to their own role because they’ve been on a pedestal for so long they’re no longer capable of admitting, or even seeing, their own dark side. No matter how much they believe otherwise, the facts conclusively show that women are not all sugar-and-spice.

But beyond forced prostitution, what about women who willingly prostitute themselves? Women have for millennia capitalized on the sex drive of men. Sadly, we must admit that some women do it to survive or to support their families… much like men who have to go into coal mines, or work in the “death professions” where men are ten times more likely than women to be killed, or die in the nation’s wars.

And what about women who willingly trade sex, not for survival or to support families, but simply for money or other quid pro quo arrangements?

Women like our #MeTwoFaced Madam, Asia Argento, who, despite her dishonest claims of Harvey Weinstein’s predation, willingly traded sex for advancement in the film industry. In his book Men. Women. Relationships: Surviving the Plague of Modern Masculinity, Paul Elam perfectly described Argento’s hypocrisy:

Uh, yeah. I’m sure that Argento’s desire for fame and fortune in Hollywood had nothing to do with her letting a powerful Hollywood producer go down on her. After all, women don’t do those things for movie roles, right?

“Anyway, twenty years later, Argento made an Oscar-worthy performance of her totally unsubstantiated claim at the Cannes Film Festival. Coincidentally, this was when the #MeToo Movement was gaining traction. In other words, Argento got really brave as soon as there was blood in the water.

Or women like young “sugar babies” who sell their bodies to “sugar daddies” to pay student loans, make the rent, or just enjoy gifts that their rich “benefactors” buy them, as described in Vanity Fair’s Daddies, ‘Dates,’ and the Girlfriend Experience: Welcome to the New Prostitution Economy. And true to form, Helen Gurley Brown’s Cosmopolitan magazine doesn’t see anything wrong with women prostituting themselves—forgive me, “finding an arrangement”, the euphemism used by Cosmo to hide the true “prostitutorial” nature of these arrangements. Incredibly, their web site had not one, but several sugar daddy stories. And all part of their “love/sex/relationships” section!

So much for true love.

The level of #MeTwoFaced and female hypocrisy about prostitution is completely unbelievable!

Women’s Contribution to Men’s Sexual Misbehavior

OK, it’s time to bring out the shotgun. Let’s finish shooting those pesky, tiny-brained, bicycle-riding, hypocritical, #MeTwoFaced fish[8] by examining women’s own contribution to men’s sexual misconduct.

First, let’s restate a few previously discussed observations:

– Many women like to be in porn, usually for money

– Many women willingly prostitute themselves for money or other quid pro quo arrangements

– Asia Argento traded sex—prostituted herself— for movie roles.

– Based on Vanity Fair’s “new prostitution economy”, Cosmopolitan’s sugar daddy stories, and the magazine’s disingenuous euphemism for prostitution, “finding an arrangement”, it appears that in the past 50 years the world’s oldest profession has become the world’s most popular profession. [9]

So, any reasonable person would conclude that women might—just might—trade sex for money, or cars (or car repairs-yikes!), or vacations, or drugs, or a job or promotion, or … well, again, you get the point. (One mother even traded sex with children for drugs and cash.)

And a reasonable person, not fooled by #MeTwoFaced’s hypocrisy and feminism’s sugar-and-spice PR machine, might—again just might—conclude that many women have been willing and active traders on Hollywood’s “casting couch” sexual trading floor. One man courageous enough to say so, risking the wrath of crazy #MeTwoFaced zealots, was Sir Ian McKellen, who in Actresses Trading Sex for Roles was ‘Commonplace’ in Industry, provided this vignette:

But from my own experience, when I was starting acting in the early Sixties, the director of the theatre I was working at showed me some photographs he got from women who were wanting jobs. . . some of them had at the bottom of their photograph ‘DRR’ — directors’ rights respected. In other words, if you give me a job, you can have sex with me.

So much for female innocence.

Finally, a reasonable person might—again just might—conclude that women, capitalizing on men’s sex drive, gladly offer their bodies in transactions where women serve as predatory “pushers” and men as sex- addicted “users”. For those diehard “women are wonderful” apologists who claim that females who trade sex are the “innocent victims” of the transaction, this claim has as much validity as saying that drug pushers are the innocent victims of drug transactions. And the sky is green.

Still not convinced of women’s contribution to men’s sexual misbehavior? Let’s talk about Harvey Weinstein’s recent lynching, er, “trial”. Or actually, I’ll have anti-feminist Janice Fiamengo (a modern-day saint, IMHO) cover this one. In her article, The Accusations Against Weinstein are Not Credible, she describes the contributory sexual behavior of the two female witnesses:

“… rather than being victims, the women now preparing to testify against the once media mogul had long-term affectionate relationships with him, and that these relationships extended long after the alleged sexual assaults

Both complainants, though now willing to see Mr. Weinstein go to prison for the rest of his life, maintained a close and friendly relationship with him for years. Far from seeking to avoid the man they claim assaulted them, they sought him out. The first complaining witness, in fact, continued a consensual sexual affair with him for many years after the supposed assault.

But “women don’t do those things for movie roles, right?”

Even worse than the blatant feminine hypocrisy of these women is the outrageous, jaw-dropping, Pinocchio-nosed lie told to cover for the obvious inconsistency between their actions and their testimony:

The feminist response to the defense evidence is easy to predict, and Gloria Allred, lawyer for [witness] Mimi Haleyi, has already formulated it: just because a woman maintained a close relationship with a man or sent him friendly emails doesn’t mean he didn’t rape her [emphasis added]. This is now feminist orthodoxy, encapsulated in a theory of female rape trauma and officially promoted to police, prosecutors, and judges as part of something called trauma-informed investigation.

Feminists like gender-ambulance-chasing Allred may be evil, but they’re not stupid. They have a Jedi mind trick ability to convince us that the sky is green and that these women are completely innocent. Feminists shamelessly lie, twisting common sense into impenetrable knots to excuse the unconscionable behavior of women, rather than admit to women’s own often-immoral behavior, sexual and otherwise.

And we’ve been letting them get away with this nonsense for fifty years.

It’s clear that Harvey Weinstein engaged in some particularly egregious sexual behavior. But it should also be clear by now—except to ardent feminists and overzealous #MeTwoFaced bigots—that these women are also guilty of contributing to this male misbehavior by engaging in their own equally egregious sexual misconduct.

Instead of completely excusing female “co-conspirators”, or making ridiculous rationales to cover the inconsistencies between women’s accusations versus their actions, why not implement a “contributory sexual misconduct” legal doctrine, borrowing from the doctrine of contributory negligence, for all sexual misconduct cases, including rape[10], whether in court or filed with the EEOC:

Behavior that contributes to one’s own injury or loss and fails to meet the standard of prudence that one should observe for one’s own good. Contributory negligence sexual misconduct of the plaintiff is frequently pleaded in defense to a charge of negligence sexual misconduct.

So, once again, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

And it’s only fair.

Women’s Contribution to Domestic Violence

So far, we’ve examined the predatory and selfish nature of women’s sexual behavior, a nature that completely contradicts #MeTwoFaced ‘s female-chauvinistic, sugar-and-spice self-image. We’ve also just seen how women’s sexual misbehavior contributes to men’s sexual misconduct.

But this examination wouldn’t be complete without a brief review of the female role in domestic violence. Why do we need to do this review in an article about #MeTwoFaced?

Because #MeTwoFaced wouldn’t exist without feminism’s Big Lie about domestic violence.

Let’s begin by recounting the experiences of two female victims of domestic violence. These two “special victims”, Erin Pizzey and Suzanne Steinmetz, were stalked by and received death and bomb threats from the same abusers.

Pizzey was forced to flee England after her dog was shot and killed. Steinmetz’s abusers tried to prevent her from receiving tenure at the University of Delaware and had bomb threats made at an ACLU conference and at her daughter’s wedding.

What had these two women done to provoke their common abusers’ wrath?

They told the truth:

Women are at least as violent as men in intimate relationships.

And who were their common abusers?

Feminists who wanted to keep this ugly truth hidden from the world.

Erin Pizzey founded the world’s first women’s shelter in England in 1971. She observed that that 62 of the first 100 women who came into the refuge were as violent as the men they had left. She wrote a book, Prone to Violence that told the truth about female violence. Feminist extremists hounded her out of the country:

Over the 12 years that I was running the refuge, if I went to speak there were screaming feminists outside. I tried to publish a book called Prone to Violence, we finally did get it published, but I had to have a police escort all round England and there were death threats and bomb threats. And the final moment came for me, after struggling for all those years, when the bomb-disposal unit came to my house because there was a suspect package and so everything that came to me had to go to them first because they were concerned about my safety and the safety of my family. And that’s when I left England and went into exile for something like 15 years.” [source]

Dr. Susan Steinmetz, author of The Battered Husband Syndrome received death threats from radical women’s groups after her book was published. Two partners in related DV research, Richard Gelles and Murry Straus, described how the extreme feminist reaction over the issue of battered men squelched further study of the subject and caused many other researchers to avoid the field completely:

Perhaps the most unfortunate outcome of the wrangle over battered men is that since the debate in the late 1970s, there has been virtually no additional research carried out on the topic. The furor among social scientists and in the public media has contaminated the entire topic. … Other social scientists who witnessed the abuse heaped on our research group—especially on Suzanne Steinmetz—have given the topic of battered men a wide berth.” [source]

But in the years since these two courageous women were threatened by feminists for telling the world about the female role in domestic violence, other women have come forward to speak the truth:

“The idea that domestic violence refers exclusively to wife abuse or to violence against women is so deeply ingrained in Western consciousness that it is impossible to grapple with [stories of male victims of DV] without first unraveling some potent conventional wisdom. … At the heart of the matter lies human will. Which partner – by dint of temperament, personality, life history – has the will to harm the other? By now it should be clear that such a will is not the exclusive province of men.”

“…bad acts by men are magnified into a “war against women”, while women’s bad acts are denied. A new emphasis on special protections for women rather than equal rights has dangerously eroded the rights of men accused of rape, domestic violence, or sexual harassment [emphasis added].”

“… the [feminist] myth-making industry has continued to produce what amounts to propaganda – churning out statistics, erecting billboards of bruised women, going for the aorta with images of tear-streaked children asking “Why won’t Daddy stop hitting Mommy? … But some have been so driven by their political agenda to advance women’s causes, even at the cost of truth, that they can’t permit a variant view. [emphasis added]”

  • American writer Nancy Updike in 1999 wrote an article Hitting the Wall in Mother Jones” magazine. The article described a study performed by female psychology professor Terrie Moffitt of the University of Wisconsin:

“A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence: Women report using violence in their relationships more often than men [emphasis added] … “[The] research disputes a long-held belief about the nature of domestic violence: If a woman hits, it’s only in response to her partner’s attacks.”

 “Children were urged to report violence against mothers and sisters. There was no mention of abuse against fathers. Instead, a television advertisement showed a husband berating his wife when she told him dinner would be late. That was the violence. It was followed by a helpline number for children to call if a woman in their house had been abused.” [Note that the husband was berating his wife, not beating her.]

  • Mary Cleary formed the organization AMEN (Abused MEN, renamed Men’s Aid Ireland). She observed that male victims of domestic violence were systematically denied their basic human rights:

“No social issue in modern times has been the subject of such deliberate deception and misrepresentation as that of domestic violence.”

Pizzey, Steinmetz, and these other brave and honest women, unbeholden to feminists or the National Organization for Women, aren’t some right-wing, woman-hating nutjobs. What they say is backed up by solid research:

  • Two pioneering, federally sponsored studies, the National Family Violence Surveys of 1975 and 1985, were the first to conclusively reveal the equal female role in domestic violence. Also see a list of the many reports generated as a result of these surveys.
  • In an annotated bibliography References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners by California State University professor Martin S. Fiebert includes 286 scholarly investigations, 221 empirical studies, and 65 reviews and/or analyses that all show women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. (Yes, you read that right: “or more aggressive”.)
  • An analysis that completely demolishes the feminist lies about female abuse of men, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Violence: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State (notice the title ending: “the Role of the Feminist State”), was written in 2003 by Linda Kelly (now Kelly Hill) and published in the Florida State University Law Review. Anyone who wants a brief, but extremely well-annotated summary about feminists’ assault on the truth about domestic violence is strongly urged to read this analysis.
  • In an ironic—even hilarious—contradiction to the feminist position that DV is predominantly “men beating up women”, multiple studies show that lesbian couples have much higher rates of domestic violence that do heterosexual couples. This article discusses the findings of two federal studies that revealed these higher rates of abuse. If you do the calculation, one study shows that lesbian women are nearly 75% more likely to be victims of domestic violence that are heterosexual women.

So much for female innocence.

Feminists have denied the facts about women’s role in domestic violence since Erin Pizzey and Suzanne Steinmetz brought it to the world’s attention nearly 50 years ago. And feminists continue to deny these facts to this day.

They’ve made many rationales, some as bizarre as the female-rape-trauma-Jedi-mind-trick excuse made at Harvey Weinstein’s railroading (oops! again, my bad!) “trial”. But even if feminists deny the facts of these studies and the words of these women—and no doubt they will—feminists can’t deny the web-documented reality of women abusing men.

Just ask Johnny Depp.

Or ask golfer Tiger Woods, or comedian Christopher Titus, or model Lewis Burton, or baseball player Chuck Findley, or John Bobbitt, or … well, yet again, you get the point.

Or, finally, you could ask Texas dentist David Lynn Harris, or comedian Phil Hartman, or American salesman Travis Alexander, or Susan Smith’s two children, or Caylee Anthony. Oh sorry, you can’t ask any of them. They’re all dead, killed by girlfriends, wives, or monstrously selfish mothers.

Or you could do a Google search on “male victims of domestic violence”. I was again surprised by the number of results: 57,000,000 (or 471,000 when I searched for the exact string)!

Why do feminists and the National Organization for Women stubbornly cling to their “blame it on the patriarchy”, gender-biased view about domestic violence?

For chivalric sympathy:

Marie Anne Du Deffand, a French hostess and patron of the arts perfectly summarized, some 250 years ago, a core reason why today’s jaundiced feminist view of domestic violence (and the entire world) has been so successful:

Women are never stronger than when they arm themselves with their weaknesses.

Feminism is the abuse of male chivalry.

As long as feminists can gain male sympathy by appealing to men’s chivalric nature, the more lies they can get away with. It really is that simple. Feminists have always preyed on the better angels of men’s nature.

But mostly it’s all about the money (and hating men):

In one interview our inestimable Erin Pizzey summarized the money-and-hating-men angle:

“[There’s] a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States-millions of dollars. It isn’t a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women’s refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren’t total victims. Anyway, the activists aren’t there to help women come to terms with what’s happening in their lives. They’re there to fund their budgets, their conferences, their traveling abroad, and their statements against men [emphasis added].”[11]

In her “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Violence” analysis, Linda Kelly Hill supplies a more thorough summarization of the money motive behind DV:

For real-world domestic violence advocates, defining domestic violence as a woman’s problem is a practical, not an academic, decision. In a world of infinite problems but finite resources, competition for adequate attention and funding is terrific. Recognition demands prioritization. By limiting the definition of domestic violence to male violence, domestic violence advocates have been able to frame the issue in a manner narrow and sympathetic enough for it to remain high on the public agenda. Broadening the definition to include female violence risks diluting the effectiveness of domestic violence funding campaigns, as female violence as well as male violence would then have to be targeted with, presumably, the same fixed amount of money. As the commentators honestly explain, given the “fierce competition” for funding,

 [i]f we acknowledge the existence of battered husbands, then the funding designated for programs to assist battered women will be cut further because monies will be directed at programs for battered men. Thus, many radical feminists have fought for years to keep battered husbands closeted so that the small amount of money that was available for wife abuse would not be jeopardized.” [12]

It’s all about female selfishness.

The quintessential example of this focus on money is the billions of dollars in feminist pork available to feminists to distort the facts about domestic violence via the Violence Against Women Act, an act whose very name reaffirms the “men beating women” portrayal of intimate partner violence while it completely ignores the existence of violent women. As summarized in my prior Voice for Men article A Letter to Joe Biden,

History will ultimately show that, with [Joe Biden’s] active support and assistance, the United States Congress, in passing the Violence Against Women Act, enshrined into American law an Act that shares the same ideological parents as the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany: hate and prejudice. This law is not worthy of a nation that needs to present itself to the rest of the world as a “fair and just democracy”.

Have we killed all those damn fish yet?

Oh, yeah, one more thing:

The sky ISN’T green!

Part 2 of this article will examine how #MeTwoFaced is itself another example of predatory female behavior.



[1] Paul Elam’s book, Men. Women. Relationships: Surviving the Plague of Modern Masculinity, provides an insightful analysis, “Some Thoughts on Anthony Bourdain”, about how Bourdain’s poisoned relationship with Argento contributed to his suicide. Elam explains that what ultimately killed him was Bourdain’s “profoundly toxic sense of his own manhood”, mixed with a blind infatuation with a woman—the real toxic masculinity.

[2] For humorless feminists who will claim the “four bullets for their tiny fish brains” refers to them personally, so is yet another example of “violence against women”, I feel compelled to note that it’s only part of an analogy. You know, about shooting fish in a barrel. Rest assured, if I had actually meant to threaten feminists, I would have said “their tiny feminist fish brains”.

[3] Gynocentric: centered on or concerned exclusively with women; taking a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view.

[4] Like Gillette’s infamous “Is this the best a man can get?” commercial.

[5] It didn’t initially occur to me just how appropriate this expression is for this article, but in Googling for its etymology I found that “gander” is the male species of goose. Thus the phrase means that whatever is appropriate for the female is also appropriate for the male goose too. Who knew?

[6] The information on The Innocent Third Party, Victims of Paternity Fraud report was found, extracted, and paraphrased from a book by Bob Lewis, The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality. Highly recommended reading.

[7] This link stopped working in final check of all links in article. The link is here. Could be your lucky day.

[8] AGAIN, you humorless feminists and #MeTwoFaced hypocrites, it’s an analogy!

[9] About the same length of time since second wave feminism came along. Surely just a coincidence.

[10] For example, in cases like so many on the nation’s college campuses where women get drunk, willingly have sex, and then later—sometimes months later—claim to have been raped by an equally drunk male student. Who else thinks that holding these women accountable for their willing participation in drunken sex will reduce the number of such cases?

[11] Daphne Patai. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (cited David Thomas, Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men).

[12] The secondary quote is from “Intimate Violence: The causes and consequences of abuse in the American Family”, by DV researchers Richard J. Gelles and Murray A. Straus, 1988.

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: