The irrational consent laws

There have been few feminist projects more irrational and unfair to men than the bundle of consent laws got up around Australia. Fundamentally, the laws say with punitive clauses that if a woman says ‘no’ while the sex act is underway, the man must immediately stop what he is doing – no matter what. In the article below, Bettina Arndt convincingly argues the insanity and nastiness of it all. What do I think?

At the risk of having the feminist thought police at the door, I think that once the act is underway – that is, the woman has allowed penetration – that’s consent enough. If for some perverse reason, the woman suddenly wants to stop, then good luck. If the man completes the gargantuan task of stopping, well and good. Otherwise …

That’s the experience of the ages.


Coitus interruptus

– When a woman presses the eject button, men can’t be expected to immediately withdraw, says human factors science.


Frozen, Disney’s highly successful animation series, captivated little girls across the world. So too, the feminists have had huge success in promoting their own version of “frozen” – instilling in criminal courts everywhere the notion that rape victims often suffer a physiological state known as “tonic immobility” which renders them incapable of resisting their plight.

No matter that the science behind this theory is problematic – as Emily Yoffe explained in her article on bad science supporting prosecution of sexual assault. “I froze” has become the uniform description covering every oddity in the rape victim’s behaviour and flawed memory of events – a description that’s invariably accepted, totally unchallenged.

But men’s physiology is seen as irrelevant. There’s zero interest in examining men’s capacity for response in varied sexual situations let alone any pressure for science on male bodily processes to be considered in criminal investigations and proceedings.

Yet this issue is central to determining guilt or innocence in a critical area of criminal law – the issue of revoked consent. With the introduction of affirmative consent laws, not only is consent required throughout sexual activity, but women have the right to pull the plug whenever they feel like it. And men are expected to immediately snap to attention and withdraw.

Easier said than done, you might say. Well, that’s the issue. Most judges seem to assume that there’s no problem in expecting an immediate retreat from the male in response to the female red flag. Never any consideration of whether he even noticed the flag, or realised what it was, or whether she was waving it clearly, or maybe that he might have been frozen, rendered immobile due to surprise and shock.

There’s a fascinating article on the legal issues at play here – Consent Interruptus: Rape Law and Cases of Initial Consent, by University of Western Australia law lecturer, Theodore Bennett. He spells out the legal arguments resisting any notion of allowing a reasonable time to withdraw after revoked consent, with feminists objecting that this “primal urge’ argument perpetuates the myth of the unstoppable male who can’t be responsible for his rampant sexuality. Kansas State feminist scholar Lois Pineau says the claim that men don’t have immediate control is “factually unfounded.”  

Not so fast, says an expert in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) – which is the science of how humans behave and interact with each other in various environmental contexts. I’ll call this Australian expert “Anton Crabtree” – unfortunately he’s decided he needs to disguise his identity due to the tricky ideological climate in today’s academic world.

Dr Crabtree also has expertise in aviation medicine which is precisely the area we usually associate with HFE, given its vital role in investigations of human error in situations like plane crashes.  Crabtree makes a compelling case that this type of examination of neurocognitive and physiological limitations also has bearing on whether men crash and burn in the bedroom.

“The absence of the rigorous assessment and well-established scientific considerations of Human Factors analysis is a glaring omission to any claim of a fair system of justice for persons accused of sexual assault after revoked consent.  Ignoring the science inevitably risks further miscarriage of justice which can be catastrophic to individuals and families and damaging to society,” writes Dr Crabtree in an academic paper he is preparing for publication on the subject, which examines case law revealing this ongoing deficiency in our justice system.

I’m including a draft of this groundbreaking research article here and hope you will help circulate it and ensure it receives proper attention – particularly in legal circles where there is such a dire need for education to address the ongoing injustice occurring in these cases. This research should also have a place in the sexual consent courses being taught in our schools and universities.

Read the rest here . . .

Feminism has been a disaster for women

More and more women are saying it. Despite the great promises and despite the real freedom and advancement in opportunities women have achieved, they are not happy. Some are even admitting that most men aren’t all that bad and are turning to youtubers, like The happy housewife, for advice on how to make their husbands or boyfriends happy.

Nobody puts the case against feminism better than Janice Fiamengo.


The Goddess That Failed

On International Women’s Day, we should admit that the feminist movement has not been good for anyone—even its alleged beneficiaries.


Feminist magazine Nasty Women's Press launches at Glad Day Bookshop - NOW  Magazine

A recent poll has shown that a majority of young people think feminist laws and policies have gone too far and now discriminate against men. It’s good to see reaction against anti-male discrimination.

For International Women’s Day, let’s also consider feminism’s impact on women, and recognize that it’s been very bad there too.

Not just radical feminism. Not just the hateful or fringe variety. The whole thing, with its sob stories and sentimental celebrations, its exaggerations and cover-ups, its relentless focus on the demands and alleged needs of one half of humanity at the expense of the other, has been a monumental disaster.

For over 50 years, the movement has been mired in fraudulent claimsmyopiaspecial pleadingdouble standardsabandonment of principlesmanifold hypocrisies, and emotional incontinence.

It has continually misrepresented the situation of women and men, and has induced in its female adherents an unhealthy mix of wounded self-regard, festering resentment, and self-righteous indignation, often overlaid with an unfounded conviction of moral superiority and contempt for the unenlightened.

And despite its energetic stroking of the feminine ego and repeated assurances that women are innocent of wrongdoing; despite also the various perks and exemptions, the fawning media representations, and the outsized public sympathy; despite steady exhortations of “You go, girl!” and promises of all that must still be done to protect, promote, succor, and bless the female of the species, the movement has not managed to make women happier or more satisfied than when it first took hold in the 1970s.

In fact, the opposite has occurred. Women are significantly less happy than previously.

An article in Neuroscience News for September, 2023 sounded the alarm, calling it “The Paradox of Progress: Why More Freedom Isn’t Making Women Happier.” In the same year, CNN reported that the Population Reference Bureau was identifying a marked decline in well-being among millennial women. In 2022, David G. Blanchflower and Alex Bryson declared that across time and space, “women are unhappier than men […] and have more days with bad mental health and more restless sleep.” Oft cited is a large meta-study from 2009 called “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” which demonstrated the persistence of women’s decreasing happiness across the decades.

What these feminist academics and journalists call a paradox may seem fairly straightforward to the rest of us: movements based on assertions of angry victimhood are not likely to produce happy customers. But before fleshing out that conclusion, let’s take a look at the pundits’ attempts to deny the obvious.

The Paradox of Progress” in Neuroscience News outlines the problem thus: “Despite having more freedom and employment opportunities than ever before, women have higher levels of anxiety and more mental health challenges, such as depression, anger, loneliness and more restless sleep.” The article is typically feminist in its teeter-totter balancing act between two conflicting priorities: to assure readers that women are superior to men—in this case, “more emotionally resilient,” with “more intimate” friendships, greater “capacity for personal growth,” and commitment to “more altruistic endeavors”—while also stressing that women have it worse than men—in this case, are more depressed, lonelier, and more anxious.

It would seem that both cannot be true—capacity for intimacy, for example, ought to decrease loneliness—but the article attempts to resolve the contradiction by falling back on a third feminist chestnut: that women are (justly, of course) “unhappy at how society treats them.” All the emotional resilience in the world, it seems, cannot make up for that.

Read the rest here . . .

Read sample chapters

Readers can now read three sample chapters of all my titles. See the list below.

The sample links are also available in the fiction and nonfiction sections of this website. There is also a link to the list on the home page.


Times of Distress: A Story of Unswerving Faith and Commitment
Read sample chapters (3) here

In This Vale of Tears
Read sample chapters (3) here

Counterculture Dreams: A 1960s Story
Read sample chapters (3) here

The Castle of Heavenly Bliss
Read sample chapters (3) here

Editing Constancy: A Jane Austen Story
Read sample chapters (3) here

Seeking the Divine Spark: A Satire in the Style of Evelyn Waugh
Read sample chapters (3) here


Prison Hulk to Redemption: A History of a Catholic Family Part One 1788-1900 Second Edition
Read sample chapters (4) here

War Depression War: A History of a Catholic Family Part 2 1901-1945
Read sample chapters (3) here

Me ‘n’ Pete Recalling a Fifties Childhood: A History of a Catholic Family Part 3 1946-1953
Read sample chapters here

Tony Abbott and the Times of Revolution
Read sample chapters (3)

Did the Media Kill Diana? Reviewing Purposes and Motivations
Read samples chapters (3) here

Mean-girl Katy Gallagher ramps up Labor’s man-hatred campaign

ALP senator Kimberley Kitching accused Labor power trio Katy Gallagher, Penny Wong, and Kristina Keneally of bullying her. She made the allegations in an hour-long “safe and respectful workplace training” session. It’s on record with the ALP.

Within a year, Kimberley Kitching was dead at the age of 52. She died of a heart attack. See the ABC’s report on the allegations and their credibility here: Kimberley Kitching disclosed allegations Senate Labor colleagues bullied her months before her death. You don’t mess with Katy Gallagher and her feminist clique.

Well, Katy Gallagher has not improved – not that you expect it. Ms. Mean-girl Katy is in charge of the ALP’s ‘gender equality’ campaign. And she will ram it through by hook or crook. One expects mostly by crook.

But what’s this gender equality business about? I’m sure many people haven’t a clue. They just accept the outrageous suggestion that somehow some businesses are paying women LESS for the SAME job. But that’s not what it’s about at all. Let me explain in the simplest terms.

Say a company – a big corporation – has ten top positions, all filled by men, with huge salaries – in fact, not only the highest in the company but the highest anywhere. Well, mean-girl Katy says, no, that’s not right. At least five of those positions MUST be filled by women, regardless of the superior qualifications, suitability, and experience of the men. But there’s more.

Katy won’t publicly admit it, but it is fine to have women fill all ten positions, regardless of qualifications, experience or suitability for the position.

Gender equality is not a system of equity; it is a system of quotas. In terms of business or organizational purpose, it is irrational.

Katy and her feminist cohorts want at least a policy of appointing women to high-paid positions until men and women’s salaries, AVERAGED OUT, are equivalent or women earn more. Regardless of individual differences and ambitions.

But there’s more. Katy, ALP power mean girl, has threatened to withhold government contracts from companies who don’t cooperate, that is, don’t surrender to the ideological blackmail.

‘Gender equality’ is the most dishonest man-hating con ever perpetrated by feminists. And there’s a lot of nasty business feminists are capable of. See previous comments and references to Janice Fiamengo and Bettina Arndt’s work.

As a man you would have to be a total idiot to vote for the Australian Labor Party.


New gender equality strategy to tackle unpaid work gap

Poppy Johnston, Sat, 2 March 2024

Australia has a way to go to achieve gender equality but the federal government has a plan to get there in a decade.

Minister for Women Katy Gallagher will launch the first national gender equality strategy on Thursday.

The strategy will cover five key areas – unpaid and paid care, ending gender-based violence, economic equality and security, health, and leadership and representation.

Australian Finance Minister Katy Gallagher
Minister for Women Katy Gallagher says her government understands the challenges facing women. (Lukas Coch/AAP PHOTOS)

It comes hot on the heels of new wage gap data that aired the dirty laundry of individual employers and found almost two-thirds had gender pay gaps favouring men.

The Workplace Gender Equality Agency figures suggested women were still struggling to make it up the top of the employment ladder and were poorly represented in highly paid roles.

Senator Gallagher said her government understood the challenges facing women.

“Women earn less, they suffer from a motherhood penalty when they take time out of work for children, and they retire with lower superannuation balances,” she said.

“We know that we don’t have a gender-equal Australia.”

Read the rest here . . .

Oh no! Girls behaving badly

Janice Fiamengo shoots more holes in the feminist fantasy about females as innocent victims who can do no wrong. I recommend following some of the links. There is some amazing footage.


Bad Girls Caught on Camera

Drunk, disorderly, and potty-mouthed—but still, to some, victims


There’s been moral outrage lately over a popular YouTube channel called Drive Thru Tours. Launched in 2020, the channel started out by posting videos of tours through parts of New Jersey and New York. It hit paydirt last year when it began showing videos of police arrests, with titles such as “Rude 19-year-old Girl Arrested for DUI in Pullman, WA” (recommended if you want to get a flavor of the site) and “Belligerent Woman Arrested for DWI after Police Pursuit and Taken to Jail (not recommended—very disturbing). The channel owner obtained the content—which until recently has focused exclusively on female offenders—from police bodycam recordings, now publicly available through freedom of information requests.

Bodycam footage was originally made accessible to the public so that American citizens can hold police accountable for their actions. Scrutiny of police behavior is widely considered a public good. Scrutiny of female behavior, however, is quite a different story—as responses to the channel demonstrate.

According to a small flurry of recent news reports, New Jersey police are warning that Drive Thru Tours is harming “vulnerable” young women by posting the evidence of their arrests. The bodycam footage was never intended, they protest, for such a purpose. In consequence, the Association of Chiefs of Police of New Jersey is calling for legislation against what they are describing as “online sexual predators,” and lawmakers in that state are considering a bill that would prohibit publishing the footage except within narrow parameters, including with the written consent of the subject. 

Quite apart from whether such a bill is a good idea or not (I favor public access but have not given the matter serious thought), the language used in the articles is remarkable for its gynocentric sentimentality and misplaced sympathy.  

One of the most vocal on the subject is Montville, New Jersey Police Chief Andrew Caggiano, who is quoted as stating that “It was never the intent of OPRA [the Open Public Records Act] to create such a platform that preys on young women and takes advantage of them at a time when they are vulnerable.” He also expressed a personal repugnance: “As a law enforcement professional and the father of three daughters, I am sickened by the fact that people are abusing OPRA to post these types of videos on social media sites.”

Given that it is not (yet) illegal to use bodycam material in the manner described, Chief Caggiano’s dramatic reaction seems overstated. One wonders in what sense the reckless and self-absorbed young people shown in these videos are “vulnerable.” Wouldn’t such language be better suited to their victims? Perhaps Caggiano knows something about his daughters that we don’t know (there is a video in which a “Cop’s Daughter Gets Arrested for DWI after Fleeing Accident Scene”): one would not normally expect a chief of police to so quickly substitute in imagination his own daughters for the inebriated and flagrantly dishonest women shown on Drive Thru Tours.

Caggiano’s bluster is, of course, all too familiar in a culture that cannot bear to hold women fully responsible for their bad actions—no matter how anti-social or potentially lethal—and must habitually frame them as innocent victims. It’s impossible to imagine such outraged sympathy being expressed for any male offenders in similar situations.

Read the rest here . . .