By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Feminism is misogyny with effective PR

Feminists creatively frame information to infer conditions it does not support to emotionally coerce women into submissive cooperation with being exploited as political fodder. The largely one-sided "discussion" on harassment, partner, and sexual violence taking place under the hashtag #YesAllWomen is an example.

It uses the out-of-context presentation of personal claims by women, many of whom are simply spouting feminist rhetoric about being afraid rather than describing personal experiences, to infer upon society an epidemic of only male on only female harassment and gendered violence. Why out of context? Because in the overall picture doesn't back up the claim.

Harvard Study says 70% of domestic violence committed by women

Relational Aggression is a behavior more often perpetrated by girls than by boys

And we've seen how hard feminists have worked to erase male victims of female sexual violence...

Manufacturing Female Victimhood and Marginalizing Vulnerable Men

Feminists define rape to exclude male victims

Feminist rape culture theory vs men

Even the stats on sexual violence themselves are exaggerated for effect:

On Rape Hysteria

Feminist advocacy research scam

These political ideologues trading in manipulation of human emotion as currency have ordered women to be unnecessarily afraid. They have demanded that we run our personal experiences through a filter of ideology that dehumanizes men and infantilizes women. When faced with women who don't submit to their self-assigned authority, their response is far from empowering.

That presentation of false or falsely framed information to emotionally manipulate women into exhibiting desired behaviors is gender-targeted abuse. It's a blatant display of misogyny within a movement which would deny women's right and ability to think for ourselves.

Zombie culture. It's not alive, but it's not dead, either.

It has come to my attention that feminists just don't understand zombies. The group has been redefining the word zombie with looser and looser connotations, blurring the line between innocent people and the flesh-eating monsters we all fear, and using unmerited shaming tactics to silence people who disagree with their opinions.

For the record, I'd like to state a few distinctions.

Being hungry does not make someone a zombie.

Enjoying and engaging in bite-play does not make someone a zombie.

Eating a gelatin dessert molded in the shape of a brain does not make someone a zombie.  

Zombie jokes are speech. If you don't like them, don't listen.

Reading zombie-perspective fiction or playing zombie-perspective games is not a zombie attack. Enjoying those media does not mean the user is secretly a zombie.

Games, shows, and literature which portray people as zombie attack victims do not infect players, viewers or readers with the zombie virus.

The involvement of some alcohol does not make mutually engaged roughhousing between two uninfected people a zombie attack by one against the other.

It is dishonest for you to smack someone in the mouth and then later label him a zombie just because his teeth were involved.

If you get drunk and bite someone because you wanted to, that does not make him a zombie, even if he bites you back.

When a person merely looks at you, that is not a zombie attack, even if you don't want the attention.

A person who says hello to you is not automatically trying to bite you, even if you weren't seeking engagement.

Asking you out for coffee is not a zombie attack, even if you don't want to go out for coffee.

A discussion that does not involve you is not a zombie attack, even if you don't like what's being said.

A discussion that does involve you does not become a zombie attack if you don't like the information you're learning.

A person who walks with a limp is not necessarily a zombie.

If you hug a zombie, it is likely to bite you. It is your responsibility to know this.

If you have dinner with someone, that is not a zombie attack against you, even if you didn't tell him to eat.

If your neighbor eats cheeseburgers knowing full well that you are a vegetarian, that does not make him a zombie.

If you don't want dinner right now but your husband makes himself a sandwich and eats it, that's not the same as feeding you or himself to zombies.

If you become infected and you bite someone that person is just as much a victim of a zombie attack as you were when you were bitten.

Zombie virus infection is not a gender-specific trait.

Gender does not affect whether a person attacked by zombies is a zombie attack victim.

The gender of the victim does not make a zombie attack any more or less scary, painful, dangerous, or fun.

Zombies do not eat people on accident.

Rumors of zombie attacks are not solid proof of a zombie invasion.

Calling someone a zombie does not make him a zombie. It does not justify locking him in the closet or shooting him in the face.

Zombie status doesn't transfer by common human trait association. If one zombie has red hair that does not make all gingers zombies or potential zombies.

If you pass a person on the street, being a stranger doesn't make him Schrodinger's zombie. Neither does being male.

If an uninfected person bites you because you put your fingers in his mouth, that's not a zombie attack even if you didn't say "Bite me!"

If you do say "bite me" and someone does, it doesn't make him a zombie if you didn't mean it that way.

Locking up or shooting the uninfected does nothing to prevent zombie attacks against the general population.

If there is a cure for the zombie virus, administering the cure and then shooting the zombie anyway is inhumane. Even if you have no compassion for recovering zombies, such an action would be unproductive and wasteful. Administering a placebo and letting a zombie languish in isolation expecting to get better before you shoot him is equally inhumane, unproductive, and wasteful. 

Surviving one zombie attack does not make you an expert on zombies.

Being a potential zombie attack victim does not give you an excuse to mistreat strangers.

Other uninfected people are not responsible for what zombies do.

Talking to other uninfected people about your rights doesn't change what zombies do.

If you give someone permission to bite you, changing your mind while his teeth are sunk into your skin doesn't make him a zombie.

Your personal dislike for a person does not make him a zombie or potential zombie.

If you use a needle to inject someone with the zombie virus, you've infected him, even if you didn't bite him.

A person immune to the zombie virus does not have to conform to your expectations of suffering and degeneration after surviving a zombie attack. Failing to rot and fall to pieces is not an attack on other zombie bite victims.

Disagreeing with you about methods for defense against zombies does not make anyone a zombie sympathizer.

Hopefully this has cleared up a few of the more ridiculous myths that have been preventing our society from effectively addressing the impending zombie apocalypse that zombie experts keep predicting.

Jodi Arias back in court

Jodi Arias will will return to court this week for a second attempt at a penalty phase for her trial, this time with a new jury. The jury which last year convicted her of the 2008 murder of Travis Alexander could not agree on a penalty for the crime. Though the facts of the case and the brutality of the murder - Arias slit her victim's throat from ear to ear, stabbed him 27 times in the neck and back, and shot him - were enough to find her guilty of the murder, a mistrial was declaird when they could not agree on a penalty after 13 hours of deliberation.

Speaking to media following the mistrial, jury Forman William Zervakos described Arias as "an absolutely normal everyday young woman that was living a life that was perfectly normal." Hypoagency reared its ugly head as he continued, "Then something changed the trajectory of her life after meeting Travis Alexander, and it spiraled downhill from there."

Unable to reconcile the brutal, premeditated crime with the pretty, composed young woman in the courtroom, the convicting jury instead assumed the crime must have been somebody else's fault, and they let the fate of Jodi Arias become somebody else's problem.

If this second jury is equally indecisive, the death penalty will be removed from the table and sentencing will be left to Judge Sherry Stephens, who presided over the murder trial. Should that occur, Judge Stephens could decide to sentence Arias to life without possibility of parole, or life with the possibility of release after 25 years.

Relevant links:

Jodi Arias Prepares To Meet Her New Jury For Sentencing

Somebody else's problem

Gender disparity in criminal court

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html