SAMHSA, which is an agency of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, has come up with a report that confirms what many in the MRM have long been arguing – the little girlies are  becoming increasingly violent.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use & Health…

Almost 19% of adolescent females got into a serious fight in the year previous to taking part on the research…

About 14 percent of girls took part in acts of group-against-group violence (that one surprised even me)…

Almost 6% of girls attacked someone with “the intent to seriously hurt them”…

and almost 27% of the girlies have committed at least one of these offences in the 12 months leading up to the survey.

Those figures are in themselves rather damming, but even more telling is that even though the figures for violence amongst boys are worse, they are so only by a relatively small margin…

Rounding the figures up or down to the nearest whole number, they boil down to this …

Serious fights, 19 % of girls, 25% of boys.

Group violence, 14 % of girls, 17 % of boys

Intent to cause serious harm, 6% of girls, 9% of boys

Engaging in at least one of these, 27% of girls, 34 % of boys.

The most significant difference here is in the intent to cause damage, with twice as many boys as girls. But hey, boys don’t get twice as many encouragements to be violent as girls do, they get a dozen times more; the girls get Buffy and Xena, the boys get everything else, not to mention that the boys get more opposite sex approval for being violent than the girls do.

Even though the report doesn’t mention figures from that long ago, these numbers are a very significant increase on what we saw in the eighties amongst girls, and the only thing I can think of that has changed since then is the portrayal of female violence as being cool – very few parents are telling their kids, regardless of sex, to be violent, and female DNA hasn’t changed in just one generation!

The media has a huge impact on people, especially the young and stupid, and here in Aus we have an example of this  that you guys in America don’t – we have wiggers without having the n***ers! I kid you not, there are thousands of kids in western Sydney dressing and talking like black Americans, without having ever lived amongst them! In the US this phenomenon is often speciously explained as the result of everyday contact with black people, but over here it’s all the media baby, no two ways about it – ain’t none of these kids spent a few weeks living in South Central!

Report here

We now present the first of what i hope will be many Guest Posts by Daisy Duchess, President of The National Organization of Feminist Weasels.

Daisy graduated from Wellesley in 1998 with a double major in Women’s Studies and Law. She spent seven years working as a prosecutor for the New Orleans D.A, a position which saw her jail thousands of homeless men for littering the streets with their presence.

Misogyny In Letters

By Daisy Duchess, President of The National Organization of Feminist Weasels

I would like to begin by thanking the pig for this opportunity, and by asking him if he’s stopped beating his wife and children yet. No, I don’t expect piggy to give me an answer to that, indeed I would expect him to take the Fifth! But that’s pigs for you, just so un-communicative!

Today I will present one of the many subtle yet pervasive acts of misogyny that occur in our society with frightening regularity – about every six minutes i believe.

Recently I visited a site by the name of Project Syndicate to check out Naomi Wolf’s latest writings, and as usual she was  a bit too centerish for my tastes, but the subject of this post is not Ms Wolf’s wimpiness, but rather the left sidebar which lists the site’s contributors under the heading “Thought Leaders.”

Looking at this sidebar you will notice, apart from its obvious phallic connotations (and don’t think I don’t know what that’s supposed to imply) that Ms Wolf’s name is at the very bottom of the list of contributors! Now, the patriarchally inclined would say “Well, Daisy that’s because the list is alphabetically arranged and Wolf begins with a W, and no other contributors have names beginning with X, Y or Z!”

Bah! To that  I say “Rubbish!” The fact is that ever since the prehistoric matriarchies were overthrown by the savage hordes of maleness, the patriarchy has arranged the order of letters in the alphabet to be prejudiced against women. As everyone knows, women have a natural tendency towards having surnames that begin with the latter letters of the alphabet (Wolf, Steinem, Xylophone and Zoology) whereas men are more likely to have surnames that start with the earlier letters (Bush, Cheney, Beck and my local grocer Billy Aardvark).

This, and only this, is the reason why names are arranged “alphabetically” in the modern patriarchies – the oppression and relegation of women to the bottom of website sidebars! After all, if this isn’t the purpose of this particular type of tyranny, why not just place names haphazardly? It would play havoc with library catalogs you say? Bah, don’t be so naïve!

This patriarchal colonization of the means of communication, the locus of intellectual self-expression, is the kind of small, everyday attack on women that society tends to largely ignore, the kind of attack that makes women feel diminished every time they open a book or write a letter, the kind of attack that must end, especially now that we have a feminist in the White House.

We all know the popular media driven view of female sexuality – romantic candlelit dinners in a cozy little restaurant where the floor show consists of Harry Connick Jr singing “My Mammy” while doing his Michael Jackson impression. However, a few years ago the land that inflicted Celine Dion and Bryan Addams on the rest of the world gave us a study by a Psych Professor named Meredith Chivers that finally answered Freud’s famous question about what women want, and what they want is some hot monkey sex.

In 2005, as part of what seems like a very weird choice of vocation, Chivers took a bunch of test subjects, sat them down in front of a computer screen, hooked them up to devices that measured their sexual responses (plethysmographs — the male version of which measures swelling in the penis, the female equivalent being a plastic probe that measures vaginal blood flow),  then showed them a wide array of porn, not only straight, gay and lesbian but also mating footage of  a species of Chimpanzee!

The gist of the outcome was that on average; straight men were turned on by straight porn, and not surprisingly, lesbian porn, and gay men were turned on only by gay porn. Where it got weird was with the gals, with both the straight and gay women reacting in a positive manner to well, everything-  straight porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, and God help us all, the monkey porn!  Not only that, but they got a stronger vaginal response from watching the monkey porn than they did from images of a good looking man!

The other interesting aspect was that the subjects were given keypads on which to rate their subjective feeling of arousal, and  whereas the men  admitted to what turned them on, both the straight and lesbian women didn’t, claiming that only porn fitting into their declared preference did it for them! Alas, ladies the plethysmographs showed otherwise…

Presumably this doesn’t mean women want to hump monkeys, but it does suggest that either they really don’t know what the hell they want, or that when it comes to sexual desires at least, women lie more than men! So the next time some chick gives you the spiel about candlelit dinners just remember that what she really wants you to do is show her some monkey porn, even if she doesn’t know it – or admit it!

More here.