BBC reports on the appointment of Tamil Nadu state’s first transgender police officer:

India’s supreme court recognised transgender people as a third gender last April, five years after the electoral commission added the category to ballot forms.

The ruling meant the government had to provide transgender people with quotas in jobs and education in line with other minorities, as well as key amenities.

There are an estimated two million transgender people in India.

While the Times of India reports that Tamil Nadu police already have three transgender constables on their books, reports in other Indian media said Prithika will become the first officer in the country.

Prithika was born Pradeep Kumar and left her parents’ home before completing a computer studies course and undergoing surgery.

She had wanted to be a police officer since being a child, Indian media said.

The court also ruled that the result of a police physical test, which Prithika failed after being a second late in a 100-metre dash, was not valid.”

 

More about the real roots of fetishistic cross-dressing  from someone who healed himself of the behavior:

In my own case the sexual adventures, which I have recounted in vivid detail in my book, “Bipolar Bare”, were associated both with both mania and depression. A depressed rage would come over me, where I sought out high risk behavior in bathhouses. I wished to kill myself through contracting AIDS. I would go into periods where I thought my life worthless, and vile. The more I sought out sex in gay bathhouses the worse I felt about myself, but I hid this behind a façade of normality. I acted and dressed like a professional during the day, and at night during those times of extreme depression I would go out looking for sex. I didn’t do this when I was not depressed. I acted like a heterosexual male dating women and loving their company. But I could never get into a meaningful relationship because I had this secret life which occurred during my depressions. I was addicted to marijuana at this time. Stoned it was easy to overcome my inhibitions about homosexuality so that as my cyclical depressions arose I could operate on my hidden fantasies. Gay sex was the behavior I loved and hated at the same time.Later after I had given up marijuana and became a Buddhist meditator, I abandoned this secret life for eight years. I still had depressions and manic episodes, but they were not as severe and I could handle them. I stopped hating life and frequenting bathhouses. I got married and embarked on a productive professional career as an architect, but this period of tranquility did not last. After a few years the stresses in my life especially the problems of keeping an architectural practice flourishing lead me back into severe manic-depression and addiction. The drug I became addicted to was far more powerful than marijuana. I found crack cocaine and immediately began to abuse it. Crack is rocket fuel to mania. I loved this high, which at first and actually for a fairly long time diminished my depression. I was self-medicating. The drug however released all my inhibitions, and I found what I most wanted to do was cross-dress and seek out sex in clubs and bars. I did this secretly for a long time. I had a studio separate from my home, where I would go ostensibly to work on my art, which I did some of the time, but much of the time I spent getting dressed up as my alter-ego Carlotta. She would prowl the streets of downtown Los Angeles with the other transvestites looking for johns. She also carried in her purse and eight inch ice pick for protection -she said- but in reality she hoped to come across some poor smuck who would challenge her and she could skewer. Luckily this never happened. It was all about risk and dichotomy.

The risk of this behavior was more than merely exciting, I was euphoric. Once I had a rough homeless man hanging onto my open car door as I tried to speed away from a drug deal gone bad. I was trying to push him off the door at the same time negotiating the steering wheel. He eventually let go and tumbled into the street. I should have been terrified by this event. I wasn’t. I was trilled. It was everything I wanted: the adrenalin rush, the exhibitionist behavior – I was dressed in full drag, and the act on the cusp of illegality. I could not get enough of this activity. I like Dr. Jekyll could not and did not want to stop becoming Mrs. Hyde.

The dichotomy was a full expression of my manic self. There was Carl, the professional architect doing his job each day looking normal -at least normal at first, the more my addiction grew the less balance and reliable I became. People in my office later remarked to me that they did not know what Carl would show up on any given day. One day I would be cute and loving, the next I could be cutting and hateful. Then there was Carlotta, black dressed bitch with orange red hair, who raced around town from transvestite bar to gay bar or walked the streets of skid row. These two selves were diametrically opposed to one another. One was the daytime loving husband and father; the other, the queen of the night.

I have recovered from my addiction and my cross-dressing with the help of therapy and medication. I have come to see my desire to become a woman as a manifestation of my illness that had its roots in childhood. When I was five or six before my young life was torn apart by the nasty divorce of my mother and father. My happiest days were dressing up in an attic closet with my older sister in our grandmother’s old clothes and shoes. We would put on slips- they dragged far behind us, high heels that were twice as big as our little feet, and wrap our necks with feather boas. These days with my sister that ended in our separation after the divorce stayed with me and influenced my future relationship to my sex. Sex is deeply ingrained, be it be sexual identity or sexual proclivity. I believe it comes out in mental illness in some form or the other, perhaps influenced by personal history or just plain biology. Perversion of sex can be seen in many of the bipolar disordered.”

Gavin McInnes has a brilliant satire at Takimag on the “right-wing” war on women the left is always complaining about. The satire lies in the fact that the slander pinned on the right is actually the creation of the left – it is the ideology of feminism:

The “War on Women” is a term usually used to describe Republican policies and their effects on the fairer sex. The right denies such a thing exists, but let’s stop kidding ourselves. Going back over the past half century, it’s impossible not to see a vast right-wing conspiracy to strip women of everything that makes them women and convert them into sex toys who take out the garbage.

The war began simply enough. In the 1960s, men decided they wanted to see more tits. The Republicans created an organization that encouraged women to burn their bras. Almost overnight, men were treated to breasts of all shapes and sizes swinging freely in thin T-shirts. As we gazed at their pendulous cans, we told women they were expressing their freedom and teaching us a lesson about uncomfortable underwear or something. Conservatives never lost momentum with the “dump ’em out” movement and as recently as 1992 removed all barriers between my eyeballs and funbags.

Inspired by this remarkable victory, the GOP began a “war of the sexes” that would garner as much sex as possible for men. The biggest obstacle they had was the fact that women can create life. This makes them less likely to spread their legs for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who comes along. The solution to this was simple: trivialize it. Make women think it’s an irrelevant detail that’s downright disgusting. This took some convincing, but today it’s not unusual to see a young woman turn her nose up at the act like it’s the same as shitting out a tumor.
“Wasting a woman’s fertile years isn’t even a thing these days. How convenient is that?”

Once getting pregnant was seen as some kind of revolting accident, getting laid was way easier. Republicans encouraged birth control and created a “Free Love” movement where men could bed whomever they wanted without consequences. Those stupid enough to buy the cow when they were getting the milk for free invented key parties, where married men would exchange wives for a night. This led to a massive divorce epidemic, which sucks at first but ultimately means more sex partners for men. It’s a win-win.

Of course, accidents will happen and women will still get pregnant, so conservatives started pushing abortion as some kind of girl-power movement. All wars need a propaganda machine, and ours was so good it convinced the enemy that giving birth is defecation but vacuuming out a fetus is basically a phoenix rising from the ashes. This was particularly brilliant because you have a woman’s body doing exactly what it was supposed to do and she gets rewarded with a lifetime of trauma trying to forget the baby she killed. Today it’s not unusual to meet a young woman who has had several abortions, many of them after the first trimester! Us men get to ejaculate into whomever we please and she has to deal with the consequences. In the War on Women this was our D-day.

You can’t totally eradicate the biological clock, of course, so what we did was convince women their eggs will last well into their 40s when we no longer want to have sex with them. When doctors disagreed, we dug up some anecdotal evidence of some chick’s aunt who had twins at 45 and everybody clapped.

Today you can date a 25-year-old and dump her at 30 as her eggs are drying up, and nobody says a word. She’s recovered and ready to go at 33, but it’s too late, she can’t have kids. Now those nonexistent kids can’t have kids. In one simple shrug, this conservative has killed maybe a million people, and there is no possibility whatsoever he will be tried for a war crime. Wasting a woman’s fertile years isn’t even a thing these days. How convenient is that?

If a girlfriend did get pregnant and was too headstrong to get an abortion, she’d tend to become very cloying. She’d whine about being cared for and protected and blah blah blah. Could anything be less badass? In order to get out of this responsibility, Republicans created the welfare state and said the government will pay all your bills if you just leave this guy alone and let him get back to shtupping chicks. This worked wonders, especially in the black community, where 72% of dudes get to make babies for free.

The beauty of turning childbirth into nothing is you turn women into weak little dudes. Now she feels like a loser if she’s not strong enough to carry a grown man out of a burning building or do enough pull-ups to become a Marine. It’s like putting Superman in a vat of kryptonite and kicking him in the balls. Women strive to be something they’re not and create movies where they know kung fu and can lose the cops in a car chase. Making them into dudes means straight guys get the same sex life gay men have. Sometimes women complain that they “catch feelings” after being treated like a colostomy bag for yet another stranger’s semen, but we make sure they feel terrible about it. Isn’t that amazing? We convinced women their feelings are an STD. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Another fun part of making women into dudes was making them work. Your girlfriend isn’t someone you need to take care of. She’s a roommate who has to pay the bills. If she has a problem with that she’s a total sellout. Republicans got women out of the kitchen and into the workforce so they can pay half the rent. It gets better. You see, women still have that weird craving to be at home. They want to see the only child they managed to create, and this provides a massive distraction. This means they tend not to go up the ladder as fast as someone who isn’t pining to nurture and who leaves them stuck with all the shitty jobs us men don’t want to do. A generation ago, the ideal woman was a friend in the living room, a mom in the kitchen, and a slut in the bedroom. Today she’s a slut everywhere and a slave at work. Way to go, us!”

P

Exinjuria.wordpress.com:

The Home Office is also responsible for disseminating the common claim that 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes.  This statistic cost the British tax-payer £3.5 million when it was commissioned from the Professor of Criminology at Royal Holloway College, Betsy Stanko.  Her study was based on 49 partially completed postal responses and a survey of 129 self-selected women from GPs’ surgeries in the far-from-typical London Borough of Hackney, the former haunt of Jack the Ripper.  It is a mass of guesswork and estimates (Stanko, Crisp, Hale, & Lucraft, 1998), but coincidentally close to more reliable figures: over a life time 23.1% of women and 19.3% of men will experience an incidence of domestic violence (Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012a).  This means that three quarters of women will never experience a single incident of domestic violence in their lives.  Furthermore, because the Home Office includes a wide range of non-violent activity under the catch-all heading ‘intimate violence’, only a quarter of reported incidents actually involve physical force (Smith, Osborne, Lau, & Britton, 2012).  If we factor in the Home Office statistic that 7% of women experience violence every year (Ibid.) we must conclude that it is the same group of women who are the victims.  If we really wanted to help these women we would ask what it was that made them more susceptible to violence.

Another familiar claim is that two women each week are murdered by a current or former male partner.  The true number is about six women each month; nowhere is the corresponding statistic mentioned: that three men each month are murdered by current or former female partners (Povey, Coleman, Kaiza, & Roe, 2009).  Or there’s the popular claim that domestic violence is the leading cause of ill health (or even death) in women, which is quoted by the Home Office, the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Justice and others, demonstrating the typical dispersal pattern of a rogue statistic.  This figure also is false: homicide is not even in the top ten leading causes of death.  The Home Office, an early source of the bogus figure, defends it as merely ‘illustrative’, while others maintain that while the figure isn’t true, it should not be challenged, because domestic violence is such an important issue.

In 2001 the Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Blair, presented an award to Kiranjit Ahluwalia at the Asian Women Awards ceremony for the laudable achievement of pouring petrol – bought for the purpose – onto her husband Deepak while he slept and setting fire to him.  He took six days to die.  Her defence, that she had only intended to cause pain, failed: she had assaulted him several times previously and was convicted of murder.  After re-education by the Southall Black Sisters she claimed on appeal that she had lived in fear of him, and had killed him because he was about to leave her.  Deepak was not available to confirm either claim.

In the most disgusting display of politicised misandry Cherie Blair hailed Ahluwalia as a ‘true role model for the next generation’ (BBC, 2001); once again the Government incited violence against men merely accused of a gender crime – it is unlikely we’ll see many men similarly fêted for killing their wives: Ahluwalia was courted by the media, signed a book deal and was even the subject of a film.  This madness became embodied in legislation in the form of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, launched by women’s minister Harriet Harman, which introduced the twin measures of allowing a woman accused of murdering her husband the defences that she was the victim of ‘serious wrong’ or feared she would be the victim of violence, and removed the defence – most often used by men – of provocation.  The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, declared, ‘I don’t think this is a sensible way for us to proceed’ (BBC, 2010b).

One effect of the law, by specifically excluding infidelity from the category of serious wrong and thereby trivialising it, was further to undermine marriage; as with ‘no-fault’ divorce, fault now lay with the betrayed party, and morality was turned on its head.  It was far from gender-neutral: women could kill in cold blood and with calculation, but if they claimed they ‘feared’ violence the charge would be reduced to manslaughter.  Thus cold-blooded killing was no longer murder, while killing in the heat of the moment during a temporary loss of control was.  This separated intent from the grievousness of a crime; it was not just an attack on men, it was a neo-Marxist assault on the moral underpinnings of society and its laws.  In 2012 Lord Judge defied the new law, allowing the appeal of a man who had killed his serially unfaithful wife: excluding infidelity from cases in which it was integral risked ‘injustice’ (R v Clinton, 2012).

Challenging the feminist paradigm requires courage; academics who have queried the accepted wisdom, such as Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz and Richard Gelles, have been threatened with violence, including death and bomb threats, against themselves or their families; universities and government departments have been intimidated to deny them tenure and funding; conferences have withdrawn invitations; fellow academics have used their work without attribution; libraries have refused to stock their books (Gelles, 1999).  Here are their findings:

Domestic violence is not exclusive to men.  Rates of female violence are actually slightly higher than for males at 28.3% compared with 21.6% (Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012b), particularly among women under the age of 30 (Kessler, Molnar, Feurer, & Appelbaum, 2001).  A meta-analysis of no fewer than 286 studies demonstrates ‘that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600’ (Fiebert, 2012).  The studies included demonstrate consistently that women are more likely than men to initiate both mild and severe violence.  Slowly the justice system is beginning to catch up; figures obtained from the Crown Prosecution Service in June 2011 showed that almost 3,965 women were successfully prosecuted in the previous year, compared with 806 women in 2004/5 (Cavill & Fursman, 2011); by 2012 the British Crime Survey acknowledged that more married men suffered from partner abuse than married women (Office for National Statistics, 2013).

The strongest predictor of a woman being the victim of intimate violence is her own perpetration of violence (Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007).  Research shows that women are at greatest risk of violence from an intimate partner when they themselves initiate violence (Capaldi, 2009).  Government victim surveys in the UK (Walby & Allen, 2004), the US (Bensley, Macdonald, Van Eenwyk, Simmons, & Ruggles, 2000) and Canada (Statistics Canada, 2000) consistently reverse these findings due to a variety of factors: methodological bias, presentation to respondents as surveys on violence towards women (Archer, 2000), reliance on police figures (Malloy, McCloskey, Grigsby, & Gardner, 2003), male under-reporting (Stets & Straus, 1992b) and lower female arrest rates (Brown, 2004).  Relying on their own inaccurate figures, governments incorporate the feminist paradigm of domestic violence into their thinking and thence into public policy.

Some studies have presented a profoundly different insight into domestic violence.  A meta-analysis of 50 studies found 59.7% of violence to be reciprocal or bi-directional (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012).  A study using a large sample of 18,761 respondents showed that in 70% of those cases in which violence was not reciprocal the perpetrator of the violence was the woman.  Reciprocal violence was more often associated with injury regardless of gender (Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007).

There are correlations between domestic violence and major depression, being on welfare, and having a partner who uses drugs heavily, sells drugs, has a history of violence toward others, has an arrest record, or is unemployed (Williams, Van Dorn, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalano, 2001).  Living in an area of higher violence and drug use also increase a person’s likelihood of perpetration.  Researchers concluded ‘that it may be possible to prevent some forms of domestic violence by acting early to address youth violence.  Our research suggests the earlier we begin prevention programs, the better, because youth violence appears to be a precursor to other problems including domestic violence’ (Ibid.).

The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project (PASK) was ‘grounded in the premises that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts; that these facts should be available to everyone, and that domestic violence intervention and policy ought to be based upon these facts rather than ideology and special interests’.  It found correlations with younger age, childhood exposure to parental violence, unemployment and low income and membership of ethnic minorities.  There was a weak correlation with alcohol use and a stronger one with drugs.  Risk was lowest for married couples and greatest for separated women (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012).”

So much for the Indian rape crisis, which this blog was one of the first (and one of the very few) to debunk, amidst all the global caterwauling on the Internet:

DNAIndia.com had this report in 2014:

The Delhi Commission of Women (DCW) has come out with startling statistics showing that 53.2% of the rape cases filed between April 2013 and July 2014 in the capital were found ‘false’.

The report says that between April 2013 and July 2014, of the 2,753 complaints of rape, only 1,287 cases were found to be true, and the remaining 1,464 cases were found to be false.

The report further revealed that between June 2013 and December 2013, the number of cases found to be untrue were 525. And in between, January 2014 and July 2014, the number of false rape cases were 900.

The Delhi Commission of Women further said it was investigating individual complaints of rape to ensure the victims get justice. However, it added that in many cases, the complainant turned hostile, and that revenge emerged to be the most common reason for filing a false complaint.”

I found this pungent comment at the blog of Henry Makow, a conspiracy researcher and author, best known as a men’s rights advocate or virulent misogynist, depending on your political position.

(Makow is also likely to be connected to intelligence, although I have no hard proof of it and what suggests it to me is too elusive for a blog post).

The comment  will probably strike a deep chord with many men, harassed by the inequities of contemporary family life and family law:

I have exchanged God’s love for eros and koinonia.

It works. Another thing I had to look at is sex.

The woman I live with and I have not been intimate going on seven years. For me it is bliss. You have talked at length regarding the slaying of that beast and how it makes a man free to pursue his purest intentions. I have found that promise to be so. What happens when the sexual bond is broken is that sexual worship and the worship of women falls away.

A man is able to keep his eye on his spiritual life. So I can attest that everything you have said about that is true.

So I live with a woman. I have love for her but am not in love with her. She knows that I can leave at anytime. We are both financially set and do not need each other in that way.

Not having a sexual or romantic bond is an advantage for me and keeps feminism in check.

Therapists are calling this the brother-sister marriage in today’s world. That is ok. Feminists created it, we men, we real men, have learned how to solution it. It is a relatively new phenomenon and it took us a while to figure it out, but we are not of low intelligence, as feminists like to portray us in TV commercials.

My advice to Eric:

Don’t Mary Molly. Focus on your daughter.

Make and keep your own money.

Do not let anybody stand in the way of your musical bliss.

Women want two things:

Money and the center of attention. It is their nature. Give them neither.

– See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/#sthash.uSV5EXBY.dpuf