Latest Posts

Sunrise and another day breaking through..

Bugger, 2012 already and I will have to make some decisions regarding this blog as it would appear to be ludicrous to continue along the same vein as I have over the last few years, I detect a general change of interest and attitude towards the MM(Mens Movement) and I need to go with the flow..

We are achieving what we set out to do and that was to present the information, as unbiased as possible, demonstrate the facts and let everyone make up their own minds. It seemed reasonable to me as I would be expected to be treated the same way. If someone has an argument and sets forth a succinct presentation to back up that argument, I could at least have a look at it and see if it does.

I am of the opinion that the expose of the RadFem Hub was the straw that broke the camel's back. We showed that feminism and feminists were not really that interested in what they claimed to be. Their interpretation of utopia was not what everyone else POV was, they presented an image that was totally unworkable and demonstrated to be actually insane. Everyone reading their worldview realised that their lives were not that bad and they realised too, that they did not want to end up living in a feminist enhanced society where having consensual sex would be declared rape if the condom broke,  creating videos and plays that shows how to murder someone because of his sex or to try and generate a tax against an individual because of his sex.  Interfere with the education system to such a degree as to train children to behave and except all of their nasty and abusive behavior, was indeed way over the top, that is Sweden today, feminist governance at it's worst. With those type of laws in place and the might of the state adding legality to that level of lunacy, it did make our current lifestyle and situations appear a lot better than was originally thought..

Feminists have just clearly and finally demonstrated beyond doubt, what they wanted as an outcome and the general public, that's you and me, realised that it was just not on..

Those signs appear to me to be positive. We have for so long argued and debated that enemy, that is feminism, for good reason. But as with all things, everything has it's own cycle, whether we like to believe that, realise it or not. Over the years, the amount of hysterical, downright obnoxious rude comments that I use to receive with regular monotony, all suffered the same ignorance.  They even appeared to be straight out of the some automatic dispensing machine about "how to blame an MRA for your screwed up lives", like pre-prepared scripts. They were actually comical in content and in  their contrived rage.

Those rude, nasty comments have completely disappeared. I have not had one for some considerable time which either means that I am not poking and prodding hard enough to aggravate them sufficiently or we may be witnessing an overall change in attitude and thinking, people have witnessed feminism's sexism and obvious bias, that has surfaced dramatically over the last few months. Agent Orange has had more effect then he ever dreamed he would. This I take as another sign that things are changing, it is a readjustment of thought, behaviour and opinion. It does not mean that this blog will cease to apply the tourniquet of reason but it does mean that an overall different approach will have to be introduced. This will gradually take place over the next month or so, as I have to be comfortable with the fact that I can no longer cane the piss out of sex responsible for the changes introduced, even that attitude is changing as more and more members of the opposite sex join the sane side..

The other change that I have introduced gradually over the past six months was input on articles with an increased level of commentary on my part, which has worked a treat, more followers as well as increased hit rates. Which is really what this is all about, spreading the word. Hopefully a slight tweak will work even better..

So stay tuned and see if you can notice the changes and I have a feeling that some may be met with a little resistance but I have had a good think about it and I think it will be the way to go..

Apply a little pressure, get in their face and they fold. That is the way it's done. A concerted effort by many in the Men's Movement "Horde", got the work done and all who took part, a hearty thank you and for those who are of the opinion that it's either a waste of time or it's just too hard because it would require some extra mouse presses, some typing along the lines of ""F" you lot for your misandry", as  you have a right to be pissed off. I would imagine that you would be feeling pretty foolish right about now..

 So how about the next time we request a little help, you begin exercising your mouse finger and get cracking..

Above all, great to get a positive result and it sets the standard for the new year. For 2012, our new phrase is going to be -

 "Were Not Gonna Take it, Anymore"..

We won

The protest against Verizon is over,we won. Under pressure Verizon conceded and removed the anti-male message from their Verizon Foundation website. The protest was successful because all of us, especially those front soldier protestors,were willing to get in Verizon's face and tell them that we are opposed to their misandry. This is proof that men's issues are viable politically and that standing together we can accomplish great things. Don't let anyone tell you different. If they do they are either misinformed or worse,lying to you.

From our fellow soldiers at Men's Rights Blog..

GWW (Girl Writes What) states some very important points in relation to Systemic Gender Violence. That entire mentality that has been instituted by feminists into every walk of live, soon it will be in every society.
Only female comfort is important and men's anything is totally irrelevant..

Having exposed the lunatic rantings from the RADFEM Hub and the ongoing exposure of radical feminists, denied and ignored by supposed "fun" feminists, even though they support that movement in every fashion. Be it financially, legally and morally, including white knighted males and ignorant enablers, who prefer to ignore the violence that feminism introduces across our entire society.Those supporters should to be held just as accountable as those radical feminists..

Their support ensures those anti-male laws are excepted and legalised. Their efforts are on par, as they live in denial, but still claim that there is no bias or male hate promoted. Those people are the result of feminist doctrinal training that ignores anything that does not support one sex and thereby ignores and blatantly introduces sexism and discrimination against the other. They still refuse to accept that obvious and blatant fact..

 One comment made in relation to this video apart from it's expose of the feminist hate movement and it's mindset. "Is this video too little,too late", to even slow the systemic bias and hate introduced. Unless politicians and political parties are informed or are told to stop ignoring men's issues maybe we can stop those radicals from completely destroying society and turning every nation into another Sweden..

 I would urge all viewers to use the links to this site and the RADFEM Exposed site to spread the message whenever and wherever you can. Unless people are informed, they will never be aware of the monstrous actions of this movement, that feminists and their enablers are taking under the guise of equality, when it is blatantly obvious that it has never been the case or their aim..

Oz Brick Wall

A path to Australian apartheid

(The first part of this series on Australia can be found here)
Tanya Plibersek, Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women in the Rudd Labor Government, wrote in 2002;
“At the weekend, the National Party voted against special measures to increase their number of women parliamentarians. The ALP and the Liberals, in contrast, want more women, but can’t agree on the best way to get them. This should be good news for the feminists who fought to make it happen, yet some – like the former federal MP Susan Ryan – ask whether it was worth it. After all, we haven’t defeated patriarchy. Yet.”[1]
Seven years later, Plibersek played a critical role in championing Australia’s new ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’. Plibersek, along side Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, put together a consortium of academics and domestic violence experts, to spearhead a team which would go on create the national report that became official policy. Since the early 2000′s, Plibersek never made it secret that she strongly supports feminist and even some radical feminist ideals. Indeed, in 2005, when Sheila Jeffreys came to Sydney to make a speech, it was Plibersek that introduced her with warm welcoming remarks.[2]
In April 1999, Plibersek gave an interview to Peter Lewis, during which she spoke about these ties of the Labor Party to the feminist community:
“I think that our historical relationships with groups outside the Labor Party like the peace movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the environment, the feminist movement. Our links with community feminist organisations have been about promoting grassroots activism around sexual assault services, domestic violence services; that sort of activism within the community and collective responsibility..”
She went on to weigh in about giving help to families with disabled children, but also clarified that she felt families are strictly women and children, and that any of their responsibilities should become the state’s responsibility;
“But it is also fair to say that the State owes a responsibility to those kids and their parents. We don’t want to return to a situation of voluntarism where individual parents may not have the skills or the patience or the time or the financial ability to look after their children in the ways that would benefit them the most. And I don’t know if it’s an ideal situation to necessarily throw the responsibility back on them. I don’t want to go back to a situation where families — and that means women — are being told its their responsibility all over again.”[3]
Plibersek’s special hand-picked legal advisor to the council was former Tasmanian Attorney-General Judith Jackson. Jackson, who labels herself as a “committed feminist,” has had a career filled with controversy. In the 2004 Tasmania Family Violence Act, [7] she was roundly criticized for her insistence that people accused of domestic violence not be granted bail before trial unless a series of nearly impossible steps were taken by the judge. When Jackson was criticized for attempting to bypass the Justice system, and for violating the human rights of men, she lashed out at her critics;
“How can anybody say that somebody should be let out on bail, so they can go back and re-offend and commit a crime again, and that’s what you’re saying and I find that disgusting.”[4]
But despite the fact that the data used as justification for the bill was based on very poor research, which according to many human rights advocates and several of her critics, never examined how often men were battered in similar circumstances, the bill was passed into law. The ramifications of the law went on to see hundreds of Tasmanian men spending weeks, many times months in prison before trial, for being accused of crimes like ‘economic’ or ‘emotional’ abuse. Ms. Jackson, when confronted about what the law was doing in practice, appeared quite amused and replied:
“We do have some of the best legislation in the world for protecting women and children,”[5]
The reality of the ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ is that it was promoted and shepherded through Australian government by Plibersek, a woman that admittedly was heavily biased towards a hardline feminist perspective that entailed a goal of destroying what she saw as a patriarchy and  associated with radical feminists like Sheila Jeffreys.  Plibersek also believed that women and children are the only parts that constituted a family and felt that the parental responsibly of raising disabled children lies solely with the state. Plibersek hand chosen, as her legal expert to the National Council, Judy Jackson, was a “committed feminist” who has openly disregarded due process of law for men, ignored compelling data or research when drafting radical legislation and has been often accused of “incessant sexism” by her fellow colleagues. [6]
It is not known exactly how the Rudd Labor Government choose the 11 members of the National Council in May 2008, but their members were: Libby Lloyd AM (Chair),Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair), Moira Carmody, Dorinda Cox, Maria Dimopoulos, Melanie Heenan, Rachel Kayrooz, Andrew O’Keefe, Vanessa Swan, Lisa Wilkinson and Pauline Woodbridge. [8][9] The council in conjunction with Plibersek, Jackson and Macklin, sought the help of several other academics, domestic violence experts and other individuals that the report refers to as “critical friends” to complete and finalize what became known as ‘Time for Action: the National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021‘.[19][20][27]
The Sources of New National Policy
The sources of data, research and analysis that were gathered and referenced by the national council and used as justification for their plan were formally acknowledged in the Government’s press releases in early 2009. Those sources were:[24][25][26]

The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA)
The Women’s Services Network (WESNET)
Women, Domestic Violence and Homelessness: A Synthesis Report
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence (NASSV)
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
were also used, but only as the information they provided was delivered via other research papers and analytical reports

Another detailed list of the National Plan’s sources can be found here.
The Greater circle of Australian Radical Feminists
One little known portion of the website, which is the site that hosts the Radfem forums, is a series of pages that they call ‘The Fury’.[10] The amount of information that is on The Fury is not large, but what is on there is very telling about Australian radical feminism and how the site’s members are connected outside of their small circle. On one of the pages, there is a list of names and short biographies, which the site considers to be radical feminists of note inside Australia. There list includes,Diane BellSusan Hawthorne, Sheila JeffreysRenate KleinJocelynne A. ScuttMary Lucille SullivanDenise ThompsonBronwyn Winter and Betty McLellan.[11]
Several of these names were attendees of the 2011 Perth SCUM conference, including Hawthorne, Jeffreys and McLellan. Bell, Klein, Scutt, Sullivan and Thompson are also part of this close knit group of radical feminist authors, speakers and/or professors, each of whom have been published through Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press.[14] Two of these are of particular interest to this story for the moment; Dr. Bronwyn Winter, an Associate Professor at The University of Sydney,[12] and Dr.Betty Mclellan, who was the principle founder for ‘A Coalition for a Feminist Agenda‘.[13]
Dr. Winter has been a frequent guest speaker at several feminist and radical feminist gatherings, three of which were hosted or organized by Dr. Betty McLellan. [15][16] Dr. Winter also wrote an article in November of 2006 in support of White Ribbon Dayfor the website Online Opinion. [18] White Ribbon Day is an event that was created from the White Ribbon Foundation, which was founded in 2003 by a woman named Libby Lloyd. Lloyd is the current Chairperson for the National Council’s Violence Against Women Advisory Group. [17] More interesting however, is the end of the article, in which Dr. Winter and Ms. Green list who they feel are other leading voices for women. Most of the names are from the organization known as WESNET, but they also name a few other individual women’s rights advocates in Australia.
“Written by Bronwyn Winter, University of Sydney, and Betty Green, domestic violence advocate, on behalf of WESNET (Women’s Services Network): peak body grouping 380 women’s domestic and family violence services across Australia); Pauline Woodbridge, Coordinator, North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service; Julie Oberin, Manager, Annie North Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service; Marie Hume, National Abuse Free Contact Campaign; Veronica Wensing, Executive Officer, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre; Beth Tinning, Facilitator, Domestic Violence and Family Law Support Action Group, Townsville; and women’s rights advocates Desi Achilleos and Julieanne Le Comte.”
Many of these names will reappear again, including WESNET and its role in Australia’s ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’, but what is of primary note here the last name mentioned in the article, a women’s rights advocate named Julieanne Le Comte. I did an extensive search for a women’s rights advocate under that name in Australia, or indeed, anyone connected with a domestic violence or battered shelter group, and found nothing except some links to some very old internet list servs about feminist science fiction.
According to the AO files, Julieanne Le Comte is the person who is also known under the alias Rain Lewis. Rain is the owner and the main administrator of the Radfem Hub and forum, and she was also a speaker at the 2011 Pert SCUM conference.  [19] Dr. Winter is also public friends on Facebook with Rain Lewis, as well as the organizers of the Perth SCUM conference Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher. Does this mean that Dr. Winter is saying that Le Comte is an Australian women’s rights advocate leader because she runs the Radfem hub and forum, which as we all know, often discusses things like violence against men and infanticide?
WESNET, Political Action and Patriarchy
Dr. Betty McLellan has been on the Australian feminist scene for some twenty years, and has written several books published under Susan Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press. [20] McLellan has also hosted or chaired several conferences and gatherings of mostly radical feminists, including the 2002 Townsville International Women’s Conferenceand the 2007 International Feminist Summit. [15][16] Her Feminist Agenda coalition was also co-founded in 2002 by Dr. Joanne Baker, a Senior Professor at James Cook University, Chantal Oxenham, who works for the Australian Department of Human Services in the Northern Queensland Service Zone as a Regional Manager and Coralie McLean. [21][22][23]
The 2002 Townsville International Women’s  5 day conference hosted about 50 different feminist speakers from 15 countries. Over a dozen panels and workshops took place as well, several of which took place in women only sessions. From the  Australian speakers, a large portion of them were some of the same radical feminists we’ve seen above; McLellan, Jeffreys, Winter,Scutt, Renate Klein, Hawthorne, Sullivan, Baker and Oxenham.
What stands out was the large contingent of WESNET board members, who were part of four different panels. Over the past decade, WESNET has had only about two dozen board members, the most prominent two being Pauline Woodbridge and Julie Oberin. WESNET describes itself as:
“Established in 1992, the Women’s Services Network (WESNET) is a national women’s peak advocacy body which works on behalf of women and children who are experiencing or have experienced domestic or family violence. With almost 400 members across Australia, WESNET represents a range of organisations and individuals including women’s refuges, shelters, safe houses and information/ referral services.”[29]
While having individual speaking assignments, here are the four panels in which WESNET board members were involved. (WESNET board members in bold)
  • Panel – “Many Pieces Make a Whole – Providers of Anti-violence Education (PAVE)” Members - Jennyne Dillon, Ines Zuchowski, Joanne Baker, John Brown, Catherine Bessant, Jo Stewart, Shirley Slann, Jane Collyer, Pauline Woodbridge
  • Panel -”Joined Up Responses to Violence Against Women – Townsville Women’s Services Collaboration” Members - Lindy Edwards, Morgan King and Pauline Woodbridge
  • Panel – “Domestic and Family Violence Peak Round Table – Reflections, Future Directions/Strategic Directions for Advocacy and Lobbying” Members - Julie Oberin, Pauline Woodbridge, Shirley Slann, Ara Cresswell, Maxene Schulte
  • Panel – “National Strategy for Family Law Act Reform” Members - Julie Oberin, Ara Cresswell, Pauline Woodbridge
Obviously the focus of much of the conference was on consolidation of feminist groups within Australia,  to lobby and advocate for new laws and new programs on a national level. Indeed, less than two years latter, in March 2004, five members of the 2002 Townsville Feminist conference (under the banner of the Feminist Agenda Coalition)went to the capital Canberra and met with several Labor Party leaders.[30] They discussed their idea for a blueprint of a national plan, which basic concepts were laid out in Townsville. Interestingly enough, many of the same 2002 Townsville plan basics were incorporated into the 2007 Rudd Labor Party platform, which led to the ‘National Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’.
This topic will be addressed further in the next article, but two items are very important from this 2004 Canberra trip:
  • Only one of the five Feminist Agenda delegation that went was a WESNET representative. The other four were into differing degrees of radical feminism and were led by McLellan.
  • The politicians the delegation met with are some of the politicians who were directly involved with the 2009 national plan, including Tanya Plibersek and Jenny Macklin.
At the 2007 International Feminist Summit, which was a far more radical feminist conference than 2002, saw Woodbridge and Oberin of WESNET take a much larger role individually. They both even gave back to back speeches:
Pauline Woodbridge – “Challenging Patriarchy in Men’s behaviour Change Programs”
Julie Oberin – “Perpetrators of domestic violence: Can we? Should we?”
Less than 6 months after this conference took place Rudd’s Labor party won the election and took power. And less than 10 months after the 2007 conference Pauline Woodbridge would be appointed (from all indications by Plibersek) to the National Council chaired by Libby Lloyd. Woodbridge and Oberin, under the banner of WESNET, would go on to play a crucial role in the analysis and direction of the National Council. In fact, not only is WESNET listed as one of the main sources for information, Woodbridge and Oberin, along with the WESNET organization were recognized and used extensively as references and analysis in the 2008 Flinders University Synthesis Report; another of the Council’s primary sources.
From Woodbridge and Plibersek  past speeches and remarks, and by the policies outlines in the report,  much of what was recommended  seemed to draw heavily from the feminist theory of Patriarchy. Furthermore, if the 2007 International Feminist Summit was any indication, WESNET’s top two people were increasingly moving in radical feminist circles, including interaction with people like Jeffreys, McLellan, Winter, Bell, Sullivan, Hawthorne, Klein, Catharine MacKinnon, Melinda Tankard-Reist, Ryl Harrison and Beth Tinning.[16] The question is if they did become radicalized, how much? And to what extent did their influence with the National Council’s sources and analysis moved in a radical direction?
Other question remain, which we will examine in the next article:
  • Who were the other members of the National Council and what is their story? Were any of them less than friendly to Feminist ideology than Plibersek, Jackson or Woodbridge?
  • What exact data and statistics were used? Was the data accurate and factual? Was the information used honestly and in context?
  • What did the 2004 Feminist Agenda delegation to Canberra produce, and how much of McLellan’s agenda did the Labor party buy into?
  • What other feminists and radical feminists were used as sources for the study?
  • What role did the White Ribbon Foundation play?
  • What exactly is the plan, and how does the Australian government intend to enact it?
  • How does this fit into the already extensive Australian governmental agencies dedicated to women?
  • Have any men’s groups or father’s rights groups had a say in the plan?
  • How much more marginalized will men become in Australia because of these actions?
This subject is complex, but hopefully many of these connections are a little more clear to everyone. I’ve been as detailed and thorough as possible  to avoid any confusion, and to stay away from generalized accusations. The men’s rights movement is, for me,  at its root about equal protection under the law. Much of Feminism has been about changing the way government operates to further their ideology, often with radical feminists leading the way. It’s happened in Sweden and I hope our research here shows how it is happening in Australia.
Other links
(AIC) –
Synthesis Report –
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)

For those of your who have downloaded the Agent Orange files, would be well aware of this nasty bit of work and her obnoxious ranting on the RADFEM Hub where there discussions consisted of planning the removal of half the Earth's population, blowing up Men's Sheds with the occupants inside and throwing small boys through glass windows, just for a laugh. Those little boys are rapists didn't you know and they must pay in advance..

Their lunatic rantings echoes in my mind as I remember reading copious amounts of their psychotic rantings that would have been more suited to members in a psyche ward rather than by women in positions of trust and placed in areas of academic learning. Many more people with be outed as we time go by as this is just the tip of the iceberg. The topping of a sludge ridden pond as we dig deeper into that cesspool of seriously demented human beings..

Lucy Nicholas AKA Luckynkl Outed by Pro-Male Blog

I remember Luckynkl. She made a cameo appearance at the Stand-Your-Ground forums, years ago, before I started the blog. She has long held a nasty reputation as a very nasty feminist indeed. Yes, feminists are nasty things.

Thanks to the Agent Orange files, and the research which they inspired, we now know that Luckynkl is in fact Lucy Nicholas, a professor of sociology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. And it seems that she also works at the University of Portsmouth, on the south coast of England.

No surprises here. I have long known that higher academia is crawling with these people. I have read far more of their academic papers and articles than anybody should decently be required to do, and it has left me thoroughly jaded about all this. But to all of you not-jaded ones, way out yonder in the world, this may be fresh and electrifying stuff.

The blog Trigger Alert! (International Library of Antimisandry) has an article all about Lucy "Luckynkl" Nicholas, and it offers a juicy summation of the meat of the matter:

Carey Roberts column
Warning to women: the government wants to turn you into a rape victim

Carey Roberts
December 29, 2011
Ladies, looking to celebrate New Year's Eve in grand style? Plan to cut loose at the gala event? Indulge in some free bubbly? Maybe a romantic fling to welcome in 2012?

Hold on there, because the federal Centers for Disease Control has decided alcohol and sex don't mix. To drive home this point, the CDC has radically expanded its definition of rape. No, this isn't some crazy end-of-year gag — it's the real deal.

A couple weeks ago the U.S. Centers for Disease Control issued a report on partner violence and sexual assault: The CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey decrees that "alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration" is now rape. (You can see the government agency's X-rated definition at the bottom of this column.)

Consider these scenarios:
  1. While getting ready for the big event, Mary flirtatiously comments to her husband that a novel New Year's Resolution would be to make love every night for the whole year. During the carefree celebration, she finishes off a couple bottles of champagne. After the midnight countdown, the couple takes a taxi home, where they make good on her resolution.
  2. Nicole goes with a girlfriend to the party, where she happens to run in to one of her old flames. He's not into the hard stuff, but with her needling and coaxing, both of them are soon joking and laughing like old times. During the wee-hours of the morning, Nicole grabs his necktie and orders, "You're coming to my place." There they have sex.
  3. Like previous years, Gail and her husband of six years plan to get juiced at the New Year's Eve party, followed by what she smirkingly calls, "making whoopee." At the stroke of midnight, the two share a lingering, romantic kiss. A few minutes into the new year, they retire to their hotel room for sex.
In the first scenario, Mary proposed the love-making idea, then willingly over-indulged in alcohol. In the second case, Nicole pressured her ex-boyfriend into drinking high-alcohol content beverages and then coming to her apartment. And in the third example, Gail suggested she and her husband celebrate their long-established New Year's Eve drinking and mating tradition.

In all three scenarios, the women gave their consent — expressed or implied — before they sipped the first drop of liquor.

Do these examples represent typical, if over-wrought New Year's Eve frolics? Ninety-nine percent of Americans would say 'yes,' even if they themselves don't approve of alcoholic over-indulgence.

And what is the verdict of the Centers for Disease Control?

Count One: Guilty of Rape

Count Two: Guilty of Rape

Count Three: Guilty of Rape

That's right, because all three cases represent "alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration." It doesn't matter that the three women gave their consent in advance — it's still rape, insists the CDC.

And even though the female is the clear initiator in the first two scenarios, the CDC will still count her as the rape victim, and her paramour as the rapist.

So abuse-reduction advocates can now claim — with a perfectly straight face — that "Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) the United States have been raped at some time in their lives," as the CDC states on page 1 of its report. Of course that hyper-inflated claim does little for the credibility of real rape victims.

Rigging definitions to create bogus victims is old-hat to the abuse industry. It's worked like a charm to expand the well-heeled domestic violence industry.

And now they have fresh ammunition to push for tough laws to crack-down on the newly-minted "epidemic of rape," and pressure lawmakers to fork over billions for a raft of abuse-prevention programs.


According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, rape includes "alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration," which is counted if the respondent answers "yes" to any of these statements:
    "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever...

    - had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that (if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina) (if male, a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina)?

    - (if male) made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you put your penis into their anus?

    - made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?

    - made you perform oral sex, meaning that they put their penis in your mouth or made you penetrate their vagina or anus with your mouth?

    - made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their mouth on your (if male: penis) (if female: vagina) or anus?

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to, he has published in The Washington Times,,, Men's News Daily,, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2011 by Carey Roberts

As the laws are stacked against Fathers in favour of the Privileged Princesses, one does wonder how this mess will ever be corrected and if any political party or politicians, will have the courage to stand up against the vagina voters and actually apply some justice instead of introducing more ways for women to shirk their responsibilities and just keep screwing the Fathers for more and more money. The money they will never be held accountable for and can be spent at her whim on anything she fancies.

It has become a known fact that Fathers, in order to pay child support as well as paying vagina-money do so at the risk of going broke or having to reduce his own standard of living while the PP can just move in a BF and share costs while being paid cash in hand, that is not calculated into any formula..

Divorce for women with children is a win-win situation and in the majority of occasions, she is well aware of that fact as every possible service is made available only to her, while in most cases the Father cannot even afford standard legal representation..

It's Criminal..

Divorce Civil Rights

Joseph E. Cordell

As a society, we find profiling -- painting a group of people with such a broad brush -- to be wholly unacceptable.
Except when it applies to men in family courts.
Quite frankly, men's rights has become a civil rights issue. When you think of the progress we've made in civil rights, men's rights as it pertains to the family have been neglected.
Profiling of different groups based on skin color, age, disabilities, etc., is not permissible. We regard these generalizations as being deplorable in virtually every sphere of civil rights, but for some reason these generalizations and assumptions are permissible as they pertain to men in domestic scenarios.
There is an institutional family court bias, but we can't simply blame judges. Sure, they are human beings and have preconceptions like everyone else, but it goes much further than that.
The family law industry as a whole -- from attorneys to social workers -- makes presumptions about men and fathers.
Historically, women have usually been the primary nurturers. Judges and opposing counsel can quite persuasively argue that statistically moms more often than not are the ones that are the primary caregivers.
Yet the problem with stereotyping, as civil rights leaders pointed out, is that stereotypes are built on probabilities that do not give fair opportunity to others, to the innocent in that group.
Ironically, the feminist movement, which was largely in response to men's cultural and economic dominance, cast aside men whose roles in family courts were already tenuous. Dads were victims of being male at a time when the movement was not sympathetic to their position.
Men generally were less the subject of the civil rights movement than the obstacle, and for that reason there weren't many sympathetic ears turned toward men, particularly in family court.
As a result, a group think has emerged that has unfortunately elevated the interest of women above the interest of men.
A case we are handling at Cordell & Cordell is a classic example of the lopsided fight dads must face: Our client has three kids in elementary school. He and his wife are equal on all common factors.
How equal? They work for the same company in similar positions. They earn the same amount of money and even have essentially the same retirement benefits. They are both involved with their children's extracurricular activities; he coaches soccer, she helps with choir. Prior to the divorce, they often drove together to drop off the kids at school, went to work, picked up the kids together after work and went home for dinner.
If ever there is a textbook example of granting 50-50 shared parenting time, this is it. Yet the case has waged on for almost a year with no resolution because we have had to fight at every turn to overcome the presumption that Mom should have more time with the kids than Dad because, well, she's Mom.
This systematic discrimination happens every day but goes largely unnoticed. The impact of the obscurity of this issue is that there is not the attention, inclination or support necessary in order for men's rights to receive the political, social and economic momentum that is required to correct this prejudice.
The millions of men and fathers who find themselves in family law courtrooms across America feel as though they are in the dark corner of the room.
It's time a light is shone on the injustice and there be the same sort of concern of fair play that is given other individuals.
Joseph Cordell is the Principal Partner of Cordell & Cordell, a nationwide domestic litigation firm focused on men's family law matters.

Well, Strike me puce..

TOO much Vinegar, Not enough Honey..

Amazing, there are some sane minds out there but unfortunately way too few. Fidelbogen made a statement the other day where he suggested that maybe women should get of their butts (my interpretation) and start making more positive noises about men rather than allowing the male haters to continually wax malicious every time. It never ceases to amaze me that it's women who are desperately seeking relationships but fail to even bother raising the obvious questions on the subject that needs to be answered.

Woman UP..the Private Man.

Nothing will change unless the hate laws that feminists have forced down societies throat are tossed out for the rabid jokes they really are, they were influenced and introduced by radical feminists who are right now still in the process of introducing more hate laws to ensure that the sexes continue at each others throats. Meanwhile we have crickets chirping in response..

How often does one have to read another of those millions of comments where women are claiming that they cannot find a partner, their life generally sucks because those cats are not that good a company and their clock is ticking away and there is no hope in hell of leading a more fulfilling life even though they feel it is no fault of their own..

If you have no idea what the issues are, have a read here..The Online Men's Compendium..

It is right there that reality should raise it's ugly head but it still fails to register. Obviously, if you do nothing, nothing will change. Sounds simple but apparently it's way too complicated. somehow..

Why can't women find a partner ? on..

A new report by Pew Research Center shows that barely half — 51 percent — of adults in the United States are married. In place of marriage are nontraditional living arrangements — including cohabitation, single-person households, and single parenthood — that may likely continue. The share of adults who are currently married could drop to below half within several years.
While the report says it’s “beyond the scope of this analysis to explain why[emphasis mine] marriage has declined,” senior writer D’Vera Cohn adds this: “I’m struck by the fact that a large percentage of people who say that marriage is obsolete still want to get married. I think they may be having two ideas in their head at once: one about the institution of marriage and what its status is in society today, which is to say that it’s a lot less dominant, central, or important in society, [and another about] their own wishes for their future, in which they personally would very much like to be married.”
Indeed they do. But some major changes have to take place first.
For starters, parents have to stop getting divorced for less than dire reasons. Many, if not most, of today’s 20- and 30-somethings are products of these divorces and thus have no role models. They may be looking for love, but they have no idea what to look for. Susan Gregory Thomas, author of In Spite of Everything, is a great example. Her parents split when she was twelve, and in an article about her book she laments the lack of guidance available to young people. “Why would we take counsel,” she asks, “from the very people who, in our view, flubbed it all up?”
Second, we must retract the message Boomers sent young women about female empowerment. Indeed, it isn’t a coincidence that marriage rates have plummeted alongside America’s fascination with the feminist movement. Empowerment for women, as defined by feminists, neither liberates women nor brings couples together. It separates them. It focuses on women as perpetual victims of the Big Bad Male. Why would any man want to get married when he’s been branded a sexist pig at “hello”? In the span of just a few decades, women have managed to demote men from respected providers and protectors to being unnecessary, irrelevant, and downright expendable. Consider these examples:
#*# Author and journalist Natalie Angier begins an article in the New York Timesby writing, “Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically#…#why doesn’t he just go away?”
#*# In a CNN interview with Maureen Dowd about her 2005 book, Are Men Necessary? Dowd says, “Now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know, we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’”
#*# Lisa Belkin, a blogger for the New York Times wrote, “We are standing at a moment in time when the role of gender is shifting seismically. At this moment an argument can be made for two separate narrative threads — the first is the retreat of men as this becomes a woman’s world.”
#*# In an article in The Atlantic titled “Are Fathers Necessary?” author Pamela Paul wrote, “The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there’s nothing objectively essential about his contribution.”
Women have also been raised by their feminist mothers to “never depend on a man.” As a result, couples no longer think of themselves as one unit but as separate entities sharing space. “The confusion over roles is there, as are the legacies of a self-absorbed, me-first, feminist-do-or-die, male-backlash society,” wrote Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee in The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts. Honestly, are we really surprised marriage is on the decline?
The concerns of men frequently arrive in my inbox. The latest is from Mark Trueblood, who had this to say: “From a man’s perspective, men take on an untenable risk. The culture of male disposability runs deep — some say even at the level of our DNA.” Because of this, he says, “Men are making a lifelong commitment to eschew marriage, cohabitation, and even dating in some cases. We do so for all the reasons you can guess, and more. As far as I am concerned, this is the wisest lifestyle decision for men in the United States at this point in time. And I say so as a conservative/libertarian who fully acknowledges the power of a functioning nuclear family.”
Mark Trueblood is not an anomaly. Countless men’s-rights groups have popped up across the country, and even more men happily shack up with their girlfriends with no plans to get married — which may sit well with women for a while, until their clocks begins to tick, and they become desperate for a baby. All of the sudden men look more appealing — but the men don’t want to marry them.
There may be more than one reason Americans are delaying or eschewing marriage, but almost all of them can be attributed to feminism. Feminists assured women their efforts would result in more satisfying marriages, but that has not happened. Rather, women’s search for faux equality has damaged marriage considerably (some might say irrevocably, but I’m an optimist) by eradicating the complementary nature of marriage — in which men and women work together, as equals, toward the same goal but with an appreciation for the unique qualities each gender brings to the table. Today, men and women are locked in a battle. The roles have changed too drastically, and the anger runs deep.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t call that progress.
— Suzanne Venker is co-author of the new book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say. Her website

The endless argument between Social Scientists, Behavioural Scientists and Evolutionary Psychologists (EP Scientists, are the scourge of the feminists and their inane disproven "product of your environment, not your sex" mentality) have been sampling, testing, pocking and prodding the population for a very long time. Issues like erotophilia are explored and answers are needed to determine whether or not the Feminist induced puppet scientists are actually capable of telling the truth. That would take an almighty effort as lying to feminists is akin to sucking oxygen on demand. Regardless of previous studies demonstrating clearly that the majority of behaviour has been accumulated over eons and fixed into our DNA, that is not their goal or aim, as it does not fit nicely into their gender, sexuality and behavioural mentality and biased doctrine..

They much prefer to wander into the unknown to demonstrate their newly found dyslexic interpretations than to actually find out the truth about human behaviour. A bit like those two cretin parents refusing to divulge the sex of their (son) child. They would be finding out about now precisely what his sex preferences are unless ofcourse they force him to behave like a girl, which rather defeats their inane intentions of not identifying as either sex. The greatest, riotous result would be for the lad to be expelled from school for aiming a gun shaped slice of pizza as some permanently offended plodder..

I digress.

Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality
Michele G. Alexander and Terri D. Fisher

Michelle and Terri wanted to have a look at why men claim to have more sex than women were prepared to admit to. That is basically the entire content and result of this study. It just really demonstrates that when the sexes are told that their response to specific questions regarding sex and sexual activities is being monitored, they tend to tell the truth more so than when asked the same questions face to face. Apparently, the girls lie about that as well and we have these two studious members of academia wondering why that is the case in the hope, I would imagine, to demonstrate that somehow the girls are really just victims of another imaginary slight.

Also, the attitude that women take when lying about humping is because it does not sit well with anyone knowing that riding the cock-carousal should be a favoured option and have determined that being called nasty names is not their end goal, better to lie about that. Even though fibbing about it all appears to be an irrelevancy. These two students of social discipline assumed that shaming anyone about being naughty behind everyone's back, was just another recently introduced methodology society uses to brow beat girls about their behaviour.
Claiming that men do not receive the same bias, boohoo. What was missing from the commentary was ofcourse the fact that women are more inclined to cane the piss out of each other and call each other sluts and whores than men normally do, as they compete for partners and deride each other if they determine them to be any competition as demonstrated by a previous study I posted a while back. But that outcome really had nothing to do with anything, apparently..

So, if you're into reading new words and spending an hour reading about the obvious, have a look by all mean (link in the title) otherwise the sun will still rise tomorrow and human nature will just be the same..

Some would have to wonder if Fidelbogen's request for the "roaring" from women request will ever eventuate, call me cynical but I have never seen it nor would I expect it. When women can sit in a television audience and laugh along with the likes of Sharon Osbourne about some lunatic cutting off a man's penis then one has to wonder if there is any level of humanity left in them at all..

Feminists have hit on two of their favourite topics - One, is the prostitution angle, where free women go about selling sex for money as is their majority wish, easy money for minimal effort on their part. Secondly, the radical feminist introduced the "Slutwalk" response because a man told women not to dress like sluts, take some responsibility for your behaviour, the sensible women do anyway. So it is not a problem of it being good advise, the issue was that feminists found another opportunity to malign and generate hate against men. Regardless of the fact that a majority of men do not use prostitutes as a majority are married, not that it makes much difference, ask Bettina Arndt. What amazes me about the entire topic of prostitutes and slutwalks is that it can all to traced back to women and their behaviour  being the culprits, but don't mention any of that as it appears to be irrelevant. Waiting for feminists to be honest will never happen..

More Proof That Feminism is a Social Cancer

Here we are treated to the famous anti-porn feminist Gail Dines on a talk show. And if you don't savvy what's wrong with this blabbering diarrhea-mouth, who fills the air with lies and won't shut up for even one second, then you are either willfully obtuse or rectal-cranially conjuncted. Do I really need to explain what is EVIL about this? If you cannot instantly comprehend the poignancy of the crisis here, then you are frankly beyond hope and I haven't got the patience to deal with you. So please go away. Now.

Gail Dines is not what's generally called a "radical" feminist. She is not a person of the so-called fringe. She is a mainstream activist, and people like her are painfully common. They yak it up on talk shows, they write glossy books that get reviewed by glossy critics, and they have a large following of uncritical sponges who sop up every word they say. Nobody -- especially not men -- will publicly stand up to these people and administer the verbal bitch-slapping they so desperately need. Pretty much the only ones who will tackle that unpopular job, are the "creepy" men who populate obscure websites.These men call attention to creepy things, and that makes them "creepy".

As feminism goes, Gail Dines is standard fare -- although I grant you she is worse than many. In olden days of rough village justice she'd have gotten the scold's bridle, or the the ducking stool, or the stocks. And quite right. Half the women in the village would have been throwing rotten garbage at her too, back in those days. But nowadays . . . women in critical numbers are eerily silent. And I won't try to explain that, especially considering that men are equally silent.

I realize that Gail Dines is ostensibly "not as bad" as the radfems who hide in private forums and talk about male genocide. No, Gail does not talk about male genocide (although it is an open question whether she entertains the thought), but that only makes her somewhat less poisonous. Two drops of cyanide in a glass of water as opposed to three, let us say. Aye, her demonic hatred of men is painted in blazing colors for all to behold.

I should add, that in my opinion Sharon Osbourne -- who thought it was "quite fabulous" when a man got his penis cut off -- is somewhat less poisonous than Gail Dines. And I would say the same of the female audience on Sharon's TV show, the ones who tittered uproariously about the incident. Overall, they are somewhat less poisonous than Gail Dines, and I don't doubt they would be totally creeped out if they knew about the radfems in the private form. And I'm sure it is a great relief to know that they would feel this way, even while they were tittering uproariously about the man who got his whacker whacked off.

And I am certain that Sharon and most of her female audience would assure us that those feminists in the private radfem forum are only "fringe radicals", that not all feminists are like that, and that certainly not all women are like that.

Here is a thought experiment for you. How if all hatred of men -- and all social proclivity to be silent about such -- were all at once to vanish from the world? Do you seriously believe that this thing we call "feminism" would continue to exist for even five minutes?

A concluding thought. Although it is deadly clear to me that all feminists are indeed "like that", I still refuse believe that all women are like that -- although a painfully large number are! Call me a fool, call me a Simple Simon, but I still think the majority of women are fundamentally decent, honest people. And I really think they need to find their voice. I really do.

I want to hear them roar.

It is urgently important for this to happen. The future depends on it.