Latest Posts

Feminists have NOT disassociated themselves from radical feminists and one does have to ask why not. Radical feminists have been shown to be planning the extermination of man and boy from society, by whatever means they can think of. Radical feminists (Google RadFemHub) are also responsible for the extremism demonstrated clearly in Swedish society where the rule of law is thrown out the door and female supremacy is the only outcome they are interested in all at the expense of men. It demonstrates what feminism's goals are all about..

This has been achieved by changing any male based involvement in society, be it education, family law as well as family court procedures, the introduction of illegal biased laws that determine that all women are innocent and all men are automatically guilty until proven otherwise..
So the discrimination and sexism they promote against our sex is justified by questionable studies and statistics (manipulated by feminist collusion) ensuring negative reporting of male involvement in history and every day activities..

Making false claims concerning all male malfeasance meanwhile claiming that women are blameless while courts automatically dismiss charges against women, daily.. Their endless efforts at maligning one sex in order to artificially raise the level of the other, is clearly demonstrated by every word they utter..
So where are "all" those NAFALT (Not All Feminist Are Like That) claimers when they fail to recognise that their doctrine promotes hate and genocide, which is irrefutable, where are those feminist's claim that it's doctrine is for equality and that feminism benefits men and all men should be feminised to improve our lot. Where are all those feminists who claim they are for the unity of the sexes by claiming their version to be more equitable and "male friendly", when it is clearly not the case and that wallows in incredulity, where are they ?..

There’s been some controversy over what exactly is going on with Swedish/Scandinavian feminism, with some claiming that it’s worse than the Anglo version and others claiming that, actually, men have it better over there than in Anglo countries. I tend to favor the latter position, possibly because I’m a father and I know that Scandinavian countries are not nearly so punitive toward fathers as the legal regimes in the Anglosphere. However, due to the extremely broad definition of rape in Sweden, some claim that it is akin to fundamentalist Muslim regimes.
I’m not sure the rape hysteria in Sweden is entirely a feminist creation, however. It’s more likely that it’s a reaction to a trend that has been ongoing since the Swedes, in their infinite wisdom, imported a very large Muslim community, which has, to put it mildly, very different sexual norms from the native Swedes. In Islamic countries, a woman who sleeps around, bares her skin, dances at clubs, etc., is a whore. According to Islamic (and earlier Christian) custom, rape does not apply to whores, ergo Swedish women are free for the taking. When one combines this attitude with extreme cultural relativism as practiced by Swedish “enlightened” liberals, there are bound to be some misunderstandings.
My take on it is that Swedes have attempted to legislate Swedish cultural norms surrounding sex as a response to this problem. For example, a typical Swedish man would not assume that because a woman shows some skin and acts in a sexually provocative manner she is consenting to sex. In Muslim countries, men assume exactly that. Therefore, the rape laws are instructive in nature, designed to “civilize” the Muslims into the norms of a sexually libertine society. Feminists may have supported these laws, but the impetus for their passage likely derived from outrage native Swedes felt about their women being used by foreigners. This is an entirely normal feeling, but naturally Swedes don’t want to seem xenophobic or restrictive, so they dress the laws up in feminist language and thereby retain their progressive aura.
However, child support and custody in Sweden are handled far differently than in Anglo countries. Joint custody is much more common, and men are never thrown in prison for inability to pay child support. In fact, if a man can’t afford child support, the state will actually help him. Fathers’ rights are taken seriously, and fathers are given leave to spend time with children along with mothers. Men are almost never killed by the police for their wives or girlfriends, divorces are less expensive and usually not very acrimonious, and marriage is neither demanded nor punished as it is in the Anglosphere.
Evidently, the situation is even better in Finland. The national government in Finland takes men’s rights seriously, and fathers are given a great deal of consideration.
So although we see that feminism is real, and sometimes annoying, in Scandinavia, it isn’t as much of a threat to the average man as it is in Anglo countries.
Why not?
I think it has something to do with the Anglo form of government, which is based on an adversarial relationship between the government and the people. From the Magna Carta onward, English speaking people have sought to define themselves apart from their rulers. Americans enshrined distrust of government into our Constitution, and to this day we remain extraordinarily suspicious of government power.
In Scandinavia, the people – including men – feel that their government is for their benefit rather than opposed to their interests. They are not only less suspicious of it, but less inclined to see themselves as at odds with it. Their government is also less inclined to view the people as a threat.
Our governments, on the other hand, have a tendency to exist in an uneasy state of truce with the people. This creates a lot of opportunities for special interest groups to ally themselves with the government against the people. Feminists instinctively understood that they had a willing ally in the state against the men the state taxes and rules.
As women entered the political world, they began to see the state as a very powerful tool for extracting concessions from men. The result was a very aggressive form of feminism that has proven over and over again its willingness to support the most punitive confiscatory regime the United States has ever had, under the guise of protecting women and children of course. Additionally, feminist family law has provided a great many constitutional loopholes, rendering any man who lives or works with a woman – that is, the vast majority of men – defenseless against civil rights abuses.
The question this raises is whether Anglo-style democracy can long survive following women’s empowerment. I’d argue that it probably cannot, and that our democracies will degenerate into something closer to Latin regimes, where votes are simply bought and sold and rule of law is tenuous at best. In such a scenario, women’s status will necessarily decline, as tax revenues will shrink to levels that can no longer support the police state required to keep them “equal.” Companies that don’t want to pay women higher wages will simply grease the palm of some official, and women’s complaints will be in vain. Police will stop regularly responding to DV calls, as the money to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate women’s lovers over domestic fights simply won’t be there any longer. Child support will be reduced as more and more men, the elderly in particular, end up on welfare (when many divorced men, made poor by their ex-wives, are old and unemployed they will be an enormous social burden).
When seen in the context of the traditional Anglo antagonism toward government, it’s pretty clear that feminists are, for all intents and purposes, allies of the state against the people. It is akin to a symbiotic relationship between two parasites feeding off the same host; something like the relationship between the mosquito, the plasmodium parasite (malaria) and the human being.
Perhaps we’ll have to accept that the very structure of our society and the nature of our ideals contained all the elements necessary for their eventual collapse. If the adversarial relationship between ruler and ruled – the state and The People – becomes a characteristic of the relationship between our men and women, and our brand of feminism gives us every indication that it has, our society in its current incarnation is doomed.

Bernard Chapin has the same opinion that I have about Oprah (thanks for the mention Bern.) and like Bern, did actually sit and watch some of the Oprah programs just to ensure that the opinion I had derived was 100 percent correct. Oprah, akin to the "SPIN SISTERS" of the nineties, screamed before every program and news release  'FIND THE VICTIM", Finding that victim allowed this feminist enabler and leader to continue her male bashing and ramping up her anti-male vitriol by endlessly displaying and extolling the various ways in which all those poor victimhood princesses were suffering..

The Oprah Show: The Female Sufferers Epicentre..

Oprah was ofcourse totally deaf, dumb and blind whenever any issues pertained to men and promptly ignored those issues as it conflicted with feminist dogma. It would contradict the feminist mantras, that only "Women Are Victims". Yep, Oprah was totally uninterested in telling that truth. She made her money serving up the gullible with what they wanted to hear. Now we have generations of women suffering the victimintologist's miasma, as they wallow in it's daily, self inflicted, feminist promoted, drug induced, euphoria..

If one really thinks about lack marriage and divorce, and reality dawns. One would have to make the decision that not only is it a "woman's issue" but in reality, it is a problem they have created themselves. It is the case that women are the one who demands and pursues that course of action as they benefit from it the most and men are happy to engage as it assured mutual benefit.
She has someone to share her life with all it's benefits of home, hearth and family and the man benefits by producing progenies, after his own DNA influenced image. It was a reasonable trade off, one that worked for so long that it became an institution that once held benefits for both involved..

These days, with the interference of feminism and their consistent lying doctrinal interference, changed women's perception of marriage as being mutually beneficial and changed that agreement so only SHE should benefit. Now they wonder what the problem is, they not only refuse to comprehend the bleeding obvious and adjust accordingly, nope, don't give a damn, they would never admit that. It's now the case that the privileged princess is in it for solely her own benefit or she calls it quits, my way or the highway, when her increased demands and narcism is not catered to. It is now all about her, just like she has been programmed to belief. It does demonstrate how gullible women are and also how quick they want to believe what level of victim they want to be, just like Oprah told her..

If the focus is not on her and what she wants, well, have a look at who instigates all those divorces..

Now for the facts, written by one of their own. Truth is a bitch..

Why Marriage Eludes the Modern Woman
I just finished a book called Things I Wish I’d Known Before We Got Married by Gary Chapman. In it, the author outlines the complexities of married life that few of us anticipate before we tie the knot — such as how our personality affects our behavior, or how important spirituality is to most people, or how few couples explore this topic before getting married. Indeed, there are so many things that make marriage challenging all on its own that being raised in a culture that undermines this institution practically guarantees people will fail. Yet that’s exactly where we are.
Never in the history of time have women had a better shot at marital bliss — they have more freedom, flexibility, and privileges than ever — yet they’re celebrating the single life in record numbers. The reason is twofold. Since the day they were born, women have been tremendously influenced by the most significant revolution of our time: the feminist movement. For decades its mission has been to change a woman’s place in society and eradicate both masculinity and femininity. The result is a battle between the sexes — the likes of which this nation has never seen.
The second reason women struggle with marriage — which is part and parcel of the first — is they’ve been taught that the world revolves (or should revolve) around them. This attitude is a bona fide deal breaker. So much about marriage requires putting oneself last, or being quiet rather than demanding, or taking the higher road and not having to have one’s way all the time. Simply put, married life presupposes a maturity modern women don’t have.
We’ve been hearing a lot lately about young men who fail to grow up and become good family men, but video games are not the culprit — women are. Men tend to follow women’s lead — and it is women, not men, who fight Mother Nature. It is women who’ve changed the roles, rules, and expectations of marriage. It is women who embrace no-fault divorce laws that allow them to check out the moment they’re dissatisfied. Indeed, feminists assure women they can’t possibly be happily married until men change who they are or adapt their nature to accommodate the needs of women.
They’ve also drilled home the absurd notion that women in America live in a patriarchy. Not only is this patently false — women in this country rule — the truth is that women have chosen the lives they have. They chose to abandon marital intimacy by bringing the power they wield at work into their homes, where it doesn’t belong. The happiest wives I know don’t do this. No matter how successful they are outside the home, they leave that piece of themselves at work. When they walk in the front door, they put on their feminine hat and let men be who they are: simple creatures with few demands. As my cousin, a former law partner (and female), says, “There are two ingredients to a healthy marriage: good food and good sex.”
Naturally, this philosophy will raise the ire of the most strident modern woman who’s been taught to believe that cooking for a husband or saying yes to sex amounts to indentured servitude. They refuse to even accept that men have a greater sex drive than women. In failing to understand the differences between men and women, women have sabotaged their own happiness. As for the men, they aren’t so much choosing to be immature as they are doing what they’re told. Tell a man he’s dispensable, and he’ll quickly prove you right.
Marriage was never meant to be a competitive sport, yet that’s exactly what is has become. That’s because modern women have been taught that in order to be equal with men, women and men should pursue identical lives and ignore the differences between them. This attitude is producing enormous strife and makes happy marriages impossible.
Honestly, marriage doesn’t have to be so difficult — and it needn’t become obsolete. But it will if women don’t stop fighting men and start surrendering to their nature. They’re fighting a losing battle.

So the past two posts have clearly demonstrated that women in the Police Force and as Firefighters are more of a liability then help. But they are there at the behest of the feminist "equality" doctrine, regardless of the fact that their efforts and input are inferior to men, while at the same time demanding equal pay for half the effort..

This is typical discrimination at work. Women are and have been installed, nay, forced into these services at the behest of feminists who claim that "a woman can do anything a man can", but when it is definitely the case their inferior efforts are demonstrated, they are still promoted, awarded medals and paid the same for an effort that any 16 year old boy could do..

Delusion and incompetence is now the accepted standard, as regulations, rules and accountability are thrown out the door to ensure that those privileged princesses can claim "equality" but only at the risk and harm of the men who are forced to bear the extra burden that is imposed whenever a woman is thrown in the mix..

Another example of the sexism introduced and sanctioned by those service leaders who are putting men at risk just to promote the feminist feel good doctrine. They wonder why women have a credibility issue ?

As with the previous post, another example and demonstration on how firemen fire-persons, firefighters, now include women, it is their claim as well as the feminist dream, that women can do anything a man can. Well, we wait and see, will we..

Same money for half the work. Another amazing bit of feminist mind freeze in action. Once upon a time, one got paid by what they could do. This day and age, all it now requires is showing up and wearing the "Magic V"..

I should not be here..

A fine example of the blatant sexism against men and the entitlement, automatically granted to women. This amazing video on the English Police Force once again reinforces the extras that women demand as they are in their own mind, are worth it..

Apart from the fact that men are discriminated against in every section of the public service where "special" laws are in place to ensure that women are selected instead of men and yet are incapable of performing their duties and are always reliant on men to assist and help. The image that is projected about women in the police service is a laughable representation of what actually happens..

A real hero with male back up..

As hollywood and the english film industry depict women are the "hero", we have witnessed on numerous occasions that they always seem to disappear when the hard work needs to be done. Women in the force demand the same pay and bonuses even though they do not earn it or deserve it. The sexism and discrimination in place was put there by the male hating feminists whose delusional claim, that women do the same work, just like Wimbledon Tennis finals, do half the work and demand the same payment..

For a sex who demands equality and yet only does half the work for equal pay is laughable as well as borders on the pathetic. It echoes the false claim about all those special privileges they claim they don't receive..

And they wonder why women have a credibility problem..

Apparently ripping off one's clothes, flicking the switch and storing the end result on her phone was probably not the brightest idea one could take. The next dumb idea would be to make a political statements in the hope that the first action may be ruled out by the next..

Now what headliner could she use, one hysterical enough, to attract the appropriate attention. She found one..

Scarlett Johansson: ‘It Would Be Irresponsible’ Not to Support Obama
Yep! the Obama-noid's scurry round trying to justify another term for a President who has demonstrated clearly, his total and complete contempts for his fellow man including men of his own  colour. Obama installed a radical feminist "Women's" group to ensure and increase the privileges already in place at that time..
Johansson, who has been active in campaigning for various Democratic political leaders, including Barack Obama, tells Biskind that nearly one term later “we’re all guilty of being idealistic, I and everyone who voted for him.” But in response to being asked if she would work for him again, she says, “It would be irresponsible not to.”
Obama re-directed funds allocated to jobs that would have benefitted men as at that time the mancession was heading towards 10% of the workforce, he decided instead to allocate those billions to jobs employing the majority of women. If that was not enough, he also castigated all men about failing to care or to man-up for children, in what could only be seen as a statement, which could only have come out of his newly installed sexist and discriminatory "women's Office". Was broadcast world wide and once again demonstrating exactly where his priority lies..

More on the story here..

Further to the previous post on how to increase awareness of the MM by raising our image and effectiveness..
Some thinking material I just came across may work well with what we have in mind as well. Have a read and wonder how we can apply this methodology to the MM, to our benefit..

The other workable process would be spreading the MM message locally. It would be best practise to contact a local member of the MM/MRA and combining your efforts at spreading the word via well prepared, professionally produced brochures, pamphlets and posters. Spreading the word may just be leaving a few posters or pamphlets at the local doctor's office or library for instance. I use to staple them to the back of toilet doors. But anything your imagination comes up with would work, visit a politician's office and leave some behind, back of the seat in Airplanes, your local council always has brochure stands, airport lounges, shopping centre notice boards, etc, etc, etc..

In order to project our message, we have to do it right. This article may shape some ideas..

Ironic Effects of Anti-Prejudice Messages

(Medical Xpress) -- Organizations and programs have been set up all over the globe in the hopes of urging people to end prejudice. According to a research article, which will be published in an upcoming issue ofPsychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, such programs may actually increase prejudices.
Lisa Legault, Jennifer Gutsell and Michael Inzlicht, from the University of Toronto Scarborough, were interested in exploring how one’s everyday environment influences people’s motivation toward prejudice reduction.
The authors conducted two experiments which looked at the effect of two different types of motivational intervention – a controlled form (telling people what they should do) and a more personal form (explaining why being non-prejudiced is enjoyable and personally valuable).
In experiment one; participants were randomly assigned one of two brochures to read: an autonomy brochure or a controlling brochure. These brochures discussed a new campus initiative to reduce prejudice. A third group was offered no motivational instructions to reduce prejudice. The authors found that, ironically, those who read the controlling brochure later demonstrated more prejudice than those who had not been urged to reduce prejudice. Those who read the brochure designed to support personal motivation showed less prejudice than those in the other two groups.
In experiment two, participants were randomly assigned a questionnaire, designed to stimulate personal or controlling motivation to reduce prejudice. The authors found that those who were exposed to controlling messages regarding prejudice reduction showed significantly more prejudice than those who did not receive any controlling cues.
The authors suggest that when interventions eliminate people’s freedom to value diversity on their own terms, they may actually be creating hostility toward the targets of prejudice.
According to Dr. Legault, “Controlling prejudice reduction practices are tempting because they are quick and easy to implement. They tell people how they should think and behave and stress the negative consequences of failing to think and behave in desirable ways.” Legault continues, “But people need to feel that they are freely choosing to be nonprejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them.”
Legault stresses the need to focus less on the requirement to reduce and start focusing more on the reasons why diversity and equality are important and beneficial to both majority and minority group members.
Provided by Association for Psychological Science (news : web)

On our road to finding a better way to spread the MM word, many suggestions are presented as to how to go about achieving a better and more productive method of educating the public about our aims and goals. Feminists have on regular occasion write off the MM as being either radical or extremist without even stating the reason why, they have invoked that blatant lie on the off chance that people will automatically turn off the subject at hand . They are well aware of it's affect and it's time we played that same game..

Many years ago, when I was a lot more pissed off then now. I produced A4 posters aimed at the current misandry that feminists were exposing at the time. Particularly new laws and "how to train Judges" were a few topics that I waxed lyrical about. In hindsight, those posters were a little too radical even though I did tone them down. If those posters were designed, edited and professionally presented, we would have a better chance of promoting our aims and goals to the public rather than sounding like a bunch of ratbags with chips on our shoulders. We need help with this, as it is the case now, we have to move towards the next step and anti up for public consumption. Play the same game advertisers, lobby groups and feminists have played for so long. If you are able to help, can design and present professional posters, let me know and we will get the ball running right here or contact any MM site or AVfM..

Want to defeat a proposed public policy? Just label supporters as 'extreme'

November 29, 2011 by Jeff Grabmeier

New research shows how support for a generally liked policy can be significantly lowered, simply by associating it with a group seen as "radical" or "extreme."
In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to "radical feminist" supporters.
These findings show why attacking political opponents as "extremists" is so popular – and so effective, said Thomas Nelson, co-author of the study and associate professor of political science at Ohio State University.
"The beauty of using this 'extremism' tactic is that you don't have to attack a popular value that you know most people support," Nelson said.
"You just have to say that, in this particular case, the supporters are going too far or are too extreme."
Nelson conducted the study with Joseph Lyons and Gregory Gwiasda, both former graduate students at Ohio State. The findings were published in a recent issue of the journal Political Psychology.
For the study, the researchers did several related experiments.
In one experiment, 233 undergraduate students were asked to read and comment on an essay that they were told appeared on a blog. The blog entry discussed the controversy concerning the Augusta National Golf Club's "men only" membership policy. The policy caused a controversy in 2003 before the club hosted the Masters Tournament.
Participants read one of three versions of an essay which argued that the PGA Tour should move the Masters Tournament if the club refused to change this policy.
One group read that the proposal to move the tournament was led simply by "people" and "citizens." Another group read that the proposal was led by "feminists." The third group read that the proposal was led by "radical feminists," "militant feminists," and "extremists." Additional language reinforced the extremist portrayals by describing extreme positions that the groups allegedly held on other issues, such as getting rid of separate locker room and restroom facilities for men and women.
Participants were then asked to rate how much they supported Augusta changing its membership rules to allow women members, whether they supported the Masters tournament changing its location, and whether, if they were a member, they would vote to support female membership at the club.
A good piece has just been written on this precise topic..

A kinder, gentler machine gun hand

How Feminism Capitalizes on Men’s Rights Movement Victories
Exposing feminist extremism helps to spread the MRM message. Large or outrageous acts of misandry will sometimes yank a few of the oblivious masses out of their stupor, causing them to sit up and take notice. We tend to look upon these events as small victories for the MRM as they almost always draw a handful of people to our cause.  It is only natural that we would celebrate our exposing.
We are prone to become so caught up in our taking of a hill that we fall into the trap of thinking that the hill was a victory. I would suggest otherwise.  In the fog of war against the male sex, we fail to see how extremist behavior provides a diversion from equally important issues. In some cases, the hills we charge serve to empower the more mainstream of feminists who are able to look normal in comparison to their extremist sisters. Attention is never drawn to the fact that it is always the MRM that first exposes these radicals. It is rarely stated that ‘moderate’ feminists remain utterly silent about their fringe elements proposals of male genocide until the plots have been exposed to the public eye. Only then do these mainstream feminists step into the spotlight to announce that not all feminists hold those beliefs. Feminists capitalize on misandry by presenting an image of disapproval when their radical sisters are brought to light, giving the world an impression that they themselves are the reasonable voice of feminism. Our skirmishes become victories for mainstream feminists as well.
Meanwhile, police departments and college campuses across America continue to incorporate inaccurate abuse data into their domestic violence policies. False rape accusers continue to suffer no or mild punishment for their crimes. Talk show hostesses laugh about male genital mutilation without a blip on the news radar. Men are portrayed as buffoons in innumerable television programs and commercials. Civil courts overwhelmingly grant mothers custody of children, but refuse to intervene when non-custodial mothers abduct children from their primary guardian fathers on grounds that it is a civil issue instead of a criminal one.
While the MRM revels in a ‘victory’ against radical feminists the mainstream feminist movement continues their unrelenting attack on men’s rights. Draconian laws are passed in which due process is cast out with the bathwater if you are guilty of the crime of having external genitalia. Boys are taught that it is wrong to behave as boys, indeed that it is ‘natural’ to behave in a manner diametrically opposed to what their biology tells them. While this happens all around us, the sculptors of these tyrannies, the feminists, smile benignly. This is the path of feminist ‘equality’; the kinder, gentler machine gun hand, ready to goad us at gunpoint down the hellish road of their good intentions.


To counter the feminists win/win scenario, we must learn strategies which will allow us to expose the links between mainstream feminists and their radical elements. We must remind people that Qui tacet consentiret, silence implies consent. We must do this consistently with every battle in order to expose the hypocrisy in feminism. Society must learn that the actions of feminists do not match their claims of striving toward equality. By continually calling them out, we can force feminists to either take actual strides toward equality by supporting men’s rights issues, or to display their bigoted ideology.
Feminists enjoy claiming that there are many schools of feminist ideology. Despite this claim the average feminist will conveniently mix & match various ideologies. It is not uncommon for a feminist to portray herself as a liberal feminist while ranting about how the oppressive nature of female exploitation (Socialist feminism) is created by the Patriarchy (Anarcha-feminism) and the social construction of gender (Postmodern feminism).
Feminists fall into only two camps, those supporting gender equality and bigots. The former is by far the minority. By continually pointing out these overlaps we are able to dismantle the individual ideological shortcomings, creating rifts that actually separate what now only pretends to be separated. This tactic also has the potential to draw gender equalists into our fold.
The terms ‘sexist’ and ‘sexism’ are weapons in the feminist arsenal. Feminists often use these terms to stifle debate and criticism. Sexism has two meanings, only one of which is relevant. The first meaning is that of sexual discrimination. The second is an attitude or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. Part of feminist theory is the distinction between gender and sex. This second definition is flawed, as it has been demonstrated in the case of David Reimer that gender has a biological basis.
Since that time numerous peer review publications and studies have demonstrated innate differences between the sexes along with the biochemical causes of these differences. To combat the feminist’s ability to employ these as weapons we must divorce the two definitions. The first definition requires clarification when it is used, as it is often applied to anyone that disagrees.  The second usage is a feminist construct rooted in their ideology that has no bearing on reality. By forcing the feminists to define their use of the terms in this manner we expose their mentality to the public.


Countering feminist claims when they are presented is a reactionary process. This tactic is doomed to failure. The feminists have already scored their sound bite, and by the time we respond their meme has already taken root while our tardy voices are shouted down by the drone of the feminist hoard. The end result is that the MRM message reaches only a small fraction of the population. While reactionary actions will always be needed, we must make strides in being proactive. To this end it is necessary that we present some form of united voice swiftly and publicly on equality issues. We need both men of words and men of action to present our side as a voice of reason and moderation.
We must find ways to reach the disenfranchised men, to offer them guidance and support. We must explore new mediums for spreading our message on local, national, and international levels. MRM and MRA websites have a limited appeal and will attract a limited audience. In order to be heard, to be a force to be reckoned with, it is imperative that we escape this corral of our own making.
Education is one key. Feminists have been preaching their gospel of misinformation for over 50 years. Males young and old have been indoctrinated with the belief that gender is a social construct. Many of those men have been further oppressed with the ancient social construct of chivalry which leads them straight down the path of defeat. Feminists have spread their false statistics not only into courtrooms which grant them the protection of men with guns and cages, but into scholastic institutions that further fuel the indoctrination.
We are now tasked with enlightening the indoctrinated. As these false beliefs and statistics are firmly entrenched, we are presented with the difficult job of digging them out and laying down a new foundation based on facts. We have to reach the lawmakers, the police stations, the student bodies, and the general public. The tools for this job are there, if only we can learn to operate them.


Our next generation will be rooted in the digital age. News, entertainment, and social events now take place at the speed of the internet. As the modern world becomes more entwined with and dependent upon electronic communication, it becomes more apparent that this is the most powerful tool at our disposal. The electronic world is our new battlefront.  We have a distinct advantage over civil rights movements of the past in that the internet is a source of communication that can tremendously speed the process of organization, outreach, and information sharing.  The second greatest tool for social reform, the printing press, is lost in the shadow of the internet.
If the internet has taught us one lesson in electronic organization, it is flash mobs. Through networking, a mob can be coordinated, brought together, and disbanded in a matter of minutes. In more populated regions with a higher concentration of activists, impromptu rallies and protests can be brought together whenever an opportunity arises. These could be staged in conjunction with political visits, or even for opportunistic media hits during live news reports. We have at our fingertips the tool to make a store opening or weather report a conveyance of civil reform.
Thousands of forums and websites open to commentary exist, and yet we employ only a miniscule fraction of these mediums. We need to think outside the corral of men’s rights, and ask ourselves what areas do not pertain to us. Our interests lay well outside the realm of MRM pages which tend to be areas of preaching to the choir. Do men not extend into the reddit pages of politics, worldview, science, advice, IaMa, and even economics? We cannot continue to box ourselves in. Innumerable forums are present for us in which we can make our voices heard. We need not be invasive, overt, or spamming. A simple discrete comment or tag line can spark interest.
Many newspapers are now available in e-print.  This throws open the door to commentary and letters to the editor ranging from local to world readership. Each and every one of those papers represents an opportunity to spread MRM awareness and concerns. Each and every paper is a chance to communicate with another frustrated, disillusioned, repressed man who has yet to find a voice for his discontent.
Petitions are another weapon that the internet has made simple. A google search for e-petitions will generate multiple hits for sites that create electronic petitions. Gone are the days of door to door signature begging. Petitions can now be created and circulated from the comfort of your home or office. With e-petitions we can enter the political arena with a force unprecedented in history. This is a weapon that we would be foolish to ignore. There is no better tool to make our collective voice be heard to the lawmakers than petitions, and no faster method of collecting signatures than e-petitions.
The one area of this new battlefront that we have occupied well is that of video. The MRM produces videos that are witty, funny, and informative. What we need are videos en masse. We also need the speakers to be charismatic, impassioned, and eloquent orators with skill at public speaking.
No better testimony to the power of charisma and presentation can be offered than the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy televised debate. Nixon appeared sickly and refused makeup. Kennedy was young and vibrant in full television makeup. It was not Kennedy’s arguments that swayed public opinion, as people who only heard the debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. What won the debate for Kennedy was his visual charisma and presentation.
Today politicians are well aware of this, and utilize good speech writers and lighting in conjunction with their appearance and presentation to win votes. These are the skills and tools that we need to make the most of.
Recently a Texas judge whose belt whipping of his daughter that was captured on video was uploaded to youtube. The video quickly went viral, and as a result of that video the judge has been suspended from the bench. The power of video is phenomenal, and the power of a viral video can be earth-shaking. We need videos that go viral. To achieve this will require the work of more than individuals working alone. We need to utilize our collective wisdom and skills to brainstorm and produce videos of exceptional quality and substance. I would suggest that anyone producing videos watch a few episodes of Penn & Teller Bullshit to get a feel for the use of emotive language, gestures, voice infliction, and humor used by Penn Jillette in making his points.
A second area that we already use is that of radio. Again the internet has made it possible for virtually anyone to broadcast.  Using the non-visual tools outlined above, we can more effectively utilize this medium of communication for getting the word to the masses. Oral presentation is everything in radio, and a mixture of humor and fact is  the formula for keeping listeners engaged.
Finally we are able to resort to a variant of that great tool of liberation; the printing press. Johannes Gutenberg changed the world in the mid 1400′s with the invention of movable type printing. For the first time in history, books could be mass-produced. The first presses were monstrous apparatuses that could take up the majority of a room. Today we are able to print more literature with greater speed using machines smaller than a suitcase using a computer and printer. Flyers and handouts can be generated at home with ease. These can be passed out, left lying in reception areas or waiting rooms, stuck between the pages of magazines at a bookstore, placed under windshield wiper blades in parking lots, or scattered strategically across college campuses. Some of these are already formatted and waiting for download, and many more can be created. By adding reference sources and website addresses to these, they can help spread the word. Just a few minutes of our time while shopping or visiting the dentist can help further the reach of our voice.
These are only a few suggestions. With a concerted effort we can identify many more avenues for generating public exposure.
Sally Forth. We have been on the losing end of a battle that many of our brethren are not even aware of for too long. Lest we see ourselves subject to the kinder, gentler machine gun hand that is Swedish feminism, we have no choice but to rally our forces, hone our skills, learn to use the weapons before us, and carry the charge. We can no longer afford to celebrate empty victories while feminism claims the reward. It is our duty to expose the myriad hypocrisies of feminism while challenging them on every hill. The virtues of fact and ethical high ground are on our side. Now is the time to carry those twin virtues to the world.

Occasionally someone will put forward a good explanation and argument against feminism. Regardless of the damage and suffering that syndrome has caused, there are still people trying to justify the feminist behaviour. I wonder what it would take for a feminist to step back have a reality check, admit that the treatment is better than prolonging the illness..

With the exception of Wikipedia..

Feminism is a sickness, or more accurately it is a syndrome. Let me quote Wikipedia “a syndrome is the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together”.
Because feminism is essentially a cluster of behaviors (syndrome) we cannot reduce the whole thing to one word “equality” or one behaviour “equality seeking” as does the Wikipedia description of feminism. We need to include misandry, violence, oppressive rule, narcissism, and many other qualities belonging to the syndrome. These behaviours are demonstrated by all feminists, all over the world. Moreover, when we name the latter characteristics we see that the syndrome also includes dissociation and denial of these more negative elements belonging to the cluster, as the negatives are never included in feminist-inspired definitions.
So here is a more accurate definition of the syndrome feminism:
-seeks power under the euphemism of “equality”
-is narcissistic
-interpersonally controlling and exploitative
-has overly positive view of itself despite negatives
-displays dissociation and denial of negatives

The call to action ..

“All right, I have an agenda. Call it a vision for the future; an idea where things ought to be heading. And no, I don’t mean AVfM. I mean ALL of this. The whole game. The whole revolution. The whole damned enchilada. Just imagine: a world without feminism.”
This is what a
men’s rights activist
looks like.
People to engage in Men’s Rights Activism
I wish somebody would put those sayings on T-shirts so I could buy them and wear them.
It would be nice to find one, or two, other good MRA’s within a reasonably close driving distance so we could collaborate on men’s rights activism projects. What’s close? Los Angeles County/San Fernando Valley for starters. Out of several million people living in my neighborhood, you’d think one, or two, wouldn’t be hard to find.

Keeping you abreast with the latest in science and global warming hysterics..

Disaster- Global Warming causes smaller tits!

It also causes smaller turtles,frogs,deer and mini polar bears according to the latest research passed off as science.

A Pair of Great Tits

Over the past century, several types of animals, including turtles, tits, frogs or deers are becoming increasingly smaller.

The decrease of Arctic glaciers in recent years has led to considerable smaller polar bears. Because their environment is shrinking they must adapt and become smaller so they will survive in the future but the scientists are not sure if the polar bears can keep up with the accelerated pollution and they might face extinction.

Reduction of food reserves will affect especially the animals that are at the top of the food chain, including people who in the future will be increasingly smaller, will have fewer children and more vulnerable to disease.

In the last century, global average temperature has increased by almost one degree (Celsius), but after increasing industrialization scientists believe that around year 2100 the average temperature will be 7 degrees higher than today and this mean an mass extinction of animals and plants and possible humans.

A separate study conducted over 1700 species of plants and animals, proved that 80% of them moved their living area with 6.1 kilometers north every ten years and 87% bloom or begin the mating season two days earlier each decade.

Experimental studies have found that for every degree (Celsius) above the global average temperature, the plants lose about 17% of their size and the fish are becoming about 22% smaller.

As a retired nurseryman I can say that a one degree increase in temperature will make plants grow faster and larger not smaller and  moving plants to a warmer greenhouse is done for that reason. I don't know why people bother printing this crap.

A mixed bag for a change. Watched a little of Steven Wright whose comedy does have people wondering but to me he is classic..
Read some interesting commentary as responses to the fatalistic and nonsensical rantings from another feminist enabler and nay-sayer..
Also the claim made by Wikileaks and Assange is under the spotlight as it was never substantiated or confirmed that Wikileaks was the original release site for the AGW email releases..

Voodoo acupuncture - You don't have to go. Steven Wright..

Fidelbogen.  This person appears to be a feminist who hasn’t gotten the memo — that feminism does not self-define any more.It is a state of mind known as feminist subjectivism.In the present case, our subject has employed a classic device known as the “talking-point trick.”
Anyhoooooo, these people must be schooled. Gradually. Little by little.
Or else simply brushed aside.
 Other comments of interest on the same thread..

“If feminism were to die tomorrow what would replace her?”
Let’s hope some sane, ‘ane’ (as opposed to inane) and humane womanism which loves and respects ‘manism’, which serves the common good and which is genuinely just. Let’s hope for truisms instead of lies, scholarship instead of propaganda, free speech instead of totalitarianism, love instead of hate, beauty instead of ugliness, and respect instead of ridicule. The death of feminism means the death of infantile female entitlements dressed in false female victimhood, the death of gratuitous male oppression and the birth of big women who can handle adult responsibilities, adult reasoning, and adult respect.
According to me, Wikipedia is Maoist pornographer Jimmy Wales’ retarded totalitarian racket. Wikipedia’s feminism page/feminism related pages are an utter insult to anyone who has a brain and knows how to read. As anyone who even glances at the history of the feminism discussion page knows, the feminism page is written by and for fascist feminist partisans…and belongs in the trash can rather than as a reference for further discussion.
Here’s a better definition for the sick secular superstition: Mainstream feminism is a collection of influential but insipid dogmas aimed at falsifying well known sex/gender realities, establishing feebleminded female-centric fantasies as fact, and instituting superior-as-equal political, economic, and social rights and opportunities for women. It is also about destroying, demeaning and scorning men as male/masculine people. Mainstream feminism is focused solely on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks female sexual superiority, most feminists also believe that men’s psychic murder/torture/enslavement is therefore a necessary condition for feminism to succeed, or that men should become good little ‘girls’ so that there is no need to murder/torture/enslave men to create the feminist Utopia.
Response to another troll on the AVfM article as feminist gate keeprs and enablers refuse to explain why feminism is a movement that encourages, promotes genocide with the elimination of men and boys..

Their denial or their refusal to raise the topic really explains it all..

Some other comments..
“They have opposed domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.”
No, they have twisted everything into a victim/perpetrator-merry-go-round, while deliberately hiding statistics that show women to be more violent in the home to every other resident of that home,-have covered up womens sexual harassment in the workplace, -and falsified the statistics showing women to sexually assault children, (especially boys), on a slightly below equal rate.
“In economics, they have advocated for workplace rights, including equal pay and opportunities for careers and to start businesses.”
No, they have made the workplace conditions unbearable for the male gender by controlling the narrative,-have given men disadvantages in all areas in order to be able to compete, while giving themselves a head start, -and have set up small hairsalons and feel-good stores, claiming those to be businesses and not slander and gossipshops. Nothing in this area has been accomplished without using men as steppingstones in one way or another. Nothing.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow would women lose the right to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights?”
Women would be held accountable for their own actions on a far greater scale than now, first of all. If she chooses to keep the child, she pays for that right herself. If the man chooses to keep the child, she provides the child and he pays for the upbringing of said child. If that doesn’t compute, you should not be allowed to have sex. Sex is a two-way street and that goes for responsibility in relationships too. 
“-Would domestic violence increase/decrease?”
It would propably remain static, i.e. women would still be the instigator and perpetrator in the majority of the cases, no matter if the victim is the husband or the children. She would just be held accountable for this.
“-Would the definition of domestic violence change?”
When a growing number of women goes to jail, because they’re held accountable for their violence, there would be no need to change the definition as long as there is made no difference between the genders.
“-Would sexual assaults incease/decrease?”
That depends on whether we’re dealing with the skewed feminist-numbers or the real deal. If we choose to live in the real world and are talking about rape, there will always be a certain percentage of psychos, both males and females, that are proned to do this kind of thing, but no gender-group should ever be held accountable for the actions of one individual.
“-Would the definition of what a sexual assault is change?” 
Most definitely. You would no longer be able to drink yourself stupid and claim rape, or regret actions done under the influence and claim those to be a sexual assault. Or cheat in a relationship and blame an outsider for rape. Accountability would again be the key word. If that doesn’t compute, you shouldn’t be allowed to drink or have sex.
“-Would acts we once described as sexual assaults be decriminalized?”
See the above as an example. Futhermore, if you dress like a slut/whore, don’t expect to be treated like a princess, and don’t go into areas that even men stay away from, dressed like that. Think a little, once in a while!
“-Would date rape no longer be a crime or would it simply be a bad night with a jerk?”
Sting Chameleon answers this question below. Again, do some cognitive thinking once in a while.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow, what would replace her?”
Hopefully gender peace, and people getting along and minding their own businesses. Why would you want to replace one ideologue with another, BTW?
“-What would the death of Feminism actually mean?”
Peace? No more whining and victim playing? No more being held at a different level of accountability in courts? No more cheating and lying to take hold of a mans possesions or his rights to his kids? No more FRA’s? No more false DVA’s? No more advantages given to get a head start? No more using sex to manipulate, betray, or retaliate imaginary wrongs? No more legalized hissy fits?
Naaww..-Who am I kidding..?!
All that shit is never going to change, and we all know why.

Slightly OT…
Before I learned about MRA’s, I had to attend a sexual assault briefing and one of the topics was date rape concerning about the usual “women can’t give consent while drunk” guff. I raised my hand and I asked:
“Who would be raping whom in drunken lesbian sex?”
I got the evil eye but I thought it was a valid reductio ad absurdum with the subject at hand.

Assange on Climategate

Jeff Id links to a YouTube video of WikiLeaks’ Assange making a variety of untrue or inflated claims about Climategate and WikiLeaks’ role.
Assange falsely claimed that the Climategate emails were broken by WikiLeaks. This is obviously untrue as CA readers know. I can date WikiLeaks’ entry by contemporary comments. The first notice of the emails at WikiLeaks was 2009/11/21 at 2.50 AM Eastern (12:50 AM blog time). The emails had been downloaded by many people (including me) from a Russian server on Nov 19 and had been downloaded by WUWT moderators on Nov 17. A contemporary comment in a CA thread says that WikiLeaks was down and refers people to megauploads. WikiLeaks has not even been a major reference for Climategate – that belongs to (originally which was up on Nov 20 and provided a searchable database.

I know this old rockers dates me a bit as well. But, heh! I can get by with a little help from my friends..

Blind Faith "Can't find my way home" does appear to be an appropriate song to play at this time. An appropriate break to the basic enjoyments we have to fall back on when it gets just too much.

Music, life's elixir..

As JTO from the A Voice for Men site demonstrated, feminists are quite happy to blame anyone associated with the Men's Movement as being "woman haters" without ever bothering to find out that the people involved in our movement (male and female) are in most cases in relationships and or are married. People like myself who are in partnerships and have children are involved for no other reason then being disgusted by their male hating behaviour and the promotion of that goal..

It does not require much to align the feminist hate movement to other depressive movements as feminists have clearly demonstrated and are quite happy to promote that they are..

The alignment of feminism to Socialism, Marxism and Nazism are clearly defined in their literature and their ongoing promotion of the anti-male rhetoric. Below is a good example, as the link from JTO's article shows The link is to a Radical Feminist Forum whose activities included a meeting in Perth,  Western Australia in September 2011. This meeting of like minded Genocide promoting, feminists included discussing the SCUM manifesto and it's benefits and hopeful outcomes.

One of the attending speakers is Susan Hawthorne as you can see below..
BY FCMGuest post by Susan HawthorneThis is based on a talk originally given at the SCUM Conference in Perth, Australia on 24 September 2011.I come to the writing of manifestoes with the interests of a poet and political activist. Political activism is obvious. But poetry? An effective manifesto is one in which the language works, the political position is clear – but above all – it has rhythm and metre. A manifesto is a bit like a poem or a song.
Let’s look at Marx and Engels. The first line of the prologue:
A spectre is haunting Europe–the spectre of Communism (Marx and Engels 1848/1967: 78).
Or the first line a Chapter 1:
The history of all hitherto existing societyis the history of class struggles (Marx and Engels 1848/1967: 79).
The most disappointing aspect of the Communist Manifesto are the last lines:
It does demonstrate clearly how ignorant and forgetful feminists like Hannah Mudge is when it comes to blaming all and sundry on the Men's Movement, while they in turn put up their hands and claim  innocence and fawn ignorance. The NAFALT denial persists (not all feminists are like that)..

That radical feminist forum discusses the annihilation of all men and boys via DNA manipulation as well as genocide, their hatred seethes from those pages and is as sickening as anyone can ever imagine. Select the worse scenario and that is precisely what it is they propose. It's not a busy site, it does have quite a few followers whose attitudes and rantings can only be described as psychotic, bordering on lunacy..

The connection between feminism and it many variations are there for all to see. They claim to be a movement for "equality" but the Swedish example has already totally destroyed that notion as we have already witnessed. Feminism cannot be described as anything else but a hate movement, whose only aims is for the destruction of all men and boys by gradual and systemic methodology. This can also be ascertained when reading a post from one of the swedish citizens..

Regardless of their claims, feminism does nothing more than promote hate and distrust between the sexes and the only way we will rid this planet of it is to ensure that the politicians and law makers are informed (as if they did not already know) of their maniacal actions and future aims..

Be careful who you vote for. Ensure they do not have any sympathy towards this hate movement..