Latest Posts

So you do not become one as well..

"Someone is watching You" 
I do have to wonder where it's all going. When one of the main MRM sites predicts inevitable deterioration of all things male and the all out effort by the feminasties to ensure that target is achieved via endless articles, supported by the traitorous and homogenised MSM. Even with the assistance of that same sex who benefits the most from a healthy, hard working man in their life. The female attitude is akin to coming across a vehicle accident, sufficiently bad to know there will be body bags involved but she just has a quick glance, shakes her head, comments "that looks bad" but keeps driving, ignoring the pain and suffering that she does not want to get involved in issues, in most cases, she has introduced herself..
This is the same attitude they have towards the men's rights issues. They cluck their tongue, shake their heads, agree that something should be done because even though they notice something is wrong (that car crash), but just continue on their way because whatever happens, they will inevitably come out on top with the possibility of even more benefits than before..

It's the typical win, win, situation for them and they are indeed very aware of it. What they fail to comprehend is the fact that there are a few spanners in the works that will eventually (as they say on AVfM site)FTSU (f*ck their shit up) and that is precisely what we will do, one way or the other. In reality, the MRM is just a toddler in nappies, as we have really not got going that long ago. The time span may be debatable, it is my guess that it has only been really serious over the last couple of years and everything before that was just practise, fine tuning, brushing up on our debatting skills and recognising who was and is capable of doing whatever it takes to succeed, creating databases of information on the enemy, etc.. The membership drive is underway and amazingly enough it's all via people searching and wondering if there are other people who been put through the same hell feminists have put into place. Membership numbers per se, via feminist's unrelenting anti-male operations, guarantees it..

I have in the past quoted the odd passage from Nietzsche, a philosopher who is deemed to be nothing short of being a psychotic, one whose insight should be totally written off as the rantings of one with a screw loose. But as I noticed, his commentary on the female psyche looks pretty good from where I am sitting..

What about writing off other lunatics and psychotics like Eve Ensler and her vagina fetish, disguised as well, you pick something, mine would be "how to ply an underage female and molest her in the process", which ofcourse Ensler was forced to remove and replace with a legal age teenager . Also Betty Friedan, the author of "The Feminine Mystique", another lunatic according to her husband's expose.Many white knights and feminists alike could not wait to malign and write Nietzsche off as one of those sufferers. To some degree that may have some merit..
But have a read of some of his comments,sound fine to me..

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”― Friedrich Nietzsche 

“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”― Friedrich Nietzsche 

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”― Friedrich Nietzsche 

“What labels me, negates me.”― Friedrich Nietzsche

Nothing wrong with those words of wisdom as far as I can tell, matter of fact, some of those quotes have been quoted by feminists themselves in the comments section here. There is no way all of his observations could be written off as either irrelevant or insignificant..

The main part of the argument is ofcourse that end goal, feminism's efforts is aimed at the total destruction of all things male, regardless of the fact that society would not be where it is today, both technologically, include into that the accommodation you now enjoy, the food that is available three times a day, that is keeping your ungrateful arse alive and you, breathing. Even a child's minds can work out that obvious statement. Destroy the male and you will destroy society. Simple as that..

But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!Friedrich Nietzsche

Disclaimer..I have to include what should probably be a standard disclaimer - As usual, whenever generalising on any issue or about either sex, there are always exceptions to the rule. I do know of and recognise the fact that there are quite a few women working with and for the same outcomes for men and boys in the Men's Movement. In some cases they have been even more enthusiastic than anyone to educate and fight against the injustices feminism has introduced into every sphere of our lives and it is something that I am grateful for and heartened by. It does at the same time restore my faith in society and it does demonstrate clearly that they are not all the same, thank goodness for that..


Biologically Bad

The undeclared war on men has just dialled the hatred up, again. This time, it’s not merely men’s behavior and bad attitudes under attack, but male biology which is the root of evil.
You see gentlemen, you are not merely stupid, misguided, culturally stunted reprobates, you’re biologically flawed, innately broken bad-people. So says Margaret Wente, whose journalism and english literature degrees make her an “expert” on human biology and male psychology. (not really)
Wente’s recent article on the Canadian national news site decries the recent increased availability of hormone replacement therapies for aging men. In a population of aging baby boomers – parallel treatments for women have been widely promoted for more than a decade – but obviously, when men are the target demographic for hormone based aging treatments, its a very very bad thing. After all, everybody knows testosterone is the source of all greed and violence in the world.
Everybody knows this, with the exception of those who actually study it[1]. The conclusions of actual research on the impact of testosterone on human behavior indicates “Testosterone doesn’t cause people to become aggressive or risky as many people believe but actually encourages fairness”. [2]
However, Margaret Wente isn’t letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story. In the world of commonly believed falsehood, testosterone is the core of male identity. That means violence and aggression is the core of masculinity, at least, according to Wente, whose journalism and literature degree makes her an obvious expert in behavioural psychology.
Starting from a foundation built on cultural myth, Wente builds a case for the innate biological inferiority of the sex whose energy, creativity and drive have levered humanity into a modern, clean, well fed civilization.
Wente continues her attack on masculinity with the bland declaration that “testosterone is implicated in the world’s financial woes.” As a subscriber to several financial newsletters, this is new on me, but I wont dispute that maleness is implicated in all the world’s woes by ideologues re-packaging cultural biases under the false pretence that hatred is backed up by data. According to our expert on matters masculine and economic:
“Perhaps you’ve noticed that not a single woman was involved with the reckless speculation that led to the debacle of 2008.” Being male, and therefore, inferior – I hadn’t noticed that no women at all work in the service sectors of finance and banking, but now I know – It was all because of testosterone.
Unsatisfied with her own professional expertise on masculine psychology and sexual biology, Wente relies on a former investment banker to deliver the knowledge that “Testosterone is the molecule that explains irrational exuberance”. Hysterical female Justin Bieber fans are clearly suffering from testosterone poisoning.


Wente concludes her piece with a quote from a white knight author of yet another best-selling “women are better than men” book. “Women have only 10 per cent of the testosterone that men have. But they probably have 210 per cent of the judgment.”
What’s interesting in the weak pseudo-science behind this article’s hate is that it focuses almost entirely on biology to vilify masculine identity. There is none of the: “you bad men would be better with some re-education” – which I’m paraphrasing from other men-are-bad feminist agitprop.
Wendy Zukerman’s New-Scientist piece on the evolutionary roots of domestic violence[3] is explicit in excluding consideration of female offenders. Zuckerman opens with some reasonable concerns that her cited researchers at University of Texas in Austin and Stockton College of New Jersey makes simplistic assumptions. However, in the following paragraph notes only the number of female reports of domestic violence – a large number with no comparison or context.
Another men-are-bad article on the Huffington Post by prostrate male feminist David Katz makes a more oblique , but equally vacuous swipe at biology as the source of masculine evil. His article can be found by googling “The Biological Basis for Behaving Badly.” A bold bit of alliteration by Katz, but the biological approach to claiming man-equals-bad has an interesting tactical component. Within civil rights movements, claims by racist organizations of biological inferiority, or superiority between ethnic demographics are among the most egregious approaches to demonizing a population, because if the idea gains currency – it suggests a biological solution.
This is how ethnic cleansing becomes palatable within a society; the idea that large scale sterilization, medical intervention, internment or extermination is actually a merciful act to the group targeted. Or simply that the targeted demographic is believed to be “not really human” and therefore, outside the consideration of human rights questions.
In 1996 Gregory H. Stanton prepared a document for the US State Department called The 8 Stages of Genocide[4].
In the document’s introduction, Stanton stated :
“Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear. Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process. “
Stanton’s outline difers in it’s scope from the phenomenon of cultural misandry. In his paper, he focused on rising hatred within an individual society; within the context of the global community not following the path described. This differs from the escalating hatred of men in that the ideology of male hatred has growing dominance around the world, and is not limited to a small set of nation states or region.
Stanton’s identified stages are Classification, Symbolization, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, Extermination, and Denial.
The trend towards male vilification as a product of natural biology – as typified by recent writing by Wente and Katz suggests our culture is in stage 3, which is Dehumanization. Biological solutions to the claimed biological evil of masculinity can be speculated, including legally mandated drugging, chemical sterilization, or tracking through RFID technologies.
At this point, I expect skeptical readers to speculate that my aluminum foil hat is too tight, and that is a reasonable reaction. Which is why I will mention the fact that ideological feminism is a non-local movement with currency in all western nations. In India[5] and Indonesia[6] – commuter trains have reserved cars for women only, but no such trains for men only. In fact, men who accidentally enter these reserved spaces are ritually humiliated and beaten in public. One man was thrown by guards[7] from a moving train sustaining life threatening injuries. This is unquestionably apartheid, exactly the same phenomena which international humanitarian organizations fought against for a decade prior to South Africa ended the practice in 1994. A law is presently proposed under which Indian wives will be paid by the government to beat their husbands[8] in public, with the payment escalating depending on the severity of the beating.
In Turkey, men are barred from attending soccer matches[9]. Rather than international protest at this new manifestation of apartheid, “humanitarian” organizations are cheering. If the argument that the majority of unruly spectators are men is a valid justification, why not stop child abuse by barring mothers from child-care.
Far from doing anything so egregious. The statistics showing female relatives as the principal perpetrators of child abuse in the 2008 Department of health and Human Services report on child maltreatment were removed from the Health and Human Services website[10]. The updated report for 2009 shows the same data re-classified identifying the relationship of victim to abuser as simply “Parent.” Elsewhere in the 2009 report victim relationship to abuser is included, although this table lists “Father” at the top of the table, while data indicates mothers as the principal offenders.

However, nobody is calling for the banning of mothers from contact with their children. Because it would be as absurd as banning man from attending soccer matches based solely on sexual profiling.
In England, the labour national labour party ran an all-party convention which expressly forbade men from attending. This too is unquestionably apartheid. In the UK, a proposed change to law would render prison for female offenders a relic of the past, replaced with state funded housing, education and therapy. In Canada – female murderers, when convicted are mandated by the provincial court of Ontario to be charged under the lesser crime of infanticide. When women are found guilty in criminal courts, they are given lesser sentences through informal favour in the courts, but this is increasingly being formalized. One reading of the law for women, another for men. The modern word privilege has its origin in the latin phrase meaning; private law for or against a specific person.
In Stanton’s catalog, which he prepared on behalf of US Congress to assist in the avoidance of mass killings in failed states, the step after Dehumanization is Organization. From Stanton’s document, “Genocide is always organized, usually by the state”.
Where are we on Gregory H. Stanton’s 8 step program? The author himself asserted that the stages are not strictly linear, and we’re also observing a phenomenon transcending national and regional boundaries. Does the tin-foil hat still fit?
One of the difficulties in writing about this phenomenon is the temptation to comparison with a specific european nation’s social transformation between the third and fourth decades of the twentieth century. Id suggest that while there are some similarities the present trend of masculine disenfranchisement has a different character. In particular, this is a world-wide phenomena, and is not occurring in a single region relatively isolated from a (relatively) sane world community. The other major difference being that cooperation and adherence to male despising ideology must continue to encompass most men for escalated apartheid to continue.
Cracks in the foundation are already appearing. The increasing mainstream adoption of men’s rights rhetoric is one such crack. The marriage strike is another noticeable sign of times changing in western nations, and the startling and game changing emergence of Japan’s version of zeta masculinity – the “ soushoku danshi” – or grass eating boys.
Western media paints these men opting out of traditional expectations as if they’re weak, but I read it differently. They’re Going Their Own Way, and giving not a single toss for anyone’s opinion. That sounds like strength to me. They’re also becoming the dominant model for masculinity in Japan, with 60% of men between 20 and 30 years old self identifying as “grass eating boys.”
This is disastrous for economies which depend on male competition for wealth, status and female access. It may – if it continues to grow – lead to the collapse of nation states. If that happens, big box feminism, which depends on chivalry and on state funding and enforcement – will collapse as well.
Western media has continued to characterize the trend of male self actualization of men unplugging from traditional “provide- protect-disposable-man” as a failure. Hymowitz’sChild Man in the Promised Land and Kimmel’s Guyland being prime examples of attempts to induce compliance with male disposability through public derision.
Sadly, for Kimmel and Hymowitz – men stepping off the treadmill are not merely the failed competitors detractors pretend, they’re men who’ve evaluated the available options for acceptable masculinity and have selected “none of the above.” Shaming based on conformance to a model of male disposability does not work on men who value themselves as humans.
In Japan, Grass Eaters are indifferent to attempts to force compliance by ridicule, and a healthier attitude is hard to contemplate. This is close to what practicing Buddhists pursue as a state of grace – un-attachment. In the decidedly non Buddhist West however, an increasing population of men adopting a zeta definition of self might be considerably less tolerant of the increasingly shrill mainstream’s effort to extract money, and force compliance. I predict it will be an interesting time.

The previous posts contained comments from the opposition (feminasties) and stressed, after their usual bastardisation of the truth, that this site was, as far as they were concerned, humouress, funny..

Let's tank up for another false rape claim..
Personally I have no idea how they could possibly derive that opinion. I mentioned this to a friend of mine and he stated that he was "effin disgusted", my brain screamed "don't go down there" but I asked anyway and he told a joke that was akin to the actions undertaken in movies like "American Pie 1 or 2"(have not seen it yet, not that interested) where something happened which I assumed was some kind of demonstrated food fetish. Another example that came to mind as well was Sager's "Moving out today" where there was some mention of what a border did with bread. My mate is more conversant with the english language than I. Using the toff's version of effin never crossed my mind as he knows how english is spoke and is even capable of putting the full stops in all the right places. But I was just appalled at the thought of this site being entertaining and comical especially entertaining to the fems, it is just appalling, how anyone could even suggest that humour was part and parcel of this site is just incomprehensible and outlandish. I am appalled I tell you, It's well, appalling..

Now where was I again..

Oh dear, big ain't BBW, it's just big..
Having read this "wanted" or "for sale for nefarious deeds" or "come and get it" advertisement, I  would be of the opinion that it's going to be a handful on the best of days. Like the saying goes "don't matter how great she looks, someone else has put up with her shit before" and that gents is exactly the outcome of this possible future affaire. Someone escaped and now she wants another replacement, someone else to feel the pain, I personally do not take one bit of notice of what's written in these ads when it's about previous history but I would take notice of the demands and holy mackerel, has this one got a ton of them, with quite a few to spare..

I was going to make a list of demands she has requested but I will leave it up to you to decide what a fantastic inclusion she would make to your life as long as you don't turn up ofcourse..
I have been of the opinion that women have generally overpriced their goods in a flat market but it is  obvious that not all are paying attention. They would be better off waiting for the bulls to return..


If you’re a man considering marriage, there are some statistics you should know before you go ring shopping.
Today, more than 50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.
What many people don’t know is that women initiate approximately 70% of all divorces. Interesting, since men as a gender are the ones who are typically shamed for being commitment phobic and not willing to settle down.

Marriage and Divorce: A Rigged Game for Men

I received another anon comment today from another retarded feminist drone and appeared to be reasonable in it's first couple of sentences, which I will show later. I thought it may be a good time to go back through the archive, back to 2005 onwards to see whether or not the level of obnoxious had increased, stayed the same or deteriorated. Purely for scientific purposes ofcourse and because I needed a good laugh..

So after spending a couple of hours wallowing in history I did find some evidence and here are but a few..

First we have the "you're a moron" approach. It could have been better, maybe thrown in the "retard" angle but not bad, it did get complimentary and that's just a no no whenever abusing any blogger.. 2 handclaps and one freddo frog..
You really are a moron. The very idea that you think you can speak for all men about ANYTHING, is absurd. Thankfully, not all men are idiots like you are. And if you think you can shut women up, you are even more STUPID than one would think possible. 
I do enjoy coming by your blog from time to time for a laugh, though. Thanks!! on women believe they have a right to dictate how men do anything.
Again, the mentally ill angle and the embarrassment routine just does not do it for me. Sort of takes away the overall spitefulness and dilutes the vitriol. Could have done better.. One clap and one liquorice stick.
I am ashamed, and yes, I should be more generous with the mentally ill (which you so clearly are), but I'm sorry, I'm only human. And a WOMAN at that! You are a funny funny fuck, ya know that? You're crazy as a bedbug, but very funny. LOLOLOL!I realize you'll never post my comment because the last thing a man like you wants is input from a woman. Well, enjoy it buddy, 'cause this is as close as you will ever come to controlling me or any other woman! on Usually, women who sleep around do so under the guise of ‘enjoying their sexuality’
 Now this is a little better as the use of child abuse, especially battering babies is basically right up their alley. Fighting for existence with cougar denial and pedestalising. Promising effort, not certain about the endless use of bold throughout comment though, appears to be a little overdone. One bitchslap and  a weeks supply of vitamin E to reduce the affects of PMS..
Anonymous August 18,2006.
"Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby? Where the hell did you get the idea that "most middle-aged women represent easy sex"? 
In your dreams, asshole. I suspect you couldn't get laid by a woman of ANY age, with the POSSIBLE exception of a prostitute. Although perhaps you could find companionship by purchasing someone via the "Russian Bride" websites, which cater to the most undesirable men among us. It's so very sad that such women have to sell themselves in such a manner for a chance to come to our country, but hey! It's a sweet deal for losers like you, eh? You can pretend that some beautiful woman would VOLUNTARILY let you touch her. At least until she can legally dump your ass and divorce you. Of course such a proposition represents the certainty of future rejection, but I'm just trying to help you here. Work with me. 
I also included a few older posts dating back to 2006 or there abouts..

Your gender took that away. Why should men care if society collapses?

Women are producing the rapists as single mothers..

but then again, you aren’t likely to marry any women, are you?

Here we have that latest bit of hate mail..
I have had to trim the damn thing down a bit as it does as usual, drivel on relentlessly..
Sadly, we live in society that treats women as though they don't deserve to be treated equally.Believe it or not, there are women out there who genuinely love men. Believe it or not, there are women who are intelligent, educated, wise and loving.If one single feminist statement isn't what you want out of the sex, do you judge feminists wholly as a lousy evil lot?You shouldn't.
Fascinating isn't it. This feminist is of the opinion that the hate doctrine she follows has, could or should have only one statement that can be presumed to be incorrect on my part apparently, not hers. Got the blinkers on already..
So,just incase the above insincerity did not work she now inserts the standard strawman argument routine. Boring and so predictable..
I am guessing you've had bad experience with women.Guess what? So do most women (with men.)I can understand your anger, but you MUST be capable of understanding a woman's. When 1 out of every 8 women is or will be raped by a man in her lifetime, when women are beaten by their husbands or boyfriends or fathers, when women work a job that pays less than a man's for the same job,....when there are countries that impose cruel and horrible punishments for women who step out of line, as well as female castration, forced abortions, forced sex, sex trafficking, prostitution as an only means to support yourself or your children....then YES you MIGHT have the ability to comprehend why some women (fewer than should) are upset, and very angry.
Oh good, she got her little "all women are victims" rant in but there appears to be a few errors and exaggerations as we have come to expect from lying feminists whose only source of material appears to be "wimmin's/gender studies" and how biased and negative is that going to be..

First we have the brand spanking, all "NEW" One in 8 formulation. If only they could make up their ever changing minds. First we had One in 3, then it was One in 4, then it was One in 6 and now because their lies have been exposed by the ever increasing MRM they have been forced to readjust that guess every few years as more studies and research destroys that guesstimate every time..
A Voice for Men.. 
That 27.5% of those who answered yes to any of these three questions is where the 1 in 4 number comes from. The veracity of the study is somewhat diminished by the fact that Koss herself admitted in 1992 that her question relating to sex after consuming alcohol was misleading– and that if omitted from the study the actual number of Koss-defined rapes is 1 in 9. When considered in the context that of Koss’s identified victims, only 27% self-identified as rape victims, the number drops to 1 in 33. ..... Link....
But as with all feminist dogma, mantras and hate doctrine as well, why let the truth get in the way of so many good lies. Plus she slips on her Psychology hat and mantle, makes out like an expert as she explores the human condition, brain functions, behavioural intricacies and Human motivation, she is that...erm...good.. 
There's more..
You first must understand that anger is merely a response to being hurt.the maltreatment of women across the globe at the hands of men is sickening to me.i personally, won't stand for it when anyone condemns feminism as a root cause of something unjust and wrong.
Right there is the main problem this drone has with facing reality which many women have so far had to face up to..
First - That feminism is a hate movement is beyond doubt and beyond argument. The ongoing argument is as to how much pain, injustice and suffering has it inflicted on society as a whole, already,  including male, female and children. Come to grips with that first, you arrogant wench..

Secondly - The goings on in other countries has nothing to do with the country that I am in, feminists use that routine as an excuse to denigrate all men just like you have just clearly demonstrated, you sexist wench..

Thirdly - Women mistreat women as badly as anyone else does. A great example is that African female member of the feminastie movement who ordered the killing of over 800,000 people also ordered that ALL women were to be raped before they were executed, so come the high horse with me you sadistic wench..

False allegations of rape are believed to be more common than many persons realize. These are the findings of four research studies:A review of 556 rape accusations filed against Air Force personnel found that 27% of women later recanted. Then 25 criteria were developed based on the profile of those women, and then submitted to three independent reviewers to review the remaining cases. If all three reviewers deemed the allegation was false, it was categorized as false. As a result, 60% of all allegations were found to be false.

Fifth.. Female (genital mutilation) Castration is performed by women on women to protect their own butts from competition. So that entire argument is a total joke..

Here is some information for you to read lest you remain ignorant and retire alone in your old age with cats, plenty of cats for company as no sane man will have a bar of a male hating feminist like yourself and other pathetic drones just like you..

False Rape Society..
Campus Rape Hoax..
How funny is a mutilated Vagina..
Hi I am Gabriella and Feminism has ruined my life..
Female Pedophiles..
Assaults by women on their spouses and male partners..
Rape, must have been your own fault..
56 percent of abusers of all kinds are women..
Female murderers, false accusers, pedophiles, bigots..
Feminist Female Charged with Genocide..
Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, a prominent Rwandan Hutu and former minister of family affairs and women’s advancement, has been sentenced to life in prison by an international tribunal for a variety of heinous crimes, including mass rape, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. 
   ”Before you kill the women, you need to rape them.”

So, at the end of it all we have a simple tie don't you think so. Feminist ignorance and stupidity still rules the day and the vitriol and strawman arguments are still there as well. Are they becoming even more boring or what ?

My bullshit meter started to hum when I read this bit of theory, this feminist journalist and her ilk are trying to flog imaginary stats. as facts. They go out of their way not naming the sex of any female criminal but makes sure the sex of any male is exposed immediately. Pure hypocrisy and totally biased for a small newspaper in Montrose wouldn't you say. Only immediate problem is that it's editors is just another male hating, male denigrating, sexist, biased feminist and what have we witnessed about feminists they all copy and practise, yep, exaggeration and a resistive repulsion of the truth. Their first law of action is to live in denial about their own sex and blame all and sundry on yours and mine. In the feminists own claim, they are "sexist",  they will ofcourse try to justify that type of behaviour

example of an Article written by Heidelberg..

Here is another..
Child Centre Staffer Accused of Sex Offence
A paraprofessional at the Riverbottom Early Childhood Development Center was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault Saturday.Darci Largent, 40, is suspected of abusing a 4-year-old girl. She is free on a $60,000 bond; formal charges have not been filed, and the courts did not know whether Largent has an attorney.
“I can’t say anything at this time,” said Montrose Police Chief Tom Chinn. “We have a lot of work to do in this case. We’re trying to firm up some points.
 So we have the second article which would have to be printed but only for the purpose of denial. Denial, as fellow feminastie Berkower can throw in her "expert" bias into the article to not only receive some free advertising (old girl network) but there is nothing better to a propagandists that to have your word verified by another member of your own religion. Another worshipper of the feminastie movement. Good idea, as that would be lesson 101 in the the propaganda manual under dumb and stupid. Obviously Heidelberg has not heard of google search engines..
New ground: State looks at female sex offendersState officials are taking a new look at an overlooked type of sexual offender: females. Women make up only a fraction of known sex offenders ” fewer than 10 percent according to FBI statistics, and perhaps as low as 2 percent, according to expert Feather Berkower.
Katharhynn HeidelbergStill plays around with the numbers on the front page of her propoganda rag, the Montrose Daily Press (pdf of front page) living in denial, same as they do about the DV saga where feminists keep denying that one half of the population is just as responsible as the other, nothing will or can change regardless of how many training camps they put up for men only and ignore the violence and abuse that women inflict regularly against their spouses.

Surprisingly we have this comment but the numbers have been fiddled with. The reason for the confusion is that the feminastie movement refuses to recognise any studies that they have not doctored or influenced..
But offenders can also be women, even if the number of known female offenders is small, between 2 and 4 percent nationally, according to Berkower
So what doctrinal propagandist would down play the amount of abuse woman instigate on children and their partners, if not some feminist.  They can be relied on to lie and understate any facts pertaining to women and at the same time use the "old girls network" and keep it all under one roof by doing the exact same thing that feminists have been accusing all men of doing. Supreme hypocrites..

So, is Berkower part of that old girl network, you betcha..
SUNFLOWER CREATIVE ARTS PRESENTS AN EXCEPTIONAL SEMINAR WITH FEATHER BERKOWER ... with a bachelor's degree in women's studies from San Francisco State ...Facebook... Parenting Site
I have not bothered to read it's tainted "it's all men's fault" drivel as that would be a foregone conclusion by anyone who has a useless degree in "women's studies (where male hate is a specialised objective)" and actually confesses it to be the case. She claims to be working with an org called "parenting safe children" which it instigated and regularly preaches to the single mothers choir and one would have to wonder how much blame she would be foisting on their abusive behaviour, but one already knows the answer to that riddle. She is just another feminist drone determined and ensure that "mothers" walk away from the abuse they hand out to kids without facing accountability and transferring that onto someone else, mostly Dads ofcourse via some imaginary emotive issue

The entire thing is just a charade that gives those feminists an opportunity to screw up other people's lives with their own self induced hate and deny children their fathers at any and every opportunity as we have witnessed so often to their detriment but what do they care as long as they have the opportunity to spread their poison. They will feel they have actually achieved something useful. Hopefully these two will wake up to the damage they have caused like a lot of other ex. feminists have found out already...

She also loves peroxide as well..
I have often wondered what life would be like if one lived with a feminist, not one of your average pretend types, a fully indoctrinated drone. One would have to assume quite a lot as I have never met a feminist although I have on good grounds, had one pointed out to me and guess what, it was a single mother, funny that and it does illustrate nicely the point that I am making..

Feminism Diagnosed as Mental Illness

Imagine for a moment, an individual whose mind is so saturated with the muddle of feminist doctrine and it's associated, ignorantly derived, mantras. Imagine also an individual who really has no business being a feminist as all their goals and aims in the western world has come to fruition. There is basically no reason for it's existence apart from creating additional privileges for the already over privileged female in western society. Even they cannot refute that blatant and obvious fact. This fact can be and has been substantiated by their own behaviour because they are now talking about bastardising other countries and cultures in the middle east with their poison..

It is no longer reasonable to say that as a group, women are worse off than men...

So we have a single feminist female in a relationship with, say, a normal decent guy who is unaware of this lunatic's politics. He is of the opinion that she is normal. She has hidden her condition well..

The characters here while I wax lyrical are - Femmie - Spoilt, selfish, self serving, maniacal feminist,  educated via copious "wimmins studies, gender studies lessons and majored in both, also in the process of totally screwing up it's life by entering university to further contaminate itself with even more of the same..
Man - mangina, sufficiently gullible and appropriately trained to believe that the sun rises on the pedestaled sirens without actually being aware of what sirens is capable of or what they are all about..

One can imagine the daily amusing banter commencing from the time she decides to wake up. Questions will need to be answered and decisions to be made. First in line would be to shave or not to shave, that is the question. It is better..Oops wrong one..
Should she turn her back on her lesbian sisters and remove the stubble or should she sacrifice her higher ethical rendering towards cleanliness, self respect and smell reduction, it's just so hard.
What will she wear. In the past it was a lot simpler as she could just go and have one of those butch bitch haircuts and throw on the jacket with huge shoulder pads to demonstrate her penis envy state of mind, just like her sisters in the hood..
So, scratching her crutch as that's their interpretation of manly because her lesbian friend told her so, she wanders over to the wardrobe wondering what to wear. In the past she could slip into a pair of blokey designer overalls and work boots just to maintain that image but now it's even more complicated because if she wears a low top and show some cleavage, she has to spend a lot of time abusing anyone who dares to look. But if she dresses up in something less revealing, no one takes any notice and you may as well not exist, oh decisions, decisions. She thought she could dress up like she did last week when she joined a few of her like minded sheeple at the slut-walk lingerie party but next time she would use removable marker though as "get your hands off my arse" did not sit well with the man, but that would not go down too well at work because they were all fussy and expected everyone to be conformist and dress respectable like. They even asked if she had a bitch stamp, the nerve of some people and no chewing gum either..

Women: The Major Instigator of Family Feuding..

Today was a special day though because they were going to the beach, swimming and you know, stuff like that..
In walks man.. and requests that she makes the sandwiches while he gets the 4 wheel drive ready for the trip.
"WHAT !!!, why do I have to do the kitchen thing, is it because you think it's woman's work ?".
This was the first outburst he had heard since they moved in together the previous week, he was still getting over the felt penned writing on her arse. Man responded with "Okay then, I will make them and you fix up the vehicle, okay". Off they went to do their perspective acts of labour..
Twenty minites later, Femmie returns and Man says "I have made the sandwiches, whipped up some coleslaw, cut up the chicken and put it all  with the bottle of champers I put in the fridge last night, put it all in the esky, ready to go." She declares that she could not move the two spare tyres and rims from the back of the vehicle,  neither could she move the large petrol container he keeps for backup, just in case, as they were too heavy to lift..

The following evening was going to be party night as they had invited a few friends around for a night of fun and frolicking but on the way back from the beach the discussion focussed on the alcohol when she demanded that beer was not on the menu because it was regarded as a man's drink and that it should not be seen at her their party as she would not tolerate it, when man objected, she erupted and remained that way until they arrived back home when she finally demonstrated some civility and a small dose of humanity. Man thought, after that carry on over the beer, he had better also skip the Bloody Marys as well..

feminists, when confronted with a reality that conflicts with their ideology, will stick to the ideology, digging themselves deeper into a fantasy..

So one can easily wax lyrical about any relationship any feminist might be in if they are in any at all that is and wonder how the hell it works and how could she co-exist with another human when suffering from a recognised mental illness. One does have to wonder..
How is it possible to be in an relationship when every word that gushes forth is critically analysed to make sure it was not deemed, or indicate, or suggest, or imply, or has any possibility that it may in one way or another transgress their doctrines, teachings (either implied or yet to be implied or yet to be introduced), matras in anyway, shape or form. What a life that would be. It would make life in the salt mines appear positively beneficial as well as preferential..
It would also make MGTOW a fine alternative as well..

Sanchez,feminist and hypocrite, queried on voter fraud..
She (Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif (above)) single-handedly helped prove, once and for all, the hypocrisy of the feminist movement when she scheduled a fund-raiser for Al Gore at the Playboy Mansion. 

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Caught in Multiple Scandals; Sex & Voter Fraud

Feminists have no problem whatsoever in introducing their own versions of what law should be in their own opinion and in the case of human rights or the independence documents, well, they are just a hindrance to their efforts at ensuring men are not only vilified but also falsely charged and jailed for something they were not aware of. This "rape law" introduced by feminists could have been introduced by other species pretending to be feminists, maybe it was..
Air Force Col. Don Christensen, called it “almost incomprehensible.”“If you had 100 monkeys with a typewriter, they’d probably come up with something like this,” Christensen declared during a 2009 aggravated sexual assault case.
And he could leave it there but more was required to clarify what level of brain dysfunction and damage those feminists were suffering from..
Christensen, the Air Force judge, said during a trial. “I just think it’s a prime example of what happens when legislation is influenced by what they see on ‘Oprah’ and what advocacy seekers propose, as opposed to what’s really necessary.”

‘Flawed’ New Rape Law Roils Military Justice System 
WASHINGTON _ Six years ago, Congress tried cracking down on rape in the military. Prompted by disturbing reports of sexual assaults in military academies and war zones, lawmakers rewrote the rules. They wanted to protect victims and help prosecutors.Now it’s clear that the effort backfired.The politically attractive but poorly understood legal changes have incited courtroom confusion, judicial frustration and constitutional conflict. Extensive interviews and a McClatchy review of thousands of pages of court documents and internal studies find a congressionally caused crisis of military justice that few civilians know anything about.The rewritten sexual assault law puts judges “in an impossible position,” the top military appellate court warned. 
Military lawyers find it “cumbersome and confusing,” a Pentagon task force noted. It leads to “unwarranted acquittals,” Defense Department officials added. And some judges call it unconstitutional.“The law is an abomination as it is now written,” said Charles Gittins, a former military judge advocate who’s now a defense attorney.Individual military judges likewise assail the new law. One, Marine Corps Lt. Col. Raymond Beal II, called it “horribly flawed.” Another, J.A. Maksym of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, blasted it as “poorly written, confusing and arguably absurd.” Yet another, Air Force Col. Don Christensen, called it “almost incomprehensible.”“If you had 100 monkeys with a typewriter, they’d probably come up with something like this,” Christensen declared during a 2009 aggravated sexual assault case.A Senate bill introduced in June and proposed by the Defense Department tries to fix the problems that the earlier congressional action created. 
The bill is pending.The present law now under fire has particularly complicated trials that involve intoxicated victims and those who say they’ve been assaulted by acquaintances, two common allegations in the military. The confusion about the law can lead to injustice.Consider the case of a former Air Force enlisted man stationed at California’s Travis Air Force Base.Stephen Prather, 23, had been accused of aggravated sexual assault by an intoxicated guest of a party that Prather and his wife threw in October 2007.Prather said he and the guest had engaged in consensual sex. The woman, though, testified that she fell asleep and woke briefly to find Prather on top of her. When she awoke again, she said, she found semen on her underwear.Prather had raised the woman’s alleged consent as a defense. Prosecutors countered that the woman, whom court documents didn’t identify, was too intoxicated to give consent. 
The problem was that the rewritten law had shifted the burden of proof involving consent, appeals court judges concluded. Prather, as the defendant, had the burden to prove that the alleged victim was capable of consenting. Under the Constitution, though, it’s the prosecution that’s supposed to shoulder the burden of proof.This “results in an unconstitutional burden shift to the accused,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said of the new law in its February 2011 decision dismissing Prather’s conviction.Prather already had served almost 11 months of a two-and-a-half year prison sentence. He’s awaiting his discharge papers.“I just want Congress to know this law has messed up a lot of people’s lives,” he said in a telephone interview from his home in Houston.“My wife left me. I can’t get a good job. I had to register as a sex offender. My life is ruined. All for something that should have never been a crime to begin with,” Prather added.Recently, the military decided not to re-prosecute Prather. 
For other military defendants, the legal ambiguity will continue as challenges inundate appeals courts. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will review several challenges to the law in coming months.Meanwhile, sexual assaults in the military continue.More than 4 percent of active-duty women and almost 1 percent of active-duty men reported unwanted sexual contact in 2009, according to the latest annual study from the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.All told, the military services completed investigations of more than 3,200 suspects in sex-related crimes in fiscal year 2010. Of these, 16 percent faced court-martial.Heightened political scrutiny of the military’s handling of sexual misbehavior dates at least to the 1991 Tailhook affair, in which Navy aviators aggressively groped women at a convention in Las Vegas.Congressional involvement accelerated in early 2004, after reports of sexual assaults on female troops in Iraq.A year later, the Pentagon established an office dedicated to responding to and preventing sexual assault. 
Lawmakers also directed the Pentagon to review the military’s laws, known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.In an 826-page report, the Pentagon ultimately advised that no changes were necessary. Congress thought otherwise and rewrote the sexual assault provisions as part of a fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill. The intention was clear: Lawmakers wanted to assist prosecutors and shield victims.Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., a key proponent of the changes, called them a “major step” in convicting rapists. Skeptics feared otherwise.“I’m not a member of Congress, and that’s their job to do what they think is necessary,” Christensen, the Air Force judge, said during a trial. “I just think it’s a prime example of what happens when legislation is influenced by what they see on ‘Oprah’ and what advocacy seekers propose, as opposed to what’s really necessary.”

Wow, have we just witnessed the beginning of the end of the pussy pass, that card that women use to escape accountability and receive a much lighter sentence than even children receive ?

Can we now expect the population of female teachers to finally take notice and be made aware of the fact that shagging any underage student under your care is going to land you in the slammer for a  minimum of 25 years. Think they will change their mindset and behaviour, or what ?

Court documents..

Before:  SERVITTO, P.J., and MARKEY and K. F. KELLY, JJ.
 Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct (CSC), MCL 750.520b(a)(1), for which she was sentenced to concurrent prisonterms of 25 to 38 years. She appeals by right. We affirm. 
Defendant, a former elementary school teacher, was convicted of engaging in sexualintercourse with a 12-year-old  former student from her sixth grade class. The victim hadacademic and behavioral problems and was suspended from school for fighting with anotherstudent at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. Defendant intervened on the victim’sbehalf and persuaded the school principal not to expel the victim from school. After the victimreturned to school, defendant invited him to religious activities at her Masjid (mosque) and to herhome, purportedly to offer him guidance and help him with his anger and academic problems. The victim was subsequently expelled from school after a second fighting incident.  After hisexpulsion, he spent more time with defendant at her home, with his mother’s permission. According to the victim, he and defendant progressed from hugging, to hand-holding, andto kissing, before eventually engaging in sexual intercourse. The victim testified that he anddefendant had sexual intercourse on two different evenings in October 2007. After the secondincident, the victim called defendant from his home and inadvertently recorded the call. Duringthe recorded call, the victim referred to defendant as his girlfriend, and stated that he was proudto be involved with a grown woman. The victim’s mother heard the recording and reported it tothe school. The school board later terminated defendant from her teaching position and thatdecision was upheld by the tenure commission.
And further information..
Twenty-five year minimum sentence for statutory rape is not cruel or unusual punishment 
In People v. Benton, No. 296721, the Court of Appeals considered whether a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct constituted cruel or unusual punishment. The defendant, an elementary school teacher convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old student, argued that the mandatory minimum sentence for a statutory rape conviction prevented the court from considering mitigating factors and other particular circumstances of the offense. Most notably, the defendant wanted the court to be able to take into account her assertion that she never used force, violence, or coercion and her assertion that she did not physically or psychologically injure her victim. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument and concluded that Michigan’s public policy goal was to prevent adults from engaging in sexual activities with pre-teens. Moreover, the Court of Appeals determined that the defendant’s assertion that she was less culpable than most other sex offenders was unpersuasive, noting that the defendant used her position of power and authority to insinuate herself into her victim’s life, isolate him in her home, and then engage in sexual activities with him. The court also noted that other states had similar minimum sentences for an adult offender’s first offense against a pre-teen victim, regardless of any purported mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by refusing to admit under the Rape Shield Act her victim’s prior sexual experiences. The defendant claimed at trial that her victim’s testimony about his inexperience with condoms created the untrue impression that her victim was sexually inexperienced. The defendant alleged that the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence about the victim’s past sexual experiences to contradict this impression violated her constitutional right of confrontation. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument, noting that while in limited situations a rape victim’s past sexual history is admissible to preserve a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, the victim in this case had never actually stated that he was sexually inexperienced.

Winner - Hugo Schwyzer
I do believe the feminasty movement are still annoyed over the fact that we forced them to change the named "Women's Studies" program to "Gender Studies" which ofcouse did not make an iota of difference to their male bashing, male hating agenda, they had originally installed.
The same cretins are still involved in that misnomer and occasionally, the odd named individual or three, rears their sexist, morally corrupted head and endeavours to gestate another inane thought process that only other morally corrupt feminist could possibly comprehend.
Schwyzer, (the winner of our famous Mangina Award for morally corrupt male feminists who sold their soul and their own sex out for poon) once again demonstrates beyond doubt why he is paid to promote these mindless, delusional, inane thought processes as he would find it impossible to sell that load of drivel for cash. Always good to rely on the taxpayers dollars for your rent seeking malfeasance..

The article penned by Schwyzer is about accidental rape. One has to wonder what he has been up to to warrant such a title. Feminists have already introduced a plethora of interpretations to the "R" word, so what's another one..
RapeMarital RapeDate RapeAccidental RapeEye Rape (i.e. thought rape)

Bill at The Spearhead sums up this recalcitrant nicely in this complimentary article..

Hugo Schwyzer on Consent

by W.F. PRICE on SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
In giving Hugo Schwyzer a platform, the Good Men Project has lost whatever credibility it may have had. Although Schwyzer stirs up some controversy and thus garners pageviews, his questionable personal morality and willingness to collaborate in deception have already tainted the publication. Founder Tom Matlack, on the other hand, strikes me as a fairly sincere person who just happens to be incorrect about some things.
Sincerity, however, is not Schwyzer’s forté. In an article that enraged many an MRA, he argued that it doesn’t really matter whose kid you’re bringing up — “…it is love, not sperm, that makes a great dad.” In the article he reveals that he may have fathered a child with a woman, and then collaborated with her to deceive the other man she was sleeping with at the time into thinking the child was his. This is a disgusting thing to do to both the other man and the child, and a sneaky way to disguise parental irresponsibility and selfishness as some sort of noble act. I accuse Schwyzer of insincerity because I’m pretty sure he’ll ask for a DNA test if he gets socked with a paternity suit for years of back child support some years down the line (assuming the story is true). I can see him in front of a judge arguing: “your honor, it was just my sperm, and that doesn’t mean anything…” I’d fork over some cash to sit in on that hearing.
He later defended that piece by saying that guys who felt differently about a child upon learning that he or she was fathered by another man are “contemptible,” and then proceeded to shamelessly excuse himself for his act of deception because the woman he conspired with was “not in an exclusive relationship when she last slept with me.” Well, duh.
In his latest piece, Schwyzer touches upon the issue of “accidental rape.” From a legal standpoint, this could be an interesting issue, because fudging the notion of consent has resulted in prosecutions where there is no clear indication of mens rea — usually a requirement for a crime to have occurred (in fact, I think statutory rape is one of the very few crimes where mens rea is not required). However, rather than clarify the issue, Schwyzer further muddies the waters by offering a deceptive etymology for the word consent:
The root of consent is the Latin consentire, which means “with feeling.” Consent is not just about words “no” or “yes”—it’s about the unambiguous presence of desire.
This is sleight of hand. The Latin root sentire means “to feel” or “to hear,” but it does not mean emotion or desire, as in “I feel sad,” or “I feel horny,” so much as it means “to think” (e.g. “sentire cum ecclesia” — to think with the church). A more accurate translation would probably be “to perceive.” In any event, Latin terms generally entered the English legal lexicon through French or the church. Given the fact that the word “sentient” (conscious, perceptive) also derives from sentire, it can safely be assumed that the meaning of the term consent is much closer to “accept with awareness” than it is to “agree with ‘the unambiguous presence of desire.’” For example, I consented to a search of my car at the border on Sunday, but I certainly wasn’t overcome by desire at the prospect.
In fact, what Schwyzer is describing is not consent at all. We already have a word for it: assent. If feminists want to change the standard for rape to sex without assent, they should be honest about that, but I don’t think it would work, because the term consent has just enough neutrality to it to be acceptable to the ordinary female sensibility, which recoils from the idea of “assenting” to sex, because that’s just too slutty.
Semantics aside, the article is just another example of Hugo’s disingenuous hand-wringing over the finer points of female sentiment. As a “gender studies” teacher, he is paid to do that, so no surprise there, but what we must keep in mind is that what Mr. Schwyzer is propounding could have some very nasty blowback, including inducing one of his young female students to say that she had been “raped” because she didn’t enthusiastically assent to sex and (in retrospect, of course) realized that she only reluctantly went along with it (i.e. consented). After her friends convince her to call the cops and the boy’s name is dragged through the mud in the press, maybe the poor sap will be “lucky” enough to avoid prison.
Would such a scenario bother him? To answer that, we need only ask whether it would bother a man who has no moral qualms about hiding the fact that another man may be raising his child from both the man and his child. This man demonstrates that claiming to act on behalf of women is the perfect cover for utter scum, and that’s exactly what we should expect to find in gender study departments across the land. “Good men” my ass.