Latest Posts
Showing posts with label affect of feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label affect of feminism. Show all posts

Hugo, Mangina Awards and The Damned Olde Man..

The Company or Government Departments/NGOs Award..

There are quite a few things that I have done to be proud of. Maybe way to boring to mention here but one that stands above the others would be the introduction of the "Mangina Awards". This award was generated to recognise the lame and incompetent, the ignorant and delusional, in other words, feminist men.
There are actually three different types of awards. One for individuals, recognising the efforts of male feminists and their total commitment in worshipping, obeying and total capitulation to the opposite sex. An action demanded by their feminist partners but abhored at the same time. Standard feminist double-think in action.
The individual/Femi-slave Award..


Next is the Individual/Group Award which recognises either a combined group effort or individual efforts by feminist men and their inane presentation and reconstruction of masculinity as well as their adherence to feminisms fake doctrine. It recognises their total capitualtion and abeyance on an individual or group level.

The Special Individual/Group Award for major misandric efforts..
The Company Mangina (top image) award recognises any company. government department or NGO that operate within the areas of feminism's demand for capitulation and abeyance. A much sought after award with plenty of competition.. 

Apart from recognising their total abeyance to the feminist discourse. By pursuing an agenda of recasting and reconstructing the male masculine. They are also recognised for the introductions of anti-male laws, promoting misandry in advertising or demonstrating sexism towards man or boy. The "Good Man/Men  Project et al" is a prime example of this in action. Trying to replace normal masculinity with some feminist variant,  admired by no one and loathed by all..

A bit like trying to reassign the feminine qualities of females by turning them into slut walkers, narcissist experts, obedient robots and pro-abortion enthusiasts...oops.."

Current Award winner are -
Barack Obama.
The Good Men Project.
Hugo Schwyzer.
Valenti's wimp.
Scott Berkowitz.
David Futrelle

Other recommendations are welcome..

Anyway, I digressed..

The Damned Olde Man states exactly my thoughts on this subject as well as my personal sentiments towards this miscreant..

Redefining Masculinity – Fuck Hugo Schwyzer

January 3rd, 2012 by TDOM

or How Much Beer Can You Drink?

John Belushi
Image via Wikipedia
“There is nothing either guilty or shameful about living in a male body. There is nothing wrong with wanting sex with women, liking football, or enjoying beer. There is something wrong with deriving one’s self-worth from how many women one takes to bed, or how well one plays football, or how much beer one can drink. And there is something very wrong—something worth feeling guilt over—about promoting that narrow definition of masculinity to other men.”  - Hugo Schwyzer
Hugo Schwyzer is a guy I doubt I’d spit on if he were burning in front of me. Well, ok, I would, spit on him that is. The guy wouldn’t even be on my radar except that blogs I read regularly keep bringing him up. So I have a vague sense of who he is. He’s a wannabe male feminist (mangina) who would desperately like to be one of the guys while remaining one of the gals. Since the guys won’t have him, he likes to take pot shots at them in his spare time. The trouble is that he seems to think that the guys that won’t have him are even more despicable than he is. He’s wrong, of course. But as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Schwyzer’s no broken clock. He’s more like a broken calendar; he’s right about once a year.
I found the above quote on Reddit where it was attributed to dear old Hugo. There was no real context given so it’s entirely possible that I’m taking this out of context which would be plausible because it is one of the very rare times I can agree with him. At least I can agree with the quote, as is, with no context provided.
Feminists frequently use shame and guilt to make men feel bad about being men. Male sexuality is attacked and condemned with regularity. Masculinity and masculine values are frequently associated with patriarchal oppression of women. And any male who expresses himself sexually is automatically deemed a threat to every woman in existence. But being male, being or acting in a traditionally masculine manner, and/or wanting sex with a woman is nothing to be ashamed of or to feel guilty about. In fact, it should be celebrated and applauded. Men who were unafraid to be men are the men who built the world. This is nothing to be ashamed of or to feel guilty about.

More on the article..

RAPE, Rape and more rape..

A self explaining video from the ManWomanMyth site that once again explains the need for feminists to treat women as total morons and children as well..

 Needless to say, there does not appear to be any opposition to that claim, I am waiting for them to catch up on the irony..


Female violence, society’s “dirty little secret,”..



The feminist dream is to malign and destroy man's credibility by making all females victims, regardless of the situation, and ensure that all males are held to be aggressors even though that great lie is finally being exposed..

Feminists, especially radical feminists, a group of toxic lesbians, have been guiding legislation and laws to ensure those laws victimise men and boys for any reason they see fit. Lawmakers have deliberately turned the other cheek by passing those biased and sexist laws without scrutiny, thereby creating a victim class for women and allocating copious funding while at the same time ignoring services to benefit men and boys. This routine has been ongoing for the last 40 years as white knights and cowards in the legislator deny the existence of abusive women, which ofcourse, much to their amazement, do actually exist..

But not according to majority of mainstream politicians. They have betrayed their constituency, granted carte blanche arrangement to feminists to introduce laws and services for women, against men, at will..

This has to stop, your vote can and will count. It is time to assess what those politicians stand for and if they have demonstrated that they have passed those sexist, biased laws, boot them from office. They have to go..


Female violence society’s “dirty little secret,” especially in Alberta 
Beacon News | July 29, 2011 
By Christopher Walsh, 

Twenty years ago, a man named Earl was sitting alone in a mobile home, the oven door open, two propane tanks set on either side, when the phone rang. He wasn’t expecting the call, it just sort of came out of the blue as he readied to turn on the gas.

It was an acquaintance checking in to see how he was. It had been a tumultuous time. Forced to finally leave his wife and admit that he was the victim of female-perpetrated domestic violence was not an easy thing to do.
Not only was the issue not talked about, there were no support services to help men like Earl Silverman. He became a pariah, openly mocked and laughed at when he tried to explain his situation. Earl didn’t kill himself that day, but 20 years later, not a lot has changed.
“I’m still trying to find some services to help me deal with this experience and I can’t,” he says. “There’s nowhere I could go to talk about it. There’s an effort to ensure that the voice of male victims of domestic violence is not heard.
“They don’t want to admit that there’s a problem.”
While searching for support groups to help, Earl came to the conclusion that if the services weren’t there, he would try his best to provide them for other men. Twenty years ago, he began operating a helpline where men could call and talk to someone who understood and a couple years later, he opened the Men’s Alternative Safe House, or MASH 4077, to help men who experience female-perpetrated domestic violence.
“Sometimes part of the healing process is being a healer,” Earl says contemplatively. “Sometimes it isn’t.”
Although he has helped dozens of other men through the help line and safe house, he still hasn’t found the support he’s been looking for and has been unable to come to terms with the abuse he suffered. And while hearing back from men he’s helped over the years is fulfilling, it only goes so far.
“It does [feel good], for that moment,” Earl says. “Then I have to face the bias and all the other issues I typically face.”
Dr. Martin Fiebert, a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach, who has been studying the issue of female-perpetrated domestic violence on men since the mid-1990s, says the problem is only now beginning to be accepted by law enforcement and other social agencies.
“It’s one of those dirty secrets,” he says. “There was an entrenched mindset that developed and I would say, a feminist viewpoint, that always viewed men as the perpetrators.
“Female perpetration is a taboo topic. People have written about that and [it was] considered politically incorrect to discuss it.”
Fiebert says research funding agencies have tended not to provide grants to study the issue, journals have been reluctant to publish studies (in one case a researcher was threatened by the public, Fiebert says), a lot of talk around domestic violence is female-centered and female violence has traditionally been viewed as self-defence. But one of the biggest reasons for the silence around the issue is that a lot of men do not want to talk about it.
“Men have been victimized too, but what usually happens is that a man is ridiculed when he’s victimized; a woman is sympathized with,” Fiebert says. “People will laugh at men who are beaten up by their wives. That’s a pretty strong stigma.”

It's in our DNA, you're Joking..

Another stake thru the heart of feminism's "You are the product of your environment, not of your sex" ignorance department and one that is continually debunked by rational minds but feminists continue with their mindless determination to try and prove otherwise..

I wonder what else it has to take in order for them to finally admit that they have rightly cocked-up and their fallacies are being unraveled time after time. Just when they imagined they were on the right track with their societal experimentations, something always pops-up to demonstrate what level of incompetence they really suffer from. One could now demonstrate beyond doubt how feminism does not only screws up your life but can be used to gauge and determine what level of stupid you would register on the idiot scale..

No one in their right mind could qualify feminism, it's adherents and it's doctrine to be anything else besides entertaining a similar mindset that matches conspiracy theorists(the Gubment did it) and Alien life enthusiasts (SETI, they are out there somewhere)..

They should be tested..


The Feminists, Equalists And Economists Are Gonna Hate This

by Heartiste

The NewYorkBetaTimes, of all the flaccid media organs!, reports on a study that finds genes play a major role in primate social behavior.
Social behavior among primates — including humans — has a substantial genetic basis, a team of scientists has concluded from a new survey of social structure across the primate family tree.
The scientists, at the University of Oxford in England, looked at the evolutionary family tree of 217 primate species whose social organization is known. Their findings, published in the journal Nature, challenge some of the leading theories of social behavior, including:
- That social structure is shaped by environment — for instance, a species whose food is widely dispersed may need to live in large groups.
- That complex societies evolve step by step from simple ones.
- And the so-called social brain hypothesis: that intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.
By contrast, the new survey emphasizes the major role of genetics in shaping sociality. Being rooted in genetics, social structure is hard to change, and a species has to operate with whatever social structure it inherits.
If social behavior were mostly shaped by ecology, then related species living in different environments should display a variety of social structures. But the Oxford biologists — Susanne Shultz, Christopher Opie and Quentin Atkinson — found the opposite was true: Primate species tended to have the same social structure as their close relatives, regardless of how and where they live.
One by one, the shibboleths of the post-Enlightenment Left crumble into dust, their lies scattering like tumbleweed on the purifying desert winds.
The Old World monkeys, for example, a group that includes baboons and macaques, live in many habitats, from savanna to rain forest to alpine regions, and may feed on fruit or leaves or grass. Yet all have very similar social systems, suggesting that their common ancestry — and the inherited genes that shape behavior — are a stronger influence than ecology on their social structure.
Genes a stronger influence on social structure -- aka culture -- than the environment? Now who was it said something similar not too long ago on this very outpost of mortifying truths? Ah, yes:
Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” [feminists] so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.
Great crops of corn, I hate to toot my own horn, but goddamn... strike up the band!
The fact that related species have similar social structures, presumably because the genes for social behavior are inherited from a common ancestor, “spells trouble” for ecological explanations, Joan B. Silk, a primate expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a commentary in Nature. Also, the finding that there has not been a steady progression from small groups to large ones challenges the social brain hypothesis, Dr. Silk said.
The Oxford survey confirms that the structure of human society, too, is likely to have a genetic basis, since humans are in the primate family, said Bernard Chapais, an expert on human social evolution at the University of Montreal.
Think about the radical implications this study *should* have on public policy. (I say "should" because the old guard will work tirelessly to smear anyone who dares draw the arrow from human genetic predisposition to informed social policy.) If it became commonly accepted knowledge that genes play a major, maybe even predominant, role in how human population groups organize socially, sexually and economically, then in one fell swoop the following canons would be reduced to the dung heap of exposed lies, alongside such luminous repositories of sacred thought as geocentrism, Freudianism, Communism and the theory of buying chicks stuff on the first date in hopes of sex:
- redistribution (in any form) for any means other than intergroup pacification
- feminism
- egalitarianism
- rational actor economics
- multiculturalism
- laissez-faire libertarianism in heterogeneous societies
- unrestricted immigration
- ideologies with cultural conditioning theories as their centerpiece
- exported democratization
- cheap chalupaism
The strawmen armies will, naturally, come marching out in force to cow anyone from waving this study in the air like a beacon to guide the free thinkers through a battlefield shrouded in choking gas, mud and fog. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with them all here, but for a few exceedingly trite and trollish objections.
"Apes aren't humans."
Funny how the pro-evolution Left is so quick to highlight the gulf between apes and humans when it suits their agenda. Apes aren't humans, but apes are our closest cousins. From them we can learn much about ourselves, if not everything.
"Genes aren't destiny. Our fates aren't predetermined."
Reductio ad absurdum. Genes aren't destiny, but they are significant constraints on destiny. For instance, (and to use a very obvious example), a man with agenetic predisposition to criminality can have his unobstructed destiny to inflict pain and suffering on others severely altered by a long prison stint. But remove that environmental influence, and his genetic impulse resumes primary ownership of his behavior. So while we don't have exact destinies given us at our birth from which we may never stray, we do have paths laid before us that are closer to, or farther from, alignment with our natural genetic proclivities. The rockier the path, the stricter the environmental or cultural controls needed to keep us trundling along it. The smoother the path, the looser the controls needed.
"Ok, genes may play a role, but humans share 99.whatever% of their genes."
Great. We also share 99% of our genes with mice, but no one would mistake a man for a mouse. Unless he's named H. Schwyzer. That .whatever% of genes we don't universally share makes for a lot of difference.
"Humans can adapt."
Correction: Humans can adapt more or less easily. And sometimes, not at all. Public policy should be that which encourages the construction and maintenance of a prosperous national environment that puts as few stressors on its citizens' store of ability to adapt as possible.
Within my lifetime, I would love to see the self-evident truths encompassed in this post recognized and embraced by the elite. But it's looking more and more like that is a pipe dream. Instead, traitors and liars will drag us down into the dark, murky abyss before they surrender their pride.
Heartiste | December 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm |

Feminism? Forget it, sisters..

If there is one single issue that we can safely, consistently and constantly argue about Feminism, it is the fact that they are compulsive liars of the first degree..

Without any fear of contradiction. Not from a rational mind anyway.

We have demonstrated that HATE is Feminism's number one priority,without fail. We have demonstrated that feminism is run by radical feminists via the RADFEM Hub forum, plus the hidden forum where they promote murder, gendercide, child abuse with systemic terrorism in either deed or words..
These are the feminists who hate all man and boy with a toxic and deadly passion as to want to see them all removed from the planet. These are the same feminists who have the ear of legislators and government department heads while they set about destroying any and all rights any male did have. These are the same male haters who can be traced to Universities, Lobby Groups, political parties promoters and enforcers. These same feminists can be traced to attend meetings where illegal activities are discussed and promoted.

For further evidence see here, here and here..

These people have to be stopped, removed from office or positions of power and separated from society as it is their single wish to destroy what we have today. A free and democratic existence which has been generated after centuries of learning and they just want to tear that all down and introduce some replacement based on lies and deception. That's what feminism is all about. Hate, malice and the war between the sexes..

They are solely responsible for this monstrous action and behaviour. It has to be stopped..

Feminism? Forget it, sisters

At last, the truth is out – men do work harder than women, says Neil Lyndon.


The long night of modern feminism might be about to end. A glimmer of light is flickering in the encircling gloom.
Man washing up
Do men do more work?
A study published this week by Dr Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has found that men do slightly more work than the women they live with when employment and domestic work are measured together.
This is the first time I can remember in 40 years that an authoritative study on a key issue of so-called gender politics has come out with a self-evident truth that runs directly contrary to orthodox feminist ideology. The fact that it has been written and published by a woman makes it even more delightful.
Ever since the late Sixties, it has been an incontestable article of faith in the feminist creed that men are lazy, slobbish, barbaric, barely civilisable and incapable of switching on the vacuum cleaner without breaking it Рand eternal shame on Alistair Campbell and his partner Fiona Miller for boasting about the fact that he lives up to that mould-encrusted clich̩.
It has been an essential tenet in the feminist catechism – endlessly repeated on Woman’s Hour and in the Guardian – that men exploit and oppress women at home and in their domestic arrangements in the same way that men put women down at work and in the wider society.

Like every other tenet of modern feminism, this potty notion was always balderdash (or more frankly another word beginning with “b” – why be polite about so pernicious and poisonous a creed?). Not only did it run contrary to the evidence that British men work longer hours, for less pay, for more of their lives than any of their western European counterparts – and then spend their weekend mowing grass, cleaning cars and fixing shelves. It was, also, obvious that, as life changed so fundamentally for women in education, employment and sexual life, men changed, too.
That much was transparently clear even 40 years ago when I was at university. Not one of the young men I knew expected or even yearned to marry a woman who would be a domestic serf. Every one of them – me included – wanted a more equal partnership than our parents’ marriages and looked forward to being more actively engaged in their children’s upbringing – just as they looked forward to hearing the happy chink of coins when their partner’s monthly pay-cheque landed in the joint account.
Many of those men had lived alone, learnt to cook and run a home before they lived with women; and some of them – me included – have looked after children alone after marriages failed. More than 300,000 men in this country are the sole parents of children, fully responsible for every element of their domestic lives. Are they to be told – as Fay Weldon declared with majestic stupidity last year – that they are congenitally incapable of picking up a sock?
All my adult life, I wanted to create a family life of equal partnership with a woman and, after many failures, finally achieved it in my 50s, with the mother of our two little daughters, now seven and four.
In our home, I do most of the food shopping, more of the cleaning and some of the cooking. My wife sees to the laundry and is responsible for about 65 per cent of the childcare while I have been responsible for paying about 95 per cent of the bills. When she works, I do everything in the home and everything for the children. When I work, it’s the other way round. We share the gardening – incompetently.
Our is not an unusual arrangement. Only a body of people blinded by ideology – as feminists have been – could fail to see that millions of men and women in this country are harmoniously working out their own domestic arrangements, and that men have been active, enthusiastic partners in these changes.
What next? Might a respectable study soon reveal that, contrary to what we are always told, one in four men does not batter the woman he lives with? Or that not all men are rapists? Might the entire edifice of lies that comprises modern feminism now be about to tumble?
Hasten the day.

Why You're Not Married..

But I am Perfect, cost millions..
I should really put this under the comedy heading but I will leave up to you to decide how true and honest this really is..
 I can't see this being a hit as it would actually demand that the American female to stop being herself and declaring to herself that the world does not orbit around her..

 It's a hard one but a good learner..

Why You're Not Married. 
I was, for some reason, born knowing how to get married. Growing up in foster care is a big part of it. The need for security made me look for very specific traits in the men I dated -- traits it turns out lead to marriage a surprisingly high percentage of the time. Without really trying to, I've become a sort of jailhouse lawyer of relationships -- someone who's had to do so much work on her own case that I can now help you with yours.But I won't lie. The problem is not men, it's you. Sure, there are lame men out there, but they're not really standing in your way. Because the fact is -- if whatever you're doing right now was going to get you married, you'd already have a ring on it. So without further ado, let's look at the top six reasons why you're not married. 
1. You're a Bitch.Here's what I mean by bitch. I mean you're angry. You probably don't think you're angry. You think you're super smart, or if you've been to a lot of therapy, that you're setting boundaries. But the truth is you're pissed. At your mom. At the military-industrial complex. At Sarah Palin. And it's scaring men off.The deal is: most men just want to marry someone who is nice to them. I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here's what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn't think so. You've seen Kim Kardashian smile, wiggle, and make a sex tape. Female anger terrifies men. I know it seems unfair that you have to work around a man's fear and insecurity in order to get married -- but actually, it's perfect, since working around a man's fear and insecurity is big part of what you'll be doing as a wife. 
2. You're Shallow.When it comes to choosing a husband, only one thing really, truly matters: character. So it stands to reason that a man's character should be at the top of the list of things you are looking for, right? But if you're not married, I already know it isn't. Because if you were looking for a man of character, you would have found one by now. Men of character are, by definition, willing to commit.Instead, you are looking for someone tall. Or rich. Or someone who knows what an Eames chair is. Unfortunately, this is not the thinking of a wife. This is the thinking of a teenaged girl. And men of character do not want to marry teenaged girls. Because teenage girls are never happy. And they never feel like cooking, either. 
3. You're a Slut.Hooking up with some guy in a hot tub on a rooftop is fine for the ladies of Jersey Shore -- but they're not trying to get married. You are. Which means, unfortunately, that if you're having sex outside committed relationships, you will have to stop. Why? Because past a certain age, casual sex is like recreational heroin -- it doesn't stay recreational for long.That's due in part to this thing called oxytocin -- a bonding hormone that is released when a woman a) nurses her baby and B) has an orgasm -- that will totally mess up your casual-sex game. It's why you can be f**k-buddying with some dude who isn't even all that great and the next thing you know, you're totally strung out on him. And you have no idea how it happened. Oxytocin, that's how it happened. And since nature can't discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, you're going to have to start being way more selective than you are right now. 
4. You're a Liar. It usually goes something like this: you meet a guy who is cute and likes you, but he's not really available for a relationship. He has some condition that absolutely precludes his availability, like he's married, or he gets around town on a skateboard. Or maybe he just comes right out and says something cryptic and open to interpretation like, "I'm not really available for a relationship right now."You know if you tell him the truth -- that you're ready for marriage -- he will stop calling. Usually that day. And you don't want that. So you just tell him how perfect this is because you only want to have sex for fun! You love having fun sex! And you don't want to get in a relationship at all! You swear!About ten minutes later, the oxytocin kicks in. You start wanting more. But you don't tell him that. That's your secret -- just between you and 22,000 of your closest girlfriends. Instead, you hang around, having sex with him, waiting for him to figure out that he can't live without you. I have news: he will never "figure" this out. He already knows he can live without you just fine. And so do you. Or you wouldn't be lying to him in the first place. 
5. You're Selfish.If you're not married, chances are you think a lot about you. You think about your thighs, your outfits, your naso-labial folds. You think about your career, or if you don't have one, you think about doing yoga teacher training. Sometimes you think about how marrying a wealthy guy -- or at least a guy with a really, really good job -- would solve all your problems.
Howevs, a good wife, even a halfway decent one, does not spend most of her day thinking about herself. She has too much s**t to do, especially after having kids. This is why you see a lot of celebrity women getting husbands after they adopt. The kids put the woman on notice: Bitch, hello! It's not all about you anymore!After a year or two of thinking about someone other than herself, suddenly, Brad Pitt or Harrison Ford comes along and decides to significantly other her. Which is also to say -- if what you really want is a baby, go get you one. Your husband will be along shortly. Motherhood has a way of weeding out the lotharios. 
6. You're Not Good Enough.Oh, I don't think that. You do. I can tell because you're not looking for a partner who is your equal. No, you want someone better than you are: better looking, better family, better job.Here is what you need to know: You are enough right this minute. Period. Not understanding this is a major obstacle to getting married, since women who don't know their own worth make terrible wives. Why? You can fake it for a while, but ultimately you won't love your spouse any better than you love yourself. Smart men know this.I see this at my son's artsy, progressive school. Of 183 kids, maybe six have moms who are as cute as you're trying to be. They're attractive, sure. They're just not objects. Their husbands (wisely) chose them for their character, not their cup size. 
Alright, so that's the bad news. The good news is that I believe every woman who wants to can find a great partner. You're just going to need to get rid of the idea that marriage will make you happy. It won't. Once the initial high wears off, you'll just be you, except with twice as much laundry.Because ultimately, marriage is not about getting something -- it's about giving it. Strangely, men understand this more than we do. Probably because for them marriage involves sacrificing their most treasured possession -- a free-agent penis -- and for us, it's the culmination of a princess fantasy so universal, it built Disneyland.The bottom line is that marriage is just a long-term opportunity to practice loving someone even when they don't deserve it. Because most of the time, your messy, farting, macaroni-and-cheese eating man will not be doing what you want him to. But as you give him love anyway -- because you have made up your mind to transform yourself into a person who is practicing being kind, deep, virtuous, truthful, giving, and most of all, accepting of your own dear self -- you will find that you will experience the very thing you wanted all along:Love.Tracy McMillan


Bernard has his version on the truth as well..



The Chilly World of the Campus Male..

It should not be long before every campus will be like those same campuses in Sweden if men do not stand up and let it known that we have had enough of this level of sexism and discrimination.
No one wants to put their hand up to do something, anything about it. No one, not politicians, not educators, not students, nor anyone else and meanwhile we are heading towards that Swedish Model faster than we know. With no resistance, sooner it will appear..

October 24, 2011

The Chilly World of the Campus Male
                                 By Warren Farrell
male-college-students.jpgMales are keenly aware that when they go to college they are entering a hostile environment. Freshman orientation alone has had a distinctively anti-male cast for years: heavy emphasis on date rape, stalking, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual harassment amount to an unmistakable message that males are patriarchal oppressors and potential sex criminals. The lesson is quickly taught: only women are vulnerable, and men are the cause of their vulnerability. At one elite university, at least, the first thing a female freshman gets from the administration is a whistle to blow in the event that a rape-minded male accosts her. The freshman male is likely to acquire a new feeling about himself: he is the designated potential perpetrator until proven innocent.
This message will be reinforced by a barrage of gender courses, the attitudes of a good many faculty, and on many campuses, what Charlotte Allen calls “the scorched-earth war against fraternities.”  The anti-fraternity movement is ostensibly about wantonness and excess (binge-drinking, hazing, date rape), but in reality it’s about erasing the best-known male refuge from the suffocating political correctness on campus and its theory of the evil male.
The only males likely to escape this pressure are gays, African-Americans, the transgendered, or the harmlessly hetero—docile guys who agree with the standard campus view that males are dangerous. The campus environment is so hostile toward men that it doesn’t allow hostility toward men to be considered a “hostile environment.” Only established grievance groups get to detect hostile environments.
Professors in engineering and the hard sciences don’t speak out much about the politics of male-female issues. What we hear emanates strongly from departments of women’s and “gender” studies and is adapted by psychology; social work; sociology; anthropology; literature; schools of education; and the seminaries. At the prestigious universities, most of these departments are now 80% to 95% female.


Female Power
As a person who has taught in departments of women’s studies, psychology, political science and sociology in many universities (and the only man ever elected three times to the Board of the National Organization for Women in New York City), I can tell you that the core male-female message is: “we live in a patriarchal world in which men created laws to benefit men at the expense of women.” If our sons arrive on campus, they will inevitably be trying to date women who are exposed to and learning this negative attitude toward them.
“Gender” courses now study only liberal women’s view of women’s powerlessness, and liberal women’s perspective on male power. They don’t look at liberal or conservative men’s view of male powerlessness, or liberal or conservative men’s view of female power. Dissent is not tolerated and no administration will dare direct these closed courses to open up. It took twenty years for Boston College to do something about a rabidly anti-male professor who refused to allow males in her class.

As a result of the inattention to male powerlessness and female power, men are as ignorant about their own powerlessness and female power as women in the 1950’s were about their own powerlessness and male power. And as a result, men today are psychologically about where women were in the 1950’s. The last half century has not been a battle of the sexes, but a war in which only one side has shown up. Men have put their heads in the sand and hoped the bullets would miss.
When I did the research for my book, The Myth of Male Power, and began to articulate these thoughts in the university, I went from being a hero to unemployable by a top university.  One way to become similarly unemployable is to challenge the  misleading statistics on male and female pay. Many a social science class imparts the theme that “men earn more for the same work.” Students then have a choice: they can either think or not think. If they think, and say something like, “if men earned a dollar for each 80 cents women earned for the same work, who would hire a man?” and the gorgeous woman he is trying to attract looks at him like he’s a Neanderthal who just doesn’t “get it,” he’ll usually stop thinking.
On the other hand, he might continue thinking—or even do some research. When I did the research for Why Men Earn More I discovered, for example, that women who had never married and never had children earn 117% of what comparable males earn. Mentioning this will increase his potential for rejection—for being accused of “creating a hostile environment.”
When assumptions such as “history is men’s studies” and “the heterosexual white male is privileged” are mentioned in any class, the male will soon learn they are not statements open to intellectual investigation. If he were to make the mistake of bringing up the possibility that, throughout history, all societies that survived did so based on their ability to train their sons to be disposable (e.g., in war, or in work)—one of the themes I discovered to be common among cultures when researching The Myth of Male Power—he will not be admired for his thoughtfulness.
We have to bring back balance to male-female relations on campus. As long ago as the early 1990s, the now-dead magazine Lingua Franca was calling attention to the “chilly” attitude toward males on our campuses. Now it’s much worse, and we don’t know if the chill is a factor in the growing male aversion to higher education and the high male drop-out rate. But we do know that there are many ominous indictors. Here’s one: For the first time in American history, our sons will have less education than their fathers. When the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) studied the education attainment of sons compared to their dads in 31 countries, the U.S. ranked 31st.
Our colleges and universities can be justly proud of reaching out to women and improving their life prospects. Now they should do the same for men, and the first step will be to do something about the chilly anti-male culture they have allowed to spread on our campuses.
----------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Warren Farrell has been chosen by the Financial Times as one of the world’s top 100 thought leaders. His books are published in over 50 countries, and in 15 languages. They include two award-winning international best-sellers, Why Men Are The Way They Are plus The Myth of Male Power. Dr. Farrell is currently the Chair of the Commission to Create a White House Council on Boys to Men, and is co-authoring Boys to Men with John Gray.

The False Allegation Epidemic..


Dworkin and Wolf both Get it Wrong..


Andrea Dworking was wrong about porn, Naomi Wolf was wronger
November 24, 2011SEXUAL POLITICS

Dworkin got it wrong, Naomi Wolf got it wronger

Naomi Wolf’s 2002 article on the effects of porn, republished in the new Yorker’s online edition[1] got it partly right. Of course, all convincing falsehoods are salted with the truth. Wolf, like Dworkin before her, lamented in “The Porn Myth“-  the effects of freely available porn on society.
Starting from an ideological point of view she inherited from Dworkin, The Beauty Myth author stumbled only partly into a conceptual model of human behavior matching reality. This was despite an Ivy League Alma Mater at Oxford and Yale.
Dworkin predicted that access to porn would turn men into sex crazed beasts, based on her belief that men were subhuman. Wolf, by contrast, explained the failure of Dworkin’s prediction with the rationale that while still subhuman beasts, men’s lack of hyper-sexual aggression was due to porn’s supposed numbing of male sexual instinct. In this model, men were still subhuman. Despite its failure, the opposite of the predicted outcome was re-interpreted to conform to the standard feminist narrative.
Interestingly, this perfectly illustrates the difference between an ideology, in which facts are retooled to serve a doctrinal truth, and a philosophy, in which conclusions are drawn from observation, or data, or experience. Ideologies are immune to data, which is what makes them poisonous to civil societies.
Returning to Naomi Wolf and following her assumption that men are subhuman, the twisted logic of feminism is that because men are sex-obsessed beasts, real women can’t compete with the fantasy of porn.The poor, natural flesh and blood women of the real non-porn world are left bereft of affection or attention in a world where males are satiated by pixilated flesh. In Wolf’s own words “In the end, porn doesn’t whet men’s appetites—it turns them off the real thing.” She expands on this, to say:
“The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.”
This is a simple, black and white version of reality, consistent with the old feminist narrative of men bad, women good. It’s simple in the way children’s stories are simple. The truth requires an adult understanding of human behavior.
Rather than turning men off the real thing, ready access to porn provides an alternative to men (and women) in seeking sexual satisfaction. That’s it; an alternative. It’s not the deadener of sexual interest claimed by Wolf, and its also not the inflamer of runaway sexual aggression claimed by Dworkin, because… surprise! Men are human beings, not simply appetite driven brutes as Dworkin and Wolf’s feminist models of reality cling to.
So why have women, as Wolf claims, lost so much market value? If we are to listen to her, it’s because in the sexual arms race between real flesh and blood women – and the airbrushed, silicone enhanced shaved, shined and professional stage managed world of fantasy presented by porn, reality can’t compete. If sexual attraction were actually an arms race between humans and machines – then it wouldn’t be the evolutionary driver pushing living organisms to spam their environments with little copies of themselves. Wolf’s analysis of porn as a supplanter of real human contact fails because Naomi Wolf continues to assume men are not the fully realized humans that she obviously is,because she’s a woman.
Of course, the dogma that women are uniquely human, uniquely possessed of emotion and the ability to feel pain and so on is comfortable to a childish mind. The conceit of “I’m better than them” satisfies an immature ego, and so this unexamined dogma persists. Young, hip, progressive feminists in Sweden end elsewhere continue to cling to the solipsistic view of second wave feminists, taken directly from Solanas:
“Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female.“
Men’s constant failure to conform to this delusion provokes frustration and anger in those whose ideology informs the attempt to force conformity to their ideal, rather than accept reality. Faced by a decades of blame, anger, manipulation and shame for failing to conform to “man-as-defective-woman,” those men are, to state it mildly, weary of the ongoing abuse.
This climate of abuse cannot be understated – a fabricated cultural narrative of male supremacy and women’s oppression routinely derails useful discussion of human motivations, so a short list of examples is provided here for reference.
  • Men’s on the job death rate: 97%
  • Men’s shorter life expectancy [+- 5 years depending on country ]
  • Selective military service
  • Exclusion of consideration in ant-violence PSAs
  • Exclusion of protection of legal due process
  • Routine depiction in media as inferior humans
  • Discrimination by businesses catering to women only
  • Routine male-vilifying falsehood promoted by government
  • Routine male-vilifying falsehood promoted by charitable organizations
  • Promotion and endorsement of male-targeting rape by prison system
  • Treatment of male sexual victimization as comedy
  • Culture-wide prioritization of rescue resources away from men (women and children first)
  • Female dominance and affirmative action in education
  • School-endorsed hate rallies in major universities
  • Male targeting murder-advocacy
  • Male targeting eugenics advocacy
  • Anti-male hatred promoted openly by online communities
  • Mainstream television’s celebration of male-targeted sexual mutilation
  • Female cosmetics industry use of male infant mutilation in beauty products
  • Male-hatred promoted in mainstream clothing design (boys are stupid)
  • Cultural prohibition and eradication of male space in western society
  • Murder of male sexual nonconformism (gay bashing, gay murder)
  • Courts ignoring fathers and children in favor of mother’s convenience
  • Male reproductive responsibilities without rights
  • Debtors prison for only fathers
  • 90% of homeless are male / Female focused homeless aid
  • female-only health initiatives
These few items were typed quickly and represent a tiny sample, with no pretense of providing a comprehensive list. While increasingly disenfranchised, men continue to weather an escalating narrative of male censure, both from mainstream media and at a personal level. In almost any workplace environment men-are-stupid jokes have become common, and while such female censure is commonly grounds for hostile workplace litigation.
Piling onto the climate of open hostility, men who treat this as anything besides good natured humor are shamed, told to man up, get over it, and stop being so sensitive. Add to this the endless shit testing, lying, manipulation and game-playing that all women engage in with men. Not all women are like that? Okay, not all, only the vast majority. Oh, and by the way, if they’re real men, they’ll still pay for drinks, dinner, vacations, buy gifts and the list goes on.
And for Naomi Wolf, published author, political consultant, and Rhodes Scholar, the failure to grasp this without being spoon fed it is indictable.
According to Wolf :
“By the new millennium, a vagina, which, by the way, used to have a pretty high “exchange value,” as Marxist economists would say, wasn’t enough; it barely registered on the thrill scale.”
Wrong Naomi, dead wrong – and for somebody with your education and apparent awareness of the social landscape – I’m going to call this at least self-deception on your part. The problem is not the lack of shine and bounce of your fluffy bits in comparison to pixilated fantasy. It’s that the 50 year feedback loop of entitlement and unaccountability, and male facing blame and anger have rendered the selection of flesh over pixels an idiot’s choice.
It is the current and escalating social climate of false accusation, men-suck, women are smarter, better, more human than men that has cooked women’s market value. Borrowing once more from Naomi Wolf’s NYMag market economic argument, the product on offer is now dangerous, toxic, and unreliable.
Of course hardly anybody is going to tell women this unkind truth, because there’s no profit in telling overgrown, emotionally stunted children they need to get over themselves and grow up. Especially while all other commercial messaging saturates them with flattery. The universal message of “Women are better, women are stronger, women are more mature, women are goddesses,” is what sells diet pills, granola bars, lipstick and bikini wax. Personal accountability is a downright bummer compared to all that fake adulation.
Men are obviously still expected to compete for selection, while women select from competitors. That’s the built in behavioral wiring we share with almost all sexually differentiated life on the planet. And its not going to go away any time soon – no matter how hard radical re-inventors of reality try. That’s why in an economy re-developed along female-favoring lines, in which most of the economic recession lands on men, and where higher education has become so hostile – men are simply opting out. It’s also why women aren’t going to become the pursuers in romance. They’re not naturally wired for it. A few might, but only those few with the mental acumen to adapt. However, myths of women’s innate superiority aside, most people are by definition; average.
Men on the other hand, who’ve always had to negotiate risk as competitors for sexual selection are voting with their feet. In rare instances where women do take a sexual lead, the downright hostile and dangerous climate men are now inured to provokes another response. Female sexual initiative is as likely to be treated as ambush than regarded as well intended attraction. The abject failure to recognize this, by the way, somewhat diminishes the fiction of superior female perception or intelligence.
This explanation is not a wake up call to women, by the way. I have no intent of enlightening frustrated females that in the current economy of sex they should try demonstrating a personality, or a sense of humour, or disengagement from the “all men suck” ideology. I intend to provide women no such manual, even exposing such outline in the previous sentence. No. This would be a total waste of time, because to benefit from any such revelation, they’d first have to grow up. Accountability, self-responsibility and empathy for others are elements of an adult’s consciousness, that omitting a few, our culture does not foster in women. Saturated by a nearly universal mainstream narrative of entitlement and victimhood, several generations are unsalvageably locked into permanent mental childhood. Corporate control of our culture’s narrative provides no immediate profit in reversing this cultivated phenomenon. Children are easier to sell to.
Anti porn advocates will continue formulating and selling semi-coherent rationales for the banning and suppression of alternatives to the vagina racket. And as long as our culture continues to pretend men are the source of all evil, and that women are victims, despite feminism’s dominance, men having sexual options will continue to leave women in diminished romantic demand.
That’s why, Naomi, your vagina isn’t worth shit.
[1] http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

Written byJohn the Other


100 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

Exposing Feminism's Criminal Element..

Feminism's Criminal Element.

We are Watching Feminists and Waiting..
As John states in this video, plus as I have demonstrated and stated here repeatedly, feminism is hardly a benign, considerate or even remotely helpful movement as we have continually demonstrated. The "Spin Sisters" side of that extremist organisation is currently running rampant on the web, plotting and scheming their way through a program they want to introduce that will reduce the male population to 10%.

I have in my possession, copious examples, in the way of comments, discussions, site information, names of the perpetrators and plenty more information that will have you reeling in disbelief. It is akin to being present at conversations prior to Kosovo or Rwanda or that other cleansing method that was used over seventy years ago..
It was unthinkable at that time and it is unthinkable now. One does wonder what level of hate these women have introduced into society in order to plan it's destruction without so much as a second though to the survivors or the people affected. Demonstrating again that the feminist ideology is destructive to both sexes..

The whole issue has to be taken seriously for that reason and I will wait before exposing those rabid lunatics for a more opportune moment. A moment that will ensure maximum exposure plus one that the MSM can no longer ignore, copious copies have been circulated for this reason..



Natasha Walker has an Epiphany..


Natasha Walker has an Epiphany..

Natasha Walter
but I didn't realise there were so many people reading my journalism who felt so strongly and personally antagonistic towards feminism and female writers."
Here we have another naysayer like Laurie Penny (lying feminist and imitation journalist) who appears to be somewhat taken aback by people actually disliking the "F" word plus stating an aversion to it's enablers. It has always amazed me how feminists live so deep inside their own manufactured bubble that they are completely astounded to find out the bleeding obvious, when they finally surface in the real world. One does not have to state much these days on the web, in any article, in order to get the occasional lunatic, I have plenty of them in my trash bin, where they belong but I am hardly going to curl up in the corner and sulk just because someone has an ardent desire to demonstrate they have not taken their meds. It's life and it's the way it goes. Walk through any city and you will be confronted or you will witness their actions without fail. But with feminists, who are apparently a lot more sensitive than normal people, find their response to be closer to an apoplexy rather than taking the typical response of "so what", one expects that type of behaviour and it's not solely aimed at the femininastie movement but I can understand why it does. It is also for this reason why there is a delete button...

Meanwhile, editors of sites such as "the Guardian" are quite happy to erase any comments that are not feminist friendly in the fear that the general public may actually find out the truth. It's akin to Pravda of the old days, if it's feminism, it must be and has to be projected as being "good" for all..

In this day and age, the feminist experiment has affected a lot more people and by doing so, screwed up a lot more lives as members of both sexes line up to ensure feminists fully comprehend that unadulterated loathing people generally have against a doctrine that is not only experimental but has not even been studied or subjected to analysis or possible outcomes, never tested for it's detrimental effect against society, it is all just assumed. Yet the experiment continues, just like it did in Europe all those years back, complete with false promises and accompanied lies and misinformation. It's akin to some lunatic nation in the past who wanted to produce the perfect athlete and dosed them up with so many drugs that the outcome was nowhere near what they expected. Feminism on the other hand requires no drug, just a level of stupidity, ignorance and an ability to denounce one's normal human behaviour..

But onwards they trek and scream they do. Life according to them is just so unfair. Why are people not loving us as all, what we are really doing is totally changing their lives and restructuring their sex without any consideration to that outcome or even bothering to ask them if they wanted that in the first place. I mean, really, what is there not to like about a feminist ?

I will leave you to fill out the obvious response to the question but meanwhile, as feminist wallow in their own level of stupidity, they have gathered together and decided that it's only the poor "victim queens" who are being abused and denigrated. It's always about the "women" have you noticed, always. One would have to remind them that feminised manginas (male enablers for female supremacy) do actually have their own award, well here they do, but ofcourse that is not part on their mindset for as far as they are concerned, they really don't exist at all..