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

Another "women are not Violent" Example..

The lies that feminists tell always get exposed, one way or the other. It is akin to that saying "Sit on a river bank and watch the bodies of your enemies float by".
Feminist lies are those bodies and here we have an example on how much they lie about women not being violent..

This guys cannot even defend himself against this monster even if he had the guts to do it. He would be arrested and jailed. That they way it goes these days. Thanks to feminists like Harman and her male hating ilk..

 If this does not convince you, then I suggest you just bugger off and live your ignorant life somewhere else..

As reality just does not do it for you..



Men Need to Be More "Woman"..


Why would feminists as well as radical lesbian feminists, demand that men become more female..

Surely, when we have a look at the dysfunctional behaviour of female feminists and their penchant for minutiae management, one would wonder why any member of either sex would want men to behave like a woman..

The  argument is ofcourse absurd as it is not possible for a male to be a female and vice versa, for several reason.

1. Female's brains are connected differently, just in case you wanted that explanation.
2. Female's biology is sufficiently different from males, for it to be noticeable..
3. Females have always coerced men to take care of any issues they have with other men.
4. The obvious ignored factor about women is that they have a menstrual cycle which physically and emotively affects their purview to life from radical to minor. This is one issue feminists prefer to totally ignore and do so deliberately, cannot admit a flaw..
5. The female's world is based on responses and reactions. Their entire mental makeup is tuned to such a degree as to notice an imperceptible (to men) change in physiology in the person she is communicating with. Introducing a complete change in responses..
6. Females preferences for the now, the present and the past is directly opposite to men's long term and overall view.
7, Females demand for social interaction, where a male can easily be a hermit, naturally.
8. Females ongoing and endless demand for validation from their social circle and others in her contact cycle..
9. Females endless penchant to justify and blame others for her own bad or indifferent behaviour.
10. Females total indifference to anyone outside their own sex unless it is to her benefit..

A Male needs to be a female has got to the be the longest stretch anyone could possibly demand. How would a male work out how to automatically, emotionally, manipulate a partner if the physiological signatures cannot be identified. How could a male learn to manipulate when women use their vaginas as a bargaining tool to achieve their own selfish outcomes..

All those questions are not answered by feminists as they pursue a direct course to feminise males in  being "more female", under the guise that women somehow are not the obnoxious manipulators and controllers they deny them to be. Feminists own action belies that exact point..

The circus that is feminism totally ignores the fact that women are violent, abusive, manipulating specialists and have been for millennium and yet they want to introduce the blatant lie that women are or is, the superior being when in actual fact they do not match in intelligence, fitness, strength or honour and dignity, within a bulls roar of any male. As a matter of fact, honour and dignity are foreign to the majority of their sex..
Privilege, self promotion and narcism replaces any traits that would dignify that sex.

Even women will admit to be indifferent to their own sex and prefer the company of men as the difference is noticeable and wanted. Women are also very aware of the behaviour and abuse other women are capable of. This lesson can be learnt at the next sale..

SCUM Feminists, Go Viral..

Spread the word and make it go viral..


Helping the Agent Orange Files Go Viral

I have gathered, for your convenience, some contact information that will help in spreading the word about the Radgate Wikileaks. First, here are the top ten newspapers in the USA, by circulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation

Before discovering the resource linked above, I had gotten specific addresses, firstly for the New York Times. . .
executive-editor@nytimes.com
nytnews@nytimes.com
publisher@nytimes.com

. . . and secondly for the Washington Post:
postnow@washpost.com


All right, here is a list of hundreds of newspapers in Australia:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/australi.htm

And some Newspapers in New Zealand:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/nz.htm

Newspapers in Canada:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/canada.html

Newspapers in the U.K.:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/uk.html

Newspapers in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India#English_language


I guess it doesn't hurt to let politicians hear about this. That way, they can't pretend they don't know. First how to get ahold ofgovernment critters in the USA:

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

And now, MPs in the UK:
http://www.parliament.uk/

MPs in Canada:
http://www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html

MPs in Australia:
http://australia.gov.au/directories/contact-parliament

MPs in New Zealand:
www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/GetInvolved/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm

MPs in India:
http://www.indiademocracy.org/index.php/electedofficials/stateList/type/MP


Now, here are some well-known journalistic entities that I looked up -- and I was not over-particular about political orientation, in case anybody is wondering. What counted was, that I thought these individuals were potential megaphones. Yes...publicity is good!


Matt Drudge:
http://drudgereport.com/
(Use the contact form at lower right, where it says "send news tips...".)


Phyllis Schlafly:
eagle@eagleforum.org


Michelle Malkin: 
writemalkin@gmail.com
(Note: Michelle says, "if you have a news tip, put TIP in the subject line".)


Rush Limbaugh: 
ElRushbo@EIBnet.com


Glenn Beck:
me@glennbeck.com
Glenn Beck himself.

stu@glennbeck.com
Exec producer and head writer for Glenn Beck.


All right, remember that publicity is good, and also that redundancy is the meat of the matter. So if these entities get plenty of mail on the same subject, it will boost the odds of them taking it seriously.

The New Empowered Woman..







Feminist Dictionary..


  


Feminist Dictionary

Men seeking equal treatment = “backlash“
Women seeking equal treatment = “feminism“
Discrimination against men = “equal opportunity“
Discrimination against women = “discrimination“
A woman with grievances = “victim“
A man with grievances = “angry“
Open discussion of gender issues = “misogyny“
Men looking for equal treatment in the courts = “abuse“
Consensual sex between a man and woman = “rape“
Heated discussion between a man and woman = “domestic violence“
Women receiving preferential treatment/privileges = “equality“
A numeric majority of the human species = “minority“
Any woman = “victim“
Any man = “oppressor“
Any child = “property“
A woman talking about hating men = “empowerment“
A man talking about hating women = “hate speech“
A sexually predatory woman dressed like a hooker = “liberation“
A man with any interest in sex = “rapist“
A woman who wants to be with her children = “mother“
A man who wants to be with his children = “abuser“
A woman who forces children under her care/authority into sex = “the child was lucky“
A man who forces children under his care/authority into sex = “pedophile“




A shelter providing emergency services to abused women = “women’s shelter“
A shelter providing any services to abused men = “prison“
Female genital mutilation = “sexual repression“
Male genital mutilation = “acceptable custom that protects women from HIV“
A man assaulting a women = “(domestic) violence“
A woman assaulting a man = “humor“
A man who beats his female partner = “batterer“
A woman who beats her male partner = “victim“
A disposable slave = “man“
A human being = “woman“
Hating women = “a crime“
Hating men = “‘a viable political act’“
Distorting or lying about reality = “feminist analysis“
Biology = “lies“
Reality = “discrimination“
Any power a man has = “patriarchy“
Any power a woman has = “empowerment“
Pornography pleasing to lesbians = “erotica“
Pornography pleasing to men = “exploitation and degradation of women“
Person who says feminists are wrong = “hate criminal“
Woman-firster and advocator of any measure against men = “feminist“
Patriarchy = “bad“
Matriarchy = “good“
Male leader = “backwards“
Female leader = “improvement“




Pro-lesbianism and female, anti-male = “feminist ideology“
Same standards, honest competition = “unfair“
Female sexuality = “nurturing“
Male sexuality = “objectifying“
Female virgin = “pure“
Male virgin = “pathetic“
Female modesty = “noble“
Male modesty = “creepy“
Pandering to male audiences = “sexism“
Pandering to female audiences = “fulfilling a niche“
Women standing up for themselves = “empowerment“
Men standing up for themselves = “chauvinism“
Woman proud of her appearance = “confident“
Man proud of his appearance = “vain“
Innate female advantages = “complementary“
Innate male advantages = “sexist“
Women’s space = “safe haven“
Men’s space = “patriarchal breeding ground“
Women discussing their issues = “ therapeutic“
Men discussing their issues = “whining“
Female intellect = “pioneering“
Male intellect = “masturbatory“
Man obeying a women = “respect“
Women obeying a man = “slavery“
Men being sexually critical = “shallow“
Women being sexually critical = “having standards“
Female rage = “indignation“
Male rage = “insecurity“
Male abuse of power = “direct consequence of patriarchy“
Female abuse of power = “indirect consequence of patriarchy“
Unemployed woman = “homemaker“
Unemployed man = “loser“
Female indulgence = “happiness“
Male indulgence = “selfishness”

H/t Rajesh V.

The End of Year "Report Card"..

The end of year school report card is not looking too healthy as we investigate some of feminism's efforts and claims, that bites them right where it hurts, the bank account, dignity, culpability and accountability for their effort..

Originally made by those seriously corrupted and self inflicting, non-emolience hegemony's claims are placed under the microscope of reality..

1. "Don't need no man", this statement ran lyrical with the lesbian feminists as it just states the obvious. Noting how lesbians cater to each others penchant for BDSM, plus other pain inducing activities, finding a partner of the opposite sex to join in their arrangements,  was deemed impossible.
Ofcourse the rest of the population just ignored their irrelevant rantings and went on their merry way and left them with some explaining to do, while abuse workshops were compulsory attended in the hope they might forget to administer their usual caring and sharing mentality..

Mark 0 out of 10

Misandric Queen Dowd..
2. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" really belongs with the above comment as it was meant to be as offensive as a similar comment made by Maureen Dowd's myopic piece of misandry named tome "are men necessary". The answer was too slow in coming for Dowd as she started complaining about not having anyone to date under the guise that "men don't like strong women", the standard dysfunctional response from any female who has problems finding a companion. Dowd ofcourse would have that same issue as feminists like herself do, they are about as interesting as drinking the last week's bathwater but Dowd doesn't know how to change from just being a mean spirited bitch. Feminism has that affect on the opposite sex as one has to make room for all those chips on their shoulders..

Mark -1 out of 10

3. 'A woman would never lie about rape", whoa, I may just let you read that again and wonder how anyone could be stupid enough to allow the brain to force that comment to verbally escape the orifice. Needless to say that it has kept copious people employed, proving beyond doubt that feminists do actually escape from their other dimension and expose to the world their very own self improved version of waxing nonsensically, lyrical..

Mark 0 out of 10

4. "A woman can do anything a man can" except participate on a level playing field. Better add to that a copious amount of other facts as well. Sadly, in their effort to compete with men, women have lost their own identity and now wonder why misery and loneliness makes up their ever increasing, privileged lifestyles. After changing everything possible in the work place, demanding equal pay for less work and effort, ensuring automatic promotion when not warranted, lowering every possible standard in order to"compete" with men. We have the final admittance that their life sucks and now refuse to join in on the fun of being a wage slave. Their burnout rate is now set at thirty, that picket fence and those rugrats that feminists screamed at them to not want, occupies them more then ever. Meanwhile the guys are standing back, sipping their beer and going, mmmmm, let me think about it!!

Mark 1 out of 10

6. "Takes a village to raise a child", those famous words were rabbited by marxist, feminist puppeteer, Hillary Clinton, claiming ofcourse that old marxist maxim of not needing a family and better yet, no Father. Unfortunately too many incarcerated, drug addicted, gang members were drawing on their non-filtered gunge-sticks while pregnant, to realise what it was they were saying. But 51 percent of the female breeding population thought it was a great idea as it guaranteed copious government largesse and automatic withdrawals from someone else's ATM and credit card. That should have worked well except they were spending way too many hours in the company of their spawn and ensured the abuse rate increased exponentially and thereby winning the competition, if there was ever one..

Mark 0 out of 10

7.  "Women are not sex object" would have to be the most confusing statement ever made. One has to wonder whether or not they are just having a joke at our expense. It's a bit like the "slutwalk" mentality where dressing up as a slut would not set any precedence, traipsing around flashing boobs and skin is apparently meaningless, dressing in fashionable clothing along with makeup, perfume, Victorias little secret accessories, does not enter that argument at all. Behaving in any fashion without responsibility or accountability was demanded to be standard practise. But entering an elevator and breathing the same air or looking more than one third of a second too long, must be deemed to be abuse. New accessories will have to be stopwatches with microsecond measurements..

Mark 0 out of 10
Total = Nada..

Women Are Aggressors : Deny, Deny, Deny..


I could wax lyrical on this subject for the rest of the year and not have to repeat one single item, study or article.


Women Are Aggressors in Household Violence Too

It is a know fact to everyone except those ignorant feminists who choose to ignore that issue as they pursue the "All Women are Victims" mantra. A subject that does appear to be a losing reality as more and more studies and facts hit the public arena. Those of you who have witnessed female violence at home or when out and about (Nightclubs etc.) already know the truth of it. The feminist hegemony is saturated with lesbian feminists, they too would be well aware of the fact that lesbians (they would be females too, I am thinking) smack the bejesus out of each other even more than heterosexual couples do, and that's a fact as well..
The notion among feminists, lesbians - among women in general - is that this is a male problem. It's part of an older lesbian-feminist paradigm which says most of the problems in the world come from men and if we could isolate ourselves from them, then things would be kind of idyllic. It's not true. But people in lesbian communities don't want to talk about that publicly. It's like airing dirty laundry. Source: Ros Davidson, " Gay-on-Gay Violence: The gay community's dirty secret - domestic violence - is finally coming out of the closet," Salon Magazine, February 27, 1997.
Feminists destroy anti-abortion protest..

But they keep promoting the lies and misinformation like there are still people around who are stupid enough to believe their biased erroneous claims..

The interesting part about the article is the responses as that particular article makes some spurious claims as female journalists do, like 
"Perhaps it began with early female action figures. Perhaps with "Charlie's Angels." Or maybe with scores of elementary girls playing soccer, or with older girls playing contact sports at elite levels."
Erm, NO. It is not like females have all of a sudden become abusive, they have been abusive all along. It is recognised more as MRAs have continually demonstrated and exposed, unquestionable facts. But it's not the part of reality that feminists and female journalists want to highlight, they prefer to bury it under the carpet and live in denial as they have done all along..
Most likely we will never know exactly how or when it became okay to talk about female aggression--female-to-female aggression and female-to-male aggression. Whatever its origins, this new narrative is challenging the once omnipresent scenario of the male violent aggressor–passive female victim scenario. It is now increasingly acceptable to talk openly about female aggression and to conduct serious research on this topic.
So realisation has finally surfaced and the truth must now be stated..
We now know that women-on-women aggression is far from rare and that women are often the initiators of male-female aggression. Surveys of U.S. households have found rates of wife-to-husband violence "remarkably similar" to those of husband-to-wife violence. And an early cross-cultural survey did not find that men were significantly more aggressive than women.
 So we have the responses to the article, laying out the truth -


Submitted by gwallan 
What saddens me is the aggressive rejection experienced by victims whose only crime is being the wrong gender or, even more pitifully, being abused by somebody of the wrong gender. What clinically depresses me is victims being called liars and/or laughed at by services promising to help victims. What angers me is the ongoing parade of female sexual abusers being treated as a victim and NEVER punished. What makes me borderline murderous is the woman who rapes a twelve year old boy and then gets child support from her victim with the help of government agencies and lawyers.
I hope you and others enjoy your political and legal shenanigans way up there in your air conditioned ergonomic offices. I get to see and deal with the real casualties and it is not pretty. We're sick to death of the lies. We're sick to death of gender political doctrine erasing victims from view. Look inside yourself critically for a change. If your allegiances to women are what drives you rather than concern for all victims then get the h*ll away from ANYTHING to do with victims. Every lie you allow inevitably hurts another victim somewhere.
"Blaming women is such a cottage industry I guess it's hard not to make money on it when we can."
This did the trick though. Eusticia must be weeping at the cynicism done in her name.



Submitted by fondueguy 

" Women could surely find ways to actually physically harm their male partner, but, do not"
This dialogue is simply false.
According to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10989615/
women are only somewhat more likely to be injured, and constitute 62% of those injured in dv.
It is strange to see you to juggle the idea of women being weak/helpless while at the same time realizing that women are not incapable idiots. Surely you can put two and two together, and see that the since women are capable of hurting a man, and some of them are aggressive, that some women will injure men by means of surprise, weapons, drugs, or sleep.
And I hope you do not seriously mean to say that hitting someone without injuring them is not damaging. Not only is that bad in and of itself, but it can lead to escalation and it will damage the children who see it.
You only help men and women by being honest about the problem and stopping the cycle.

The other interesting issue is, as Kim Kardashian demonstrates, if a male were to hat a female as hard as she does to him, I would imagine the end result being different as well. It comes down to the bulk and strength issue. Most women have a problems squatting lies and therefore are seen to be weaklings. They would be in the minority as not all are fawning doves but that's the image they preserve and protect for self preservation..

They were responding to this usual bit of misandry. It is part of large response but one does not have to guess which hegemony she comes from..
Submitted by Janet Women could surely find ways to actually physically harm their male partner, but, do not,..

Tom Martin, London School of Economics and Male Hating..

Anyone alive and breathing, having an IQ larger than a single digit would be well aware of the fact, and it is an obvious fact, that "Woman's Studies" and now changed "Gender Studies" is nothing more than pursuing the same outcome as the Swedish example has already demonstrated, what the feminist aim is all about. Gender Studies was introduced by the male haters in order to get away with the continual slanging of the male sex.
Feminists are blameless, always..
Gender hating is it's aim and it only applies to anyone with a penis. Women are ofcourse exempt, as far as feminists are concerned, they do absolutely no wrong. The obvious sexism, male hate and anti male discrimination is clearly demonstrated and it's time they were exposed to doing precisely that. All we need now is an impartial judge, hopefully not some feminised lackey, as has been demonstrated in the past. We need a judge who will demonstrate that the law is all inclusive and not just there to favour women or feminism. Feminists have forced a clear cut hate swathe across society, just to promote a doctrine that has neither been proven, tested or demonstrated to help society in any way, shape or form. The experiment has to go and reality reintroduced..


Tom Martin vs LSE court date set

PRESS RELEASE: December 5th, 2011

Court date for man’s £50,000 lawsuit against ‘male-blaming’ gender studies degrees at LSE

(AVfM News)A former student of the London School of Economics (LSE), who has filed a lawsuit claiming all five of its gender studies Masters degrees “exaggerate women’s issues and recommend blaming men to justify ignoring men’s issues,” will make his case at the Central London County Court, a hearing date now set for February 14th, 2012. As reported by The Evening Standard , The Guardian (here and here),Forbes Magazine, The West End Extra, A Voice for Men, Men’s Matters, and dozens of blogs and vlogs, Tom Martin’s case has garnered a lot of public support, his legal fund receiving £3055 in donations from ninety people in eight countries to date, but Martin says he now needs more donations, “Clerical errors by the court have caused a three month delay, so I now need a few thousand pounds more to continue devoting all my time in preparation for winning the case.”
Director of LSE’s Gender Institute, Dr Anne Phillips, told LSE’s student union newspaper The Beaver, “I find it almost surreal when [LSE's] Gender Institute is portrayed as representing ‘women good, men bad,” but Martin’s website documents his method and analysis of texts in the opening compulsory unit for all gender degrees at LSE as evidence of “systematic male-blaming bias,” and argues the contract students enter explicitly rules out sex-discriminatory learning materials. LSE’s defense now argues key texts are not compulsory learning materials, only “recommended.” Martin claims key texts are indeed compulsory, that students are explicitly told to read them in preparation for further discussion in seminars.
LSE also argue texts are available for both women and men to read so therefore do not directly discriminate. Further, they argue a focus on women in gender studies is expected, claiming any bias or discrimination against men “plainly justifiable.” Martin says the prospectus did not warn of any discrimination or bias, nor seek to justify it.
In a 2011 book (p10), Dr Clare Hemmings, senior gender lecturer at LSE, admits when “women’s studies” became “gender studies” programs, it signalled a rejection of biased, exaggerated female victim-hood perspectives in favour of greater inclusion, accuracy, and fairness for the field, but that subsequently, nothing changed. In 2008, Hemmings wrote that replacing the prefix “women’s” with “gender” was a good way to ensure continued public funding and support.
Another of LSE’s key gender texts recommends ignoring men’s studies in favour of “Critical Studies on Men (CSM).” According to various reports, many educational programs around the world are similarly critical, from kindergarden up. Research shows negative stereotypes on men effect focus, performance, and health. With 59% of university degrees going to women and 41% to men, and the gap widening, Martin hopes his lawsuit will encourage educators to improve their stories. He appears in a Youtube exposé, finding some LSE students justify bias against men, by citing discrimination issues they say women face, one student exclaiming “There’s no discrimination against men!” her outburst replayed in slow motion then freezing as a 160 item A to Z list of discrimination issues scrolls by.
Commenting on the February 14th court hearing date, Martin says “I think LSE’s Gender Institute is planning an extra special Valentine’s Day massacre for men’s issues as usual, but people would prefer to see these gender studies industry representatives publicly renew their vows to gender equality, and make a serious effort to pick up the £50,000 tab, too – loose change for LSE maybe, but not for the more than 900 other gender studies and women’s studies departments worldwide who can avoid similar payouts by dropping the man-hatred, and incorporating men’s equality debates without further deceit, delay, or excuse. Gender-developmental progress is much more attainable when considering both women’s and men’s issues. Equality is a two way street.”
The university’s press office can be contacted here. Tom Martin can be contacted here.

Update..


Tom Martin

Thanks PHX MRA – I can tell you, I could do with both money, and other kinds of support too.
I want to be able to get out there and do one more video before the court hearing, so any camera operator/editors in London who don’t mind working for free, please email me.
Any law students with an interest in discrimination/contract/education law who would like to offer their advise and support can do so too. In the county court, I am entitled to have an adviser with me, who need not be a qualified lawyer. Although I have represented myself when filing the legal papers, and plan to do that in court too, I am open to pro bono representation from any qualified individual who wants this opportunity to make a name for themselves with this high-profile case.
But most of all, I do need further donations. People probably don’t realize, to bring a discrimination case, takes reference to an average of 25 law books.
My case is potentially even more complicated, because it incorporates contract law, advertising law, and education law too.
It is extremely time-consuming and labour-intensive, and I want to be able to afford to focus 100% of my efforts on the case – hence the appeal for more money.

Scandinavia and the Feminist Miasma..

Sweden has probably been the best example of feminist governance and how obnoxious, sexist as well as discriminatory it can get. The blatant and obvious male hate generated by those lesbian feminists who have been imported to institute anti-male legislation for the Swedish/Scandinavian governments, has been unchallenged. One can guarantee the most rabid laws to be generated by those rabid feminist women as they have no issues whatsoever regarding equality, neither pretend that to be the case as well, it's female supremacy, period. What surprises me is the obvious lack of resistance from the males in those countries. What the hell are they doing apart from sitting on their hands and taking it full frontal..

Northern Europe: The Ideological Front Line?

by W.F. Price
Post image for Northern Europe: The Ideological Front Line?

The critical response to my article on Anglo Feminism, which suggested that feminism is nastier in Anglo societies than Scandinavia, was pleasantly instructive. Although I was aware that there was some dissent against the state feminism of Northern Europe, I did not know that it was so strongly felt. More importantly, I didn’t realize that feminism was such a crucial component of state ideology.
The picture that is emerging is one of a bureaucratically-entrenched soft totalitarianism in Scandinavia, as compared to a more lawless, rapacious and violent form of feminism in Anglo countries. Perhaps this is because in Scandinavia the state has been more successful in efforts to socialize feminism, thereby drawing support from society at large, whereas in the Anglosphere the burden falls most heavily on individual men who have exposed themselves to the risk of marriage or cohabitation.
Whatever the reasons, according to Henry Laasanen and other Finnish commenters, with a few exceptions, dissent against feminism is notably absent from the mainstream Scandinavian discourse.
Henry Laasanen:
In the USA you may grind teeth with radical “feminazi” writings. We have no feminazis (maybe one or two), which is – paradoxically – a catastrophe for the Finnish MRM: there are no critical discussions of equlity in the media, only feminist propaganda.
[...]
There are no feminist blogs (one inactive) or feminist columnists (other than official propaganda) in Finland. In the British newspapers Guardian and Daily Mail there are gender debates every week – we have no gender debates, because feminism holds the absolute “truth”.
Vortac:
…I think Finland is one of the world’s hardest countries to talk about men’s rights. In USA, it seems to be much easier, because there are so many more people, which means there are so many more MRA’s, and there is so much variance with all kinds of different states, different environments from mountainy places to plains and many things inbetween, that even men’s rights can be discussed seriously. Even when there is the expected ridicule, there are more people to rise against the ridicules, and challenge their viewpoints. In the little Finland, it’s a very difficult thing to do, and the consequences are less challenged – especially in the ‘real life’.
Finndistan, an (American?) expat living in Finland:
As a foreigner in Finland, following the finnish news in english, the media attack is impossible to avoid.
Articles on how the recession forces women back into the kitchen, articles on comparing all women and all men’s salaries not divided by occupation etc, articles on how men have more free time when the data clearly showed that men work more (from a survey spanning the ages 10-65), the president saying that the real victims of war and conflict are women and children, etc… In a small country, in the main news outlet, when these kinds of articles appear multiple times a week, its can get overwhelming, and with what Henri says, the consensus politics, it is impossible to show people that “Look, the survey showed men worked more. It is in the data”. Talking to a brick wall gets more response.
The atmosphere described in the above comments sounds like what one might find in an American gender studies classroom, but nowhere else. Family court may be hell for men in the US, but for the most part people have stopped cooking up ideological justifications to defend the strong-arm robbery that passes for “justice” in our courthouses. Instead, they simply say something like “bend over and take it like a man.” However, this is recent development, so perhaps Scandinavia is simply a few steps behind in this regard.
Because Scandinavia has traditionally been the testing ground for progressive policies, its societies have had a disproportionate impact on the Western world’s political discourse. This suggests that if men’s rights advocates gain some political traction in the Nordic nations, it could significantly raise the profile of the movement throughout the West.
Despite the awful political climate for MRAs in Finland, it looks as though there’s actually a lot of potential there. The frustration is palpable, and the thing about a consensus, we humans being what we are, is that it is made to be broken. Paradoxically, one of the advantages we Americans have in regards to speaking out about these issues is that so many of us men have very little to lose. When you’ve already been destroyed by your ex, denounced as an “abuser” or “monster,” and had your children and property seized, what more can they do?
Although it may not be that bad in Finland now, if the feminists continue to get their way, it will get worse. If I were a Finn, this is something I’d tell my fellow men. Point out how American law metastasized in the 90s with the passage of VAWA and the unholy feminist/conservative alliance. Stress the need to fight feminism before it takes things that far. I’m sure plenty of Anglo men would be willing to tell their own personal horror stories to Finnish MRAs, who could use them as an example of what feminism has the potential to do.
Given the remarkably strong position feminism has in Scandinavia, it looks like the perfect place to take a stand against the ideology which, despite its claims, is supremacist rather than egalitarian. In fact, this may be the single best argument for the egalitarian Scandinavians: feminism ultimately leads to a society that is anything but just and equal. Through its pursuit of radical equality of outcome, it undermines legal equality, and eventually will replace rule of law with rule by law, which would erase the distinction between Scandinavia and its eastern neighbors, and thereby destroy the distinct civilization of the North.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

How the Rape Culture Backfired in the Army..


In order to fit more women into the armed forces, many changes had to be made to include as many princesses as possible. This included reducing fitness standards, creating a baby sitting service and ofcourse, finding ways of promoting them for any perceived reason they could. Many examples of this disastrous methodology is there for all to see. Many personal accounts can be found on the net where former commanders and nco's, quite rightly, point out the ridiculous favouritism granted to all women in the armed forces, they are automatically given preferential treatment to ensure they breeze their way through while at the same time, they promote women as the new "Amazons" of the military. 
Remember Jessica Lynch, how the Army promoted that farce for no others reason then to promote how successfully the girls were adapting in the services, what major heroes they really are. The entire story was a sham from beginning to end, so inflated to be beyond a joke and the best part was when Lynch herself declared that it was just a bigger farce then originally imagined, created by those feminised cretins who find it impossible to tell any level of truth,  whenever there is any possibility of promoting the feminist cause..

Counting the body bags arriving home from war zones indicates that those amazons are staying in their comfort zones, if they don't get themselves pregnant first. The rise in pregnancy rates for female soldiers before Iraq and Afghanistan rose by 49% (stats on this blog), conveniently..  

Rape Culture Backfires

by Archivist
Guest op-ed by blogger Elusive Wapiti:

In this even-handed and balanced news article, we can see that rape culture does indeed generate sufficient political pressure to do something, anything, about rape. But what price appearances for politics sake? For in the end, rape culture of this sort harms the real, genuine victims and manufactures more victims by obscuring the relationship between risky behaviors and sexual assault, all while wasting scarce resources and unjustifiably branding men with the scarlet "R":
McClatchy's review of nearly 4,000 sexual assault allegations demonstrates that the military has taken a more aggressive stance. Last year, military commanders sent about 70 percent more cases to courts-martial that started as rape or aggravated sexual-assault allegations than they did in 2009.

However, only 27 percent of the defendants were convicted of those offenses or other serious crimes in 2009 and 2010, McClatchy found after reviewing the cases detailed in the Defense Department's annual sexual assault reports. When factoring in convictions for lesser offenses - such as adultery, which is illegal in the military, or perjury - about half the cases ended in convictions.

The military's conviction rate for all crimes is more than 90 percent, according to a 2010 report to Congress by the Pentagon.
. . . .
Making acquittals even more likely, the military is prosecuting more contested cases under a controversial law that broadens the definition of sexual assault. Under the 2006 law, the military can argue that a victim was sexually assaulted because she was "substantially incapacitated" from excessive drinking and couldn't have consented.
. . . .
"There is a pressure to prosecute, prosecute, prosecute. When you get one that's actually real, there's a lot of skepticism. You hear it routinely: 'Is this a rape case or is this a Navy rape case?'"
Analyzing the numbers in the graphic at the top of the linked article suggests that the tens of millions spent on forcibly implanting a rape culture in the Defense Department hasn't appreciably changed the data much, at least when compared with the civilian sector. According to the data presented, an individual rape and/or sexual assault accusation will result in a courtroom conviction 7% of the time. Including those who resign or accept discharges in lieu of a trial boosts "conviction rates" to almost 10%. Which, incidentally, is the going conviction rate for an individual rape/sexual assault allegation in the UK (could not find reliable figures for the US).

Now it is true that those accused can accept non-judicial punishment in lieu of a court-martial, and that option does muddy the analysis a bit, for we do not know if those fellows were punished non-judicially for rape/sexual assault or some other infraction surrounding the accusation. It would also seem to me that if the government had any kind of a case, in the face of all that rape culture pressure to prosecute, that the government would not offer or accept offers of non-judicial punishment in lieu of court-martial.

So I wonder: is inculcating a rape culture in DoD worth all that extra money, unneeded aggravation and decreased morale, additional broken women, more unfairly tarred men, and no appreciable change in the conviction rates? If not, then why bother?

Mothers: The Illegal GateKeepers..

Endless blame has been placed on Fathers while mother's questionable behaviour is totally ignored. Obama, Cameron, as well as a few other "leaders" never waste any time castigating Fathers for not being involved with their children but what they fail to comprehend and mention is the fact that Fathers have to circumnavigate the GateKeeper. That relentless and unending battle one has with the one who has sworn to love and cherish, that only applies when it's to her advantage, something has to be in it for HER, otherwise forget it..
Countless Fathers, after divorce, have to contend with the ever avenging women that chose to end the marriage, who in most cases has deserted her vowels at the behest of her "girlfriends", with her never ending complaints about how she feels and how everybody and everything else has to fall into place according to her mindset. Fathers face relentless obstacles after divorce when it comes to seeing or visiting his own children. Those children would not even exist if it were not for the Father..

Somehow, that is all forgotten and discarded and the "woman" decides, regardless of court notices, what she wants to do and the main parent can go to hell or fall into line with her wishes or loose out. Charming human beings, those mothers..
  The unspoken truth about fatherlessness is that in most cases a woman chose to remove the father from his children’s lives. Fatherlessness is not, when it comes down to it, about a problem with men, but rather a problem with women. There may be some men who willingly abandon their children, but these are a small minority compared to those who have been disposed of by the mother.
Demanding that a woman be accountable for her actions is unheard of in today's society. One can take court action against the mother to stop her from denying access to your children or to stop her alienating your children against you, only to find out that the courts are so biased as to just ignore any lawbreaking undertaken by those uncaring and vengeful culprits. Do the courts follow up on their actions. Only if the actions are against the Father, mothers have a free hand to do whatever she wants..
The entire system sucks to high heaven and it's the mothers flaunting the laws and stopping Fathers from doing what they do best, caring for his own children, which in reality is the real issue at hand..

So what is wrong with women ?
No accountability, they can and do whatever they like, whether illegal or not, appears to have no significance to the story. It's all about her and it has always been. Only now that has been put into law..
Our society needs to stop asking “what’s wrong with men?” and start inquiring into what’s gone wrong with women. Fatherlessness is a major crisis in our civilization, and the blame for it lies almost entirely at the feet of our women.
My Daddy..
Women being held accountable is not part of the feminist agenda, treating them like children is. This is ofcourse reflected quite clearly in the ever increasing laws instituted under the false claim of "for the  children". Under this guise they have found copious methods to introduce anti-father laws and automatically donate the prize, the kids, to the gatekeeper, to their detriment..


Absent Fathers — Whose Fault?

by W.F. PRICE on DECEMBER 3, 2011
Having just finished up a parenting plan for my kids’ relocation, I’m feeling pretty drained. The process is slow, painful, expensive, emotionally draining and time-consuming. As a father, it was almost entirely up to me to put the effort into keeping my time with my children. In Washington state, there is a “presumption” that the custodial parent (i.e. the mother) can have her way, and whatever parenting plan she submits upon a relocation, even one that removes the father entirely from the children’s lives, becomes law if the father does not oppose it within 30 days. Previous custody agreements are irrelevant.
This law gives women the ability to erase fathers from their children’s lives as easily as submitting a new parenting plan and moving to the next school district. If the father is too poor or too busy to show up and fight it in court, he’s out of luck. If he already lives elsewhere, he’s pretty much screwed. And even if he can fight it the first time, the mother can simply repeat the process until he gives up.
For all the talk of progress in father’s rights and equality, the brutal reality is that a determined woman can still remove her children from their father’s life simply with some persistence and knowledge of the law. Men have the option to fight it, but realistically speaking, most men don’t have the means. The typical separation and/or divorce happen when both parents are young. All the young single mothers clogging up the hookup/dating sites are clear evidence of how common this is. In most cases, they left their children’s father; they were not abandoned.
Young men in particular, especially these days, do not generally have the wherewithal to fight for their children, and I’ve learned from personal experience that if you don’t fight for them you will lose them. I count myself one of the lucky ones. I was tenacious, and would have been no matter what the circumstances, but friends and family, which I have an abundance of here in my hometown, were essential to my ability to persevere. I really feel for young men without this advantage — there’s often nothing they can do. This is why I will always give the benefit of the doubt to men who are estranged from their children.
And yet we still have politicians, pundits and producers bemoaning the plight of the poor, abandoned single mother and fatherless child, pointing the finger of blame at men, despite the fact that women are given options all along the way. They have the option to leave their children’s father, they have the option to continue to demand support from him, and they have the option to cut him off from his children. Not one of these options results in a penalty, so a great many women pursue them.
The unspoken truth about fatherlessness is that in most cases a woman chose to remove the father from his children’s lives. Fatherlessness is not, when it comes down to it, about a problem with men, but rather a problem with women. There may be some men who willingly abandon their children, but these are a small minority compared to those who have been disposed of by the mother.
Our society needs to stop asking “what’s wrong with men?” and start inquiring into what’s gone wrong with women. Fatherlessness is a major crisis in our civilization, and the blame for it lies almost entirely at the feet of our women.




Another Day, Another Delusion Erased..

What can one say when you witness another guy being screwed by another American toxic female. Que sera sera. It would appear to be an endless learning process that guys will have to go through. To the members of the all knowing MM and MRAs, this experience is called "Taking The Red Pill", this particular type of medication does not bode well with ignorance or the refusal to accept the bleeding inevitable..
Modern Women are intoxicated with feminism.
One has to learn quite a few things in life and one of the hardest education you will endure is when some female rips out your heart, tosses it into the garbage disposal unit and just wanders off into another relationship, just like she would change her underwear. This toxic female is alive and well in America, especially trained in the art of narcism, self delusion and the "It's All About ME" mentality, that rises like the stench of a rotting corpse. You just do not want to be near it..

So these type of relationships add copious members to the MM, purely because we have been predicting this would happen and spreading it for so long that it is now impossible to ignore. So what is the message, the outcome, where do you go from here. Have a listen..

A sincere, honest, straight forward information, offered..



How Feminism Profits From Rape..


Panic
December 1, 2011FALSE RAPE CULTURE,FEATURED

Moral panic for fun & profit

AN EXERCISE IN EVIL.

Let’s play a game. I want you to imagine for a while that we are a cabal of evil villains that have decided for nefarious purposes to create a state of moral panic. Not that myself or any other ethical person would ever actually put this into practice. We are only going to take a stroll down the road of hypothesis in order to see where it might lead us.
In order to start this journey, let us take a scary word and see what we can do with it. Rape. We all know the definition of rape and what it entails. It is even a familiar word which causes it to lose some of its shock value. As an aside that will only be important down the line, we need to mention that rape is an act found in nature. Many animals rape, and at least one genus of animal, felis, only reproduces through rape.  All male cats have a barbed penis, and partially paralyze the female by biting her on the back of her neck while mating. The screams heard coming from a female cat during sex is from pain as evidenced by the fight she puts up in trying to escape. If this is not an act of rape, then no act is.
From the mighty lion to the beautiful Himalayan curled up in your lap, every cat is a product of rape.  It can be argued that rape is an evolutionary cheat, a way of reproducing even though an animal might not otherwise be a suitable mate. This is not a defense of rape, but simply an explanation for how it arises and remains in a population of animals. Rape is fairly simple to understand. Yet even with our understanding the very word has a negative effect on our brains.
This is due to what is referred to in psychology as a negativity bias. Basically this means that people will give more attention to a negative event than to a positive one. When considered in terms of survival this makes sense.  The adage ‘Once bitten, twice shy’ remains a cultural phrase in several forms just because it is a useful piece of information to convey. People who have experienced a negative event will require far fewer indicators of danger before they react. This is an evolutionary survival response, where reaction to false danger is more productive than failure to react to actual danger. In other words, our minds and bodies are wired for fight or flight.  But how can this come into play if we have not actually suffered the event?
Words have a direct effect on our brains. Language is a part of how we think, and language is conjoined with emotion. As we are wired to respond directly to negative or dangerous situations, our minds prioritize potential dangers and act accordingly. Likewise, when we hear negatively biased words, we begin to react to them negatively, even if it has not happened to us. An example of this would be the word ‘murdered.’ Not a single one of you reading that word have at this moment been murdered. And yet the negative association triggers minute responses in your body. The word implies threat, even though you are not directly threatened. In this small way the negative association with the word causes a reaction. Still, there is another way that words can work on you as well – emotional contagion.
Emotional contagion seems to be a driving force in mob mentality. It is spread much like a virus throughout concentrations of people. We can convey a lot of information through both physical and verbal cues. When combined with our natural tendency to react to negative events or triggers over positive ones, crowds pick up on negative emotional states or expressions like disgust and fear quickly.
Emotional contagion sounds remarkably similar to Richard Dawkins’ meme theory. A meme is an idea or concept that spreads from person to person throughout a population. Also like viruses, memes can mutate as they spread. Fads can be seen as a form of meme, as can slogans, catch phrases, and various other concepts. We may also take advantage of emotional contagion to spread fear. But in order to take the word rape and make it not just cause a vague sense of unease, but a real force of terror, we need to add a few more ingredients to the cocktail.
We can increase the shock value of the word rape by attaching to it another word that in itself is completely innocent. Perhaps a word that in most cases would be seen as positive. How about the word ‘culture’ for instance? When we think of the word culture, what normally comes to mind, unless you work in a laboratory at least, is the collection of achievements, values, and practices of a civilization. These are wonderful things. We also tend to associate culture with good taste. Culture is a happy word, a word that makes you just a little proud when you think of it.
Ah, but now the word becomes attached to a negative association- rape. “Rape as a culture? How horrific!” one might rightly think. We have just taken a negative word and kicked it up an order of magnitude. Now rape is not something associated with the individual, but with an entire population.  A word that would normally function as a positive bump to the mind has been corrupted through association.

We have done a fairly good job of creating fear so far. We have found a way to take a positive word and attach it to a negative word in order to form a verbal chimera that is considerably more fear inspiring than just the negative word alone. We have also found a method in which to spread this chimera by relying on human’s innate tendency to focus on harmful words. Even were we to leave things as this, we would still have managed to generate a degree of fear. But that would be too short of a hike down this road. We can do a lot better than this if we set our minds to it.  To this end we will continue to exploit biology.
What we need to do next is create a mythology to support our chimera. We can take mundane interactions and attach them to the mythology. We know that friends and associates have a camaraderie that will make them behave in ways that that most would usually consider unethical when it comes to protecting their own in-group. The people in your in-group or clan are to be protected at the expense of outsiders. Naturally there will always be some in these groups that will set aside their moral convictions in order to fabricate an alibi for a member of their in-group. We have seen this behavior all through history. It is ‘us versus them’ mentality, and is a natural extension of evolutionary group survival.  We can exploit this natural trait and co-opt it into the mythology by claiming it as part of rape culture. “See how those frat boys are all covering for their guy? Rape culture!”
Good, we have a start here, but there is a lot more work that we can do. Today we have a view of what is attractive and healthy that in many ways is identical to that of ancient Greece. We find well toned individuals and those with clear skin to appear more healthy and attractive than we do people with poor complexions and out of shape. Again, a lot of this is evolutionary biology. Bad complexion can be an indication of disease. Poor physical condition means less ability to bring in food. These are traits we are genetically programmed to look for.  Advertising takes this into consideration and selects models that fit the current ideal of attractive and selects male and female models based on the public perception of beauty. We will disregard the male models that meet our ideal standard with their sculpted forms and rippled abs, and instead point to the females. “You are making her into a sexual object by displaying her. Rape culture!”
Splendidly done! Let us continue down this path and see where it leads. We can point to prostitution. Prostitution is observed in penguins with the female trading sexual favors for shiny stones. Some species of hummingbird females trade sex for food, as do numerous insects.  Even female monkeys will prostitute themselves for food. Prostitution is a matter of supply & demand, just like any other service. The female is exchanging her sexual services for something she desires.  It is fairly important that we in the role of evil villains nip this one in the bud, because we are trying to use rape to create fear. If people can just pay for sex there will be less rape. This will not do!  Yell it with me now. “You are exploiting that poor woman through your solicitation of prostitution. Rape culture!”
We are well on our way now, but we can’t rest yet. In our exploitation of biology, rapeof biology if you will, we need to make rape itself even worse. We are very much aware of the fact that rape exists in nature. We can see how it can be used as a reproductive shortcut.  We are still civilized, though, and we understand that rape can have a detrimental effect on society. We also possess empathy which helps the majority of the human race cooperate. Naturally, we criminalize rape. Actually we cannot even take credit for that, as our ancestors etched those laws into clay and stone long eons ago in our dim past. Still though, in our role as evil villains, we need to find some way to make rape seem even more horrendous than it already is.
To do this, let’s take a look at criminals. Crime happens all the time. We are to a degree desensitized to crime because we understand what criminals are doing and how they think. A burglar robs your house because he wants what is in the house and is more concerned with his satisfaction than he is in your security and peace of mind. He will steal your car for the same reason and with the same lack of remorse. In the same manner, the rapist rapes because he or she wants sex. There is nothing surprising about it. There are no political motives. The tiger is not raping because he wants to repress the tigress or because he wants to stifle her political ideology. He is raping because he desires to have sex.
The college student that first asks a girl on a date then tries to sway her with sweet talk and pleasant verbal coercion while touching and fondling until rejected and only then resorts to more coercive tactics is not repressing the girl out of hatred or a desire to control her. He is behaving that way because he wants sex. But let us not forget that we are playing the role of villains, so we need to twist this around. We will do this by taking the natural crime out of rape and claim it is an act of control, not sex. This technique works marvelously, as now when anyone points out the obvious fact that rape is rooted in our biology we can scream “You are a rape apologist. Rape culture!”
This is turning out incredibly well for a hypothetical exercise. Next we need to take these tools of evil and begin to apply them. We will need to dig up some statistics first. We will scour various sources for rape figures. When those figures do not add up to enough to convince people, we twist them around, we add different figures together to reach higher numbers. Heck, we are villains, if the figures don’t say what we want them to, we can just make up figures on the spot! This will work, and I will explain why.
We are going to present these figures along with our newly created mythology to congressmen and lawmakers. We are going to petition these same people demanding laws be created to protect us from our construction. We are going to sweetly approach police chiefs and sheriffs and offer to educate their forces free of charge. We will prey on their natural empathy as well as using negative bias & emotional contagion to our advantage. These are horrible things we are telling them. Their first reaction is going to be shock, then horror and outrage. They are going to want to know what they can do to protect their loved ones from this. They are putty in our hands.
College deans will be almost as easy to convince. This is an emotional appeal, granted one that is only backed with shoddy and false information, but their moral character will be seduced by way of negative bias just as the lawmakers were.  We will even create a college rape myth while on campus to better stir the coals of fear.
We keep up the pressure until we get a single law passed in favor of our villainous construction, then point to that law as proof that we are on the right track. Domino effect as more and more people fall victim to this evil scheme. Newspapers pick it up, as does television and radio. We throw the words ‘Rape culture’ like rice at a wedding. The meme spreads, panic ensues. Women everywhere are gripped in a viral moral panic. “What do we do?” they ask “Rape is everywhere around us!”
The women begin to take precautions. These are sensible precautions like everyone takes in order to prevent crime. Common sense precautions like removing the keys from their ignition and locking the car doors in order to help prevent their cars from being stolen. We will tolerate none of that! “Why should we have to change the way we act?”becomes our meme. “Teach the bad rapists to stop raping! Rape culture!” is a perfect way to keep the rapes happening.
Of course if you report to the police that your car was stolen and during the course of the investigation he learns that you left the keys in the ignition while you ran into the store, the officer is going to tell you that you had it coming. But as we the hypothetical evil villains have convinced both the officer and the hapless citizen that rape is not like other crimes, he will not even think of taking the woman’s dress, behavior, or location into consideration.
This is exactly what we the villains want, because if fewer rapes happen we are tasked with creating more false statistics. Besides, the real thing is much better for business because then we can exploit the poor rape victim by parading her case around with an air of triumph. Now they will really start to believe the meme of rape culture. And with that belief comes the full blown moral panic that we were looking for.
We have managed to transform an already nasty word into one of terror. We have relied on our own biological nature to make the most of this generated fear. We have rigged the deck to increase rapes by taking more prostitutes out of the picture while convincing women that it is not their duty to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves from rape.
We have even neglected to mention to them that most rapes are perpetrated by close associates, not strangers, making them even more susceptible to being raped. We have capitalized on human nature to spread our fictional creation and have seen how it balloons. Now all that is left is to use the power of fear to being strategically maneuvering the government in whatever direction our criminal minds wish.
Were we actually evil villains, there could be few quicker routes to seizing power than this without resorting to a bloody coup. From the fear and turmoil we could build upon this framework, using it is a springboard for other related fear mongering. We would have our feet in the door and could drop more false statistics on the table to back anything else we desired to push.  Using fear to control the masses, and shame and oppressive laws to silence the lone voices of dissent we could swing laws and milk state & federal funds into any schemes we felt like controlling.  Humans are childishly easy to manipulate once you begin to turn their own biology and psychology against them.
Now this was only a hypothetical exercise. I am confident that none of us are so vile, so evil, so monstrous as to actually put something like this into motion.  No, it would take someone far less ethical that we good fellows to ruthlessly pull the emotional strings of entire nations for fun, profit, or other selfish reasons.
References:
http://related.springerprotocols.com/lp/de-gruyter/negativity-bias-in-language-a-cognitive-affective-model-of-emotive-w0L20WmKHE
http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/marsden_p.html#HEADING
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rfoster/repropath/surgicalpath/male/cat/normal_tomcat.htm
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2005/Mating-in-a-Material.aspx
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700821,00.html
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

Written byBrutal Antipathy


2 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »