$1,000.00 reward for real identity of Vliet Tiptree

As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, even did a couple of MP3's on the subject (on sidebar). Even gone as far as warning those ball-less wimps about their position in the feminist movement is indeed only temporary, they are tolerated, they are loathed and not wanted, actually, as a matter of fact,  no one wants em!. But will they listen, will they heed the common sense, will they even bother to do a minutiae of research just to inform themselves of some information, tactics or future planning that their female masters have indeed planned and will eventually carry out when the conditions are right, just as they did in the 1940's in Europe ?. Nope, ignorance is their best policy. Adherence to doctrine is their salve, blindly following a movement that is determined to see their life snuffed out is exactly what these manginas have promoted, thinking they will survive although they will be the first to go. They will reap, what they have sown..

So you feminised cretins, feast your delusional eyeballs on this lovely piece of feminist strategy..

Anyone out there who has a mate in the IT business or enjoys a bit of programming etc, could earn himself some serious bucks. Pass this on, even claim a spotters fee..

$1,000.00 reward for real identity of Vliet Tiptree

During the recent flurry of activity around the debate, which will thankfully end in two days, JtO and I have scheduled a vigorous round of activism regarding CafeMom and the pro-misandry, pro-violence, pro-sexual mutilation blogging in that forum.  We will be following through with that beginning on Sunday.
But as times would have it, we have come upon an even more egregious example of bigotry from another feminist blogger. In fact, this one makes Nicole Fabian-Weber quickly pale into insignificance (though we are not done with her).
Some of you have undoubtedly already heard of what is going on at a blog calledRadfem Hub, a Radical Feminist Collective Blog.  Up on that site right now, by a writer calling herself Vliet Tiptree, is nothing less than a fledgling manifesto calling for extermination of half the human race; the male half, that is. Oh, and she has a plan. Areal plan.
I am linking you to the blog post here (read it very carefully), but the short of it is that Tiptree is advocating premeditated and orchestrated violent destruction of men and boys in purely Hitleresque fashion. In her call to action, she seeks “resolution” as compared to the better known term “final solution.”  She, and I must admit with some skill, skirts around specifics that would justify her immediate arrest for conspiracy, but the intent is more than crystal clear.
After taking her readers through accounts of what she cites as justifiable criminal acts by women in the name of suffrage, and invoking the extremes in rationale of ideologues like Sheila Jeffrys, she lays down a significant bombshell. To wit:

Our Emphasis on Fundamental Change.  We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and experience lead us.

And then she closes the diatribe with this particular nugget

As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification. I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy.

Apparently her writing had the intended effect. Take a look at this comment that appeared under her post. And you might want to look at the others as well.

Click to enlarge

Also, another feminist blogger has taken a liking to her virulent message. She goes by Sargasso Sea, and has a blog bearing the interesting name, Radical Resolution.
The comments on her blog are equally riddled with sadistic, pro-violence sentiments. Even more, it is clear from the ideas expressed in her post that she has intentions to network this through the internet with other radicals of similar mentality and to exploit their connections to feminist ideologues already placed within the standing establishment power structure. In short, this is, while quite insane, laid out within a strategic plan.  There is nothing satirical about it.
The time for analysis of this growing problem is over and the time to take serious action on it commences immediately. Therefore, AVfM is now offering a $1,000.00 cash award (or donate it to the charity of your choice)  to whoever can provide us with verifiable information of Vliet Tiptrees real identity, including her name, residential address, place and address of employment, name of spouse if applicable, and images and any other information that may be used to bring her identity and location into public view.
Those seeking to claim the reward will be aware that  Vliet Tiptree’s real world identity and all available personal information will be posted to this site and otherwise distributed on the internet. Additionally, AVfM will print posters that contain real her name, image, online identity, quotes and the factual declaration that she is a threat to her community. We will also work with other MRA’s close enough to her location to distribute those posters directly in her residential neighborhood and at her place of employment if applicable.
If no MRA’s are available in her area, we will travel wherever she is to execute the plan.
In order to support this effort we are asking MRA’s for pledges of financial backing. What that essentially means is if you want to support this effort, just post that here, or email me with the specific dollar amount of your pledge.  We will only call in those pledges if and when we confirm that information received is accurate and valid. I am not comfortable committing funds already donated to this site for general operations, so I will personally incur any expense on this that is not defrayed by specified pledges.
Regardless of the level of backing, AVfM is going through with this effort.
Please email to avoiceformen@yahoo.com or at john@johntheother.com

By Roger Lott, Staff Columnist Published on Thursday, September 22, 2011

This Tuesday, I attended a panel discussion called “What I Wish I Knew As A Freshman Girl.” 

PP's preferential Treatment everywhere..

The female upperclassmen speakers talked very frankly about their mistakes as freshmen and offered their warm support to the assembled first-year women. The event seemed highly valuable, and I was left wondering why no similar opportunity existed specifically for first-year men.
Female Dartmouth students have access to more support than their male peers. Female advocacy groups at Dartmouth include Women in Business, the Society of Women’s Engineers, Women in Leadership and the Women in Science Program, which provides faculty mentors and paid internships to freshmen women. Link Up pairs first-year women with senior mentors. It’s unfair that men do not have similar opportunities for mentoring or support.As hard as it may be to believe in light of the historical dominance of males, in many ways modern men are struggling a lot more than their female counterparts. Indeed, men aged 20 to 24 years old commit suicide 10 times as often as women of the same age. Men die younger than women and account for the clear majority of homeless adults. From 1995 to 2002, male college students were twice as likely as female students to be victims of violent crime. Yet, while the College devotes two weeks of every year to V-Time ­— a programming extension of the global V-Day movement to end violence against women — no campaign exists to reduce violence in men’s lives.
On the rare occasions that men publicly unite and stand up for their interests, there is typically a firestorm of criticism. That was the reaction to a University of Chicago student group called “Men in Power,” which was formed in 2009 to raise awareness about the challenges facing contemporary men. People assumed the group was chauvinistic, but the reality is that supporting men does not need to mean opposing women.There is a lot of understandable anger about the rampant male chauvinism of the past, and it is natural that some people want to make amends by focusing attention on the problems of women. However, we must be careful to avoid inadvertently engaging in “reverse” sexism against men.
Men should be able to form advocacy groups without automatically being subject to unfavorable suspicions. Although an all-male “Proud to be a Man” dinner would surely garner a flurry of accusations, Dartmouth hosts an annual all-female “Proud to be a Woman” dinner.Continued male dominance in many areas of society is often used as evidence of past or present sexism against women. Instead of immediately calling for another women’s advocacy group, however, we should try to understand gender disparities in the context of innate gender differences that have resulted from millions of years of human evolution. Men tend to have a strong desire to be able to provide for or “protect” women, so their ability to provide resources is of paramount importance. Such inherent differences may be able to help explain the overrepresentation of men in relatively lucrative fields such as business and engineering.
While there’s nothing wrong with support groups or peer mentoring, the College may be going too far when it provides paid WISP internships to help women become more confident in male-dominated fields. If feminists really want to move away from traditional gender roles, they should be up in arms about women being viewed as needy and deserving of lots of special treatment.Although women in this country face great challenges, they are in many ways doing better than men. Hopefully when people realize how very far we have come from the patriarchal societies of the past, they will accept that the problems of men deserve equal attention.http://thedartmouth....22/opinion/lott 

Sluts and Manginas demonstrating just that..

The Ms. Magazine antics elicited this rejoinder from columnist Jenn Taylor: “What better way to expose portrayals of women as irrational whiners and hysterical bitches than by whining irrationally and bitching hysterically?”

Tweaking the Nose of Radical Feminism
Carey Roberts

Two weeks ago Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chair, met her match in one Rep. Allen West. It seems that Wasserman Schultz waited until West left the House floor, then cut loose with a liberal jeremiad for the congressman’s support of the GOP-supported Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
Apprised of the incident, the former Lieutenant Colonel fired back, calling her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the House of Representatives…If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face.”
It wasn’t the first time the libber-turned-congresswoman saw her grandstanding tactics backfire. A couple months ago Wasserman Schultz accused House Republicans seeking to cut off taxpayer abortion funds with waging a “war on women.”
In the past, the slightest suggestion of a GOP “war on women” would be enough to bring out the white flag a-flutter. But this time the stiff-spined GOP refused to be buffaloed by the high-octane rhetoric. Within days a group of Republican women fired back, calling Wasserman Schultz’s demagoguery “baseless” and “inaccurate.”
For years, feminists have succeeded in dictating the parameters and vocabulary of the gender debate. By trotting out a sympathetic victim, playing on lawmaker chivalry, or resorting to outright falsehoods, feminists have been able to maintain hegemony over the public discourse. Politicians, newspaper editors, even university presidents learned to toe the feminist line, or else become tagged with the “anti-woman” moniker.
All that changed on February 18. That’s the day the U.S. House of Representatives’ continuing resolution bill scrapped the funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.
In short order, revenue-pinched state legislatures took up the same refrain. Planned Parenthood funding cuts were approved in Indiana, Kansas, and North Carolina. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed HB 1210, prohibiting abortion providers from receiving state funds.
Another sacred cow of radical feminism is the near-automatic award of child custody to a divorcing woman. The fact that children who lose contact with their loving fathers are far more likely to drop out of school and get in trouble with the law doesn’t seem to register with feminist logic (forgive the oxymoron, if you will).
But in recent weeks, a bevy of Republican presidential candidates, including Herman Cain and Gary Johnson, lined up to pronounce the current system deeply flawed. Newt Gingrich castigated the “extreme anti-male bias” of family courts.
Another gem in the feminist diadem is the Violence Against Women Act, which is used as a slush fund by domestic violence groups to support lobbying efforts for a broad array of radical causes. But two weeks ago, House Judiciary Committee member Ted Poe vowed to make the law gender neutral. “I certainly agree with equal protection under the law. And maybe a name change is in order,” the Texas congressman explained.
And it’s not just politicians who are poking holes in the feminist catechism of gender victimhood.
Following its embarrassing overtime loss to the Japanese women’s soccer team, Bryant Gumbel of HBO Sports revealed the double-standard that permeates sports reporting these days. “Had a men’s team turned in a similar performance,” Gumbel commented, “papers and pundits nationwide would have had a field day assailing the players, criticizing the coach, and demanding widespread changes to a men’s national team that flat-out choked.”
Then the cheeky “Everything I Do Is Wrong” campaign by the California Milk Processor Board that lampooned clueless men and hormone-addled women. The campaign triggered the wrath of the feminist Politburo, with Ms. Magazine demanding an immediate end to the “sexist” campaign.
The Ms. Magazine antics elicited this rejoinder from columnist Jenn Taylor: “What better way to expose portrayals of women as irrational whiners and hysterical bitches than by whining irrationally and bitching hysterically?”
It gets worse.
It’s one thing when conservative knuckle-draggers delight in the excesses of feminism. But when a fellow liberal debunks a feminist sacred cow, that’s hitting below the belt!
That’s exactly what the current issue of Time magazine does – it puts to the lie the shibboleth that working women pull a second shift when they come home, facing a pile of dirty laundry and shrieking kids, as dad lounges on the porch to watch the Dodgers game. According to Ruth Davis Konigsberg, “Quantitatively speaking, we have no grounds to stand on. And it’s time that women — myself included — admit it and move on.”
It’s getting harder and harder for the gender guerillas to play the victim card. Things are looking grim