Archive for May, 2010
I’ve started to re-load/re-design the site : this was necessitated by a wordpress bug that I couldn’t fix, and also because of a desire to make this place more worthwhile in terms of allowing visitors to quickly find relevant material to combat feminism with.
This site’s primary purpose is to showcase my argument that feminism is, and always has been, a sexual trade union for unattractive women (the vast majority). When I use the term ‘sexual’, I’m referring to a woman’s sexual and reproductive interests, as well as the economic needs that, historically at least, depended on them. Clearly it’s a no-brainer to identify feminism with ‘reproductive rights’. However, this is usually narrowed down to a focus on issues over abortion – and perhaps custody award decisions, right to a divorce and the like. In my eyes, the ‘reproductive rights’ essence of feminism entails campaigns against pornography, prostitution, and raising of the age of consent, just as much as the ‘right’ to an abortion.
A good starting point for those sceptical of this idea, would be to read up on the origins of feminism in the social purity movements of the 19th century. You will learn that ‘feminists’ were campaigning for a rise in the age of consent and for laws against prostitution BEFORE they had even seriously demanded the right to the vote. In fact, it was often clearly stated by leading feminists that the franchise was simply a means to the end of allowing women to dictate legislation on sexual matters.
You should also consider just why did second wave feminism manage to conquer the world in the space of a generation? Can it really be explained as just an extension of the black/homosexual civil rights movements of the 60′s and 70′s? And why have women gone from near zero representation in high government ANYWHERE, to actually LEADING countries like Germany and Argentina, and failing only narrowly to win the presidency of America and France, IN THE SPACE OF LESS THAN A DECADE (3rd wave feminism)?
Seeing modern feminism as simply a Marxist extension of other civil rights movements completely fails to explain these things. It also fails convincingly to explain the deafening silence of feminism over Islam. Seeing feminism as a largely blind and primeval response to technological changes in society that threaten women’s fundamental sexual interests DOES explain these things.
You should also take a look at feminist websites and note the topics that are frequently discussed. One typical such blog I came across recently is Love Letters In Hell (linked here for reference purposes only). It is in no way an ‘extremist’ or ‘femi-nazi’ site. This is mainstream feminism. And virtually every single post is concerned with ‘reproduction’ as I have defined it. You will find angst ridden posts about the sexual threat that female robots pose next to articles that compare the decision to have an abortion with choosing which couch to buy at Ikea. You will find wailing about growing older and losing one’s sex appeal right next to convenient calls for men to be criminalized for having sex with younger women, because young women can’t give meaningful consent. Then in the next post you will read justifications of casual sex for women in their late twenties – when you hit 25, sex suddenly becomes so trivial and uncomplicated that if you want to fuck, just do it. Once your limbic system is fully matured, sex requires less reasoning power than does furniture shopping…or deciding whether to kill your unborn child.
Likewise, visit Reddit/r/feminisms or Reddit/r/mensrights (there are actually more feminists on the men’s rights page than are on the feminist equivalent) and take a look at what other sub-reddits the feminists are posting in. Invariably it will be in the sex and relationships categories. Art? Technology? Sport? Very rarely. How do I deal with my cheating boyfriend? That is where you will find the feminists.
A brief note on the myth that feminists are all lesbians. Whether or not many senior figures in the feminist movement were/are lesbians (by choice, by identity, or through no other choice being so pug ugly?) is irrelevant. Feminism is a blind, primal force that has the anxieties and fears of the vast majority of ordinary women driving it. In a sense, feminists are just the figure heads and rationalisations for what is a natural and largely uncontrollable force.
Anti-Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement – Another reason why I have decided to set about re-branding this site, is because of my utter disillusionment with the ‘men’s rights movement’. I’ve always been an anti-feminist. A couple of years ago I came across the website of Angry Harry, the leading online men’s rights activist, at least in the UK. I also found Bernard Chapin on YouTube, another anti-feminist identifying himself as an MRA (men’s rights activist). Both of these guys are tremendously intelligent (as well as funny and compassionate) and genuine in their committment to rid society of the harm that feminism is doing to it and, in particular, to men.
At this stage, there seemed to be a real brotherhood to the online men’s rights community. It seemed clear to me that there were apparently irreconcilable philosophical tensions between our members. Most MRAs are conservative, some of us are liberals. Some are ‘misogynists’, some are ‘traditionalists’, some believe 100% in genuine equality between men and women. However, my experience was that most were happy to operate under the maxim that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. And it seemed that intelligent people like Bernard Chapin, a conservative and a libertarian, at least understood that there are tensions between those two positions and that recognising feminism for what it is does involve also questioning traditional tribal political allegiances and categories (and I still believe he does understand that – unlike 99% of others).
Yet only last night, I was flicking through forum discussions at the Spearhead, one of the leading sites frequented by MRA’s (its ultra-conservative owner disclaims a men’s rights site’ classification) and what do I find? Well take a look for yourself at just how imbecillic men’s rights discussion is becoming (or at least descends into - it starts off quite reasonably) : http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1173&start=100
Amongst other things, you will see the self-proclaimed leader (and policer) of the men’s rights movement calling for another MRA to be raped in prison for merely questioning feminist laws that lead to hundreds of thousands of men being raped in prison…and for calling him a pansy. Migu sums it up best on page 38 :
Okay what happened here?
Shit ass lick motherfuck cocksuck turdburger cuntweenie fuckjoiter.
I got all that. What else was happening?
Two years ago, it seemed to me that the Men’s Movement was about to explode – in the right way. Quite soon, I thought, there will be a hundred Bernard Chapins, a hundred Angry Harrys. LOL! Actually, when you spend any time reading men’s rights blogs, both the articles and the comments posted beneath, you’ll realise that it’s the same tiny handful of people making any intelligent points, making any kind of sense of the bigger picture of what feminism is and how we can proceed to fight against it. And mostly, this small handful is being set against each other out of loyalty to the undiplomatic egotists, who claim to speak for the public face of the movement, and yet who delight in vicious, asinine feuds.
Any school boy, studying sociology, or politics, or philosophy, will be familiar with the complexity behind the apparently simple notion of equality. 90% of MRAs, many believing that progress is only possible if we embrace the absurd PC notion that men and women are fundamentally the same, would probably go so far as applaud their government if it handed out free tampons to the entire population - so long as they were distributed equally between men and women.
This example might seem absurd, but when the majority of MRAs, in the name of equality, are actually prepared to force 17 year old boys to be dragged through courts and to accept victim status, and consequently to have their lives destroyed, for sleeping with an MILF – then count me out of this pea brained ultra-conservative mask of a movement.
I don’t want to go to hell.
What the site will become : It will mostly consist of constantly worked upon permanent pages/long essays/resource collections. Pages I have planned include secular arguments against abortion, arguments for the legalisation of prostitution and the paying for sex, a rebuttal of feminist arguments against pornography, a discussion of feminist laws on the age of consent and a reference guide to the harm caused by the feminist (and American conservative) exploitation of the true and historical definition of paedophilia.
I also want to write a detailed and serious history of feminism as a sexual trade union.
Finally, I want to write study guides for a few of the small handful of anti-feminist books that are in existence. These will include guides to ‘The Decline of Males’ by Lionel Tiger and ‘No More Sex War’ by Neil Lyndon. Also guides and essays on the fiction of Michael Houellebecq and perhaps August Strindberg. Another possibility is to write an essay on the anti-feminism of Arthur Schopenhauer, and to rebut the oft-repeated claim that his wider metaphysical system is entirely separate to his views regarding women.
I will soon be setting up another blog, where I can update regularly and sound off about all manner of topics. I hope my regular readers will keep dropping by at this site, and perhaps visit my new one too (I will provide the link, as well as a feed, here as soon as I have it up).
The First Wave of Feminism
Like the entire history of feminism, the first wave was driven by a combination of social, economic, and sexual factors, or rather ‘forces’, that were largely contingent and blind.
The first successfully organised ‘feminist’ political activism involved campaigns not for the vote, nor even for ‘equality’, but rather against prostitution and for the raising of the age of consent.
Women had been stirred into political protest through social and technological changes that had resulted from Industrialisation and that were threatening their sexual and economic interests.
The campaign for the vote was a secondary and much smaller movement, gaining credence through the acceptibility of female activism that the first campaign had won.
The suffragettes achieved their aims as a result of violence and of male Enlightenment thinking which saw women’s enfranchisement as a natural progression of other civil rights movements.
In fact, women did not exercise their newly won franchise very differently to their husbands, and when they did vote differently, it was to vote in facist dictatorships throughout Europe.
It was not until the 1960′s, and the second wave of feminism, that women began voting differently to men….
The Second Wave of Feminism
The 1960′s saw the beginning of possibly the most remarkable event in human history. The end of ‘patriarchy’. Within the space of a generation, a social system that had endured in every corner of the globe for over 10 millenium had more or less crumbled.
In every corner of the globe…except the Islamic world.
In his book ‘The Decline of the Male’, anthropologist Lionel Tiger identifies the introduction of the contraceptive pill as the trigger for this unparallelled social revolution, the ‘second wave of feminism’.
For Lionel Tiger, the pill shifted reproductive power from men to women, for men could no longer be sure as to the paternity of their offspring.
I don’t accept all of the details of Tiger’s thesis, but I agree wholeheartedly that the pill was a catalyst for the second wave of feminism. An unforeseen technological innovation had revolutionised sexual relations and, in a blind and uncontrollable way, had transformed society almost overnight.
According to most feminist thinkers (and many MRAs), the pill gave women power over men. I disagree.
In fact, the very thing that was supposed to free women from men, left them – or at least older/unattractive women – dangerously exposed in the free sexual market that had suddenly been created.
Suddenly, women became active in politics. Suddenly, women demanded (and won) the right to university education, to a carreer, to easy divorce, to an abortion. Suddenly women began voting differently to men.
The pill did not give women power over men.
The pill forced women to take power from men.
But, of course, this did not happen in the majority of Muslim societies. Under Islam, there is still no free sexual market, and thus unattractive Muslim women have no need for feminism.
The Third Wave of Feminism
Just as the first wave of feminism has been wrongly reduced to the suffragette movement, the third wave of feminism is wrongly being associated with insignificant but highly visible feminists such as Jessica Valenti.
In fact, it would be fairer to describe the astonishing and sudden representation of women at all levels of government as the Third Wave of Feminism.
In the space of the last decade, from having virtually zero representation in high government, the female sex has come to near dominate many of the leading democracies of the West.
Currently, the Home Secretary or equivalent in the UK, France, Germany and the USA are all female. The chancellor of Germany is female. Women have recently narrowly lost presidential elections in the USA and France only because of the staggering incompetence of the candidates facing ‘unique’ male rivals (Obama and Sarkozy). Even macho South American holdouts such as Argentina and Chile now have female feminist presidents.
Alongside formal governmental representation, largely female dominated non-governmental pressure groups have suddenly come to hold massive sway over an increasingly powerful United Nations, as well as other international bodies such as the European Union.
Why has this astonishing Third Wave, no less extraordinary than the second, suddenly come about? That this is the first generation of women raised as feminists no doubt has played a part but it cannot alone explain the sheer rapidity of change. Like the first and second waves of feminism, the third has been propelled by technological changes threatning the interests of ordinary women.
The globalisation of society and of communications has threatened to further open up the free sexual market to an extent as great as the introduction of the pill itself did.
Suddenly men had before them a whole new array of alternatives to a ‘real’ sexual relationship, from the cheap Polish hooker at the street corner, to the nubile, young slut showing herself on cam from her bedroom half way across the world.
This was a brave new sexual world that an already politicised generation of middle-aged women could not tolerate for long…and certainly not entrust to men to control or put an end to.
The Future of Feminism
The future of feminism will be dictated by the same forces that have shaped its history – blind and largely uncontrollable economic and technological changes altering the balance of sexual power between men and women.
The further increase in mass global communications, advances in robotics, artificial intelligence and the growing realism of sex toys, are all rapidly coalescing into a perfect storm that will either achieve sexual and emotional independence for men…or a fourth wave of feminism that might reduce ourselves and society to a level unimaginable even in the atavistic fema-supremecist society of today..
Men’s Rights activists can frequently be heard proclaiming that our cause is all about equal rights. We are not misogynists, we do not wish to return society to the patriarchal days of yore, we are not as crazy as the FemiWhores. All very good and true. My gripe with this only arises when we feel the need to articulate it a little too simplistically. That ‘all we want is equality – equal rights, equal treatment, equality before the law’ etc etc…
There is nothing wrong with any of these things. Equality is good. But equality is not the be all and end all of the men’s rights movement. Certainly not, if it is reduced to some simple maxim, such as ‘equality before the law’. Now I realise that some of my dear readers might suspect I am a little sex obsessed, but nonetheless, I’m going to illustrate my point with reference to the issue of pornography. Firstly, because I think sex lies at the heart of feminism and because sex is at the heart of the fundamental differences between men and women that even the average professor of womben’s studies can’t pretend to ignore. And secondly, I’m going to focus on porn because I believe there has been a lot of it on the television screen lately. No, not just mine, I watch fewer porn DVDs than Jacqui Smith’s long suffering husband these days. I’m referring to female porn. I’m referring to Susan Boyle, to Holly Steel, to the grotesque TV bear pit of entertainment that is Britain’s Got Talent, as well as the hundreds of exploitative reality and talent shows that were its predecessors.
Female Porn and Britain’s Got Talent
For years she had been resigned to the quiet life of a spinster , settled down snugly with her family of cats in her little anonymous Scottish village. Then one day, Susan Boyle appeared in front of Simon Cowell et al, a huge live audience, and millions of television viewers around the world…and proceeded to sing like an angel and charm a nation. Before she knew it, she was being invited on to the Oprah Winfrey show, celebrities were queing to be her friend.. and the British tabloid press were writing bitchy and false stories about her in order to entertain their grubby readers. And now Susan Boyle has suffered an emotional breakdown. What is more, the makers of the show are facing allegations that they were well aware that she was on the point of a nervous collapse, yet refused to pull her out lest it hit ratings for their grand final.
Do we care? Probably most of us do not. Or perhaps we do care, we care so much we’d like to see more of it. More of Susan Boyle’s suffering. How much would Susan Boyle be paid to allow the cameras into her mental health clinic so we can gawp and ‘cheer on Susan’ while we wonder if she makes it to the next stage? The television ratings would be astronomical. And you know what? The huge majority of that audience would be female.
I couldn’t help notice that whenever the camera panned to the audience members during the show, men were outnumbered by at least 4 or 5 to 1. And probably those men were simply with their girlfriends or wives, probably half dragged into the theater by them in fact. Most of the viewers for such talent shows are female. Likewise with the inane and similarly exploitative reality shows such as Big Brother that make a spectacle of long drawn out suffering and conflict between competing, and often vulnerable, individuals.
This is why I call it female porn. It is voyeuristic and it is DEFINATELY exploitative.
Female Child Porn
But it gets worse. For just a few days before Susan Boyle’s thankfully private collapse, the largely female audience of the same show were ‘treated’ to the sight of little Holly Steele having an apparent nervous breakdown on stage, induced by the long drawn out pressure of being watched and scrutinized by over 20 million adults. Pressure, it is now clear, that was far too much for 47 year old Susan Boyle. Now, ladies (?) and gentlemen, little Holly Steel is 10 years old. 10 years effing old for Christs sake!! What were the producers of the show thinking? What were the people who were watching a little child being put under such enormous pressure thinking?? Well, actually I know what they were thinking. I’ve seen the comments posted under the videos of her public breakdown that are getting millions of hits on YouTube. Here is one typical example :
Do you think the little brat was faking it? Why were there no tears running down her face if she was genuine? They should of kicked the ugly little bitch out.
Probably less than 1 in a 100 YouTube commentators even raised the issue as to whether it might be morally questionable to subject a 10 year old to that pressure. For the vast majority, the only thing that was worthy of debate, was whether or not her breakdown was genuine and whether or not she should have been given a ‘second chance’. Similarly in the national press. Even now that Holly’s fellow contestant Susan Boyle has been admitted to the mental ward, I haven’t read any articles or commentary on the morality of allowing a small child to be placed under the same intense pressure and what the long term consequences might be for her.
Well, apparently half the nation tuned in and lapped it all up. Maybe the silence is out of guilt. We have all read the feminists justification of locking men up for simply looking at pictures of 21 year old women in school skirts or smiling 17 year old girls posing topless, because – ‘the mere act of looking creates the supply and is therefore abuse’.
Conclusion – It isn’t just about equality before the law
So what does this show, apart from the fact that women abuse and exploit children in far greater numbers than do men? Laws against porn inevitably target men and result in men being sent to prison. In relation to porn, what does ‘equality before the law’ mean? That every time a woman looks at a picture of a 21 year old in school uniform, she has to face the knock on the door and a place on the sex offenders register, just as a man would? WTF??? Most women don’t have any interest in the slightest in doing any such thing (despite the misguided quest of many MRAs to demonstrate that as many women as men are ‘paedophiles’). No, most women are too busy watching 10 year olds being exploited and psychologically traumatised for life on talent shows to be looking at porn. Or else, watching some dysfunctional 14 year old having her emotional problems dissected and exploited for tea-time entertainment on the Oprah Winfrey show or Jeremy Kyle.
It’s not just about equal treatment. It’s about who decides the treatment and why.
It’s not just about equality before the law. It’s about who sets the law and why.
**Update – 200 people complained to offcom about the treatment of Holly Steel…..150 to complain that it was a disgrace that the little brat had been given a second chance…only 50 to complain that child abuse should not be televised entertainment, not even for women.
An Amazon review I’ve just knocked up for Living Dolls, an ‘important’ new feminist work of trash that is getting a lot of exposure in female dominated media :
Feminism is the history of unattractive, aging women, trying to play catch up in their attempts at closing the free sexual market as new technology continues to widen it.
Thus the first wave of feminism began as men and women moved from the countryside into the cities, and men suddenly came into contact with more young females than previously they had in a lifetime. Young girls were no longer married off at the height of fertility but were sent to work in the new factories – in itself increasing the ‘availibility’ of young flesh to any tempted husband. Simultaneously, prostitutes flocked to the new metropolises to take advantage of the increasing spending powers of the working man. The first feminists called not for the vote, but for the raising of the age of consent and for restrictions against prostitutes. Feminism has always been primarily a sexual trade union for women past their peak fertility.
The second wave of feminism began immediately once the contraceptive pill became available, which instead of ‘liberating’ women, simply freed up the sexual market – something that the second wave and the rush into employment and education was a ‘necessary’ response to. In a single generation, 10,000 years of patriarchy was undone. Similarly, the internet and globalisation again threatened to leave ordinary women sexually irrelevant. In the space of 10 years, women have gone from having virtually zero representation in high office, to near dominating the political and social agendas of every Western democracy. In their wake, moral hysterias over ‘sex trafficking’ and ‘paedophilia’ have appeared, the likes of which the civilised west has not seen since the witch burnings of the late middle-ages.
Such is the setting for Living Dolls, one feminist’s irrationalist and subconcious realisation that feminism was never about ‘equal rights’ with men, but simply preserving the sexual and reproductive interests of unattractive women. Enjoy as fake intellectual Soma if you’re a similarly sexually threatened unattractive woman. The rest of us, genuine seekers after truth and justice, can try to read it as a historical document of the last desperate gasps of the sexual trade union.
Meanwhile, to anyone genuinely concerned about the welfare of children and the rights of young people, I would suggest you perhaps read something detailing the way that promiscuous and sexually aware young women are treated in Islamic countries, things that are clearly of no interest to western feminists.
The great men’s rights campaigner ‘Angry Harry’ has done some wonderful work exposing the damage done to society by the ‘abuse industry’ and in particular the NSPCC (the chief UK children’s charity).
Recently on his blog, Harry named and shamed the feminist appointed as one of the NSPCC’s most senior advisors – professor of ‘child sexual exploitation’ no less. The same woman recently published some extremely ropey feminist ‘research’ proclaiming that women are three times more likely to be arrested for domestic violence than men.
This week the NSPCC leant its weight to a huge public outcry over ZaNuLabor’s plans to force all adults having regular contact with other people’s children to PROVE that they are NOT a paedophile. Failure to do so could have resulted in a 5 year prison sentance. Respected authors such as Philip Pullman and even JK Rowling had already spoken out against the proposals, Pullman calling it ‘toxic to healthy social interaction’.
Clearly, the NSPCC is doing nothing more than jumping on the bandwagon, distancing itself from a massively unpopular law through fear that any association might harm the public donations upon which the lifestyles of its staff depend. In reality, no anti-paedo legislation is made in this country without the guidance of the NSPCC and other children’s charities. The NSPCC would have been advising the government at all stages of the planning of this law – why choose to speak out now?
And while we are on the subject of feminist generated paedo-hysteria – an Italian father was arrested and jailed for kissing his 8 year old daughter on a Brazillian beach. Sadly, it is clear that no country is now free of this corrosive and destructive hysteria. Over the last decade or two, feminist sexual pressure groups (such as the NSPCC) have succeeded in marshalling their resources and lobbied every government on Earth, forced the passing of countless laws and treaties, and in doing so, created new moral norms and rules of inter-generational interaction across all ethnic and cultural boundaries – a quite staggering feat comparable only to the most stunningly efficient military campaign imaginable.
Feminists – that is politically active women, are capable of anything…when their basic sexual and reproductive needs are threatened. And once again, to make perfectly clear, the hysteria generated by feminists over paedophilia and abuse has nothing to do with protecting 8 year old children from being molested by 40 year old men. It is about inflating the definition of paedophilia way beyond its historical usage of representing the perverted sexual attraction for pre-pubescent children. It is about ever increasingly stiffining the penalties for ‘paedophilia’ and child abuse to the point that it becomes an attack on the very idea of man’s inate sexual preference for youth and fertility. It is about broadening the definition of rape and abuse so ridiculously that any woman has the power to ‘punish’ a cheating partner with an accusation.
And to highlight just how such charities have achieved this remarkable feat, here is my Elizabeth Bathory award for October – the delightful Najat M’jid, Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography for the UN. This week she announced that 750,000 paedos (i.e. men) are online at any given moment hoping to prey evil on YOUR DAUGHTER! Not only that, but there are apparently 4 MILLION websites featuring the sexual exploitation of children, a ‘network’ that makes billons of dollars a year (strange, I read only a few days ago that the police were now going to focus their child porn efforts on p2p networks, as all commercial child porn websites had been successfully shut down). I wonder why the hideous Maala, a Morroccon paedatrician, isn’t spending more effort getting the United Nations to influence the Islamic practices of child brides, female circumcision, 8 year old sucide bombers in the Gazza strip, stoning to death of 16 year old girls for adultory in Iran etc? But no, this modern Elizabeth Bathory would rather victimise 17 year old Lativian beauties posing in panties and bras on webcam. Feminist creatures like this, who trivialise and exploit genuine paedophilia and child sexual abuse out of clear motivations of sexual jealousy and insecurity are wicked beyond belief. They are damaging society, criminilizing ordinary men,and poisning relationships between the sexes and between adults, teenagers and children. They belong in psychiatric wards rather than be free to crusade on behalf of some supposedly higher global morality that in fact emanates from their dried up, unwanted vaginas. They need to be stopped, and the duty to stop them is part of the men’s rights cause.
Just in the process of re-reading the classic anti-feminist treatise ‘No More Sex War’ by Neil Lyndon, first published in 1992.
It really is even better than I had remembered it to be. Lyndon applies what has to be described as a Marxian analysis of second wave feminism, seeing the rapid change in the position of women in the 60′s and 70′s to be nothing more than a response to the demands of capitalism and the requirements of a modern labour market. The introduction of technologies such as the contraceptive pill and in utero abortion were introduced in order to facilitate the fulfilling of these economic needs, themselves of course having unforeseen social and cultural effects.
According to Lyndon, feminism quickly claimed the credit for the social changes that were happening when in fact the second wave was itself no less a product of the deterministic tide – a new dominant capitalist ideology fulfilling the intellectual and emotional needs of men and women who had suddenly been forced to live in ways that no other generation prior ever had, and of course, ironically justifying itself through appeals to (pseudo) Marxist theory.
What is so important about Lyndon’s work is that it completely pulls the rug from under the sanctified feet of the second wave feminists. Their feminism was not a rational, purposeful struggle that successfully achieved equality for women but rather simply a blind, emotional and extremely vicious response to events that were under the control of nobody (and certainly not the likes of Germaine Greer). The similarities with Lionel Tiger’s theory of second wave feminism as a largely subconscious response to the contraceptive pill are absolutely striking.
I reccommend every anti-feminist read this classic work – if you can get hold of it that is. Disgracefully, it has been out of print for many years now. I’ll do my bit to keep its brilliantly revolutionary message alive by putting up a permanent page here devoted to reviews and interpretations together with a selection of key passages.
Many people know that the publication of No More Sex War had a terrible cost upon both Neil Lyndon’s career as a successful journalist and also his personal life. This, despite the fact that the book reads as a model of how to conduct an attack on feminism whilst pointedly making clear you are not attacking women. In fact, one of the text’s many powerful and oft repeated messages is that feminists have shamefully betrayed not only the hopes and ideals of an entire generation, but above all the mass of ordinary working women, still largely bound by economic servitude.
The deliberate invention of the Myth of Sex Trafficking was an act of pre-meditated violence against men comparable to, or far greater than, the appalling violence of George Sodini against women. The myth of sex trafficking is an example of how feminists use lies and exaggeration to exploit the suffering of a relatively tiny number of women and children with the sole aim of passing legislation that will protect their own selfish sexual interests (and those of the mass of ordinary women who franchise their power) and which will lead to the criminilization of millions of innocent men and the jailing of thousands of them as subhuman sex offenders to be beaten and raped.
In the case of the myth of sex trafficking, feminists have consistantly lied and employed ridiculous statistics in order to justify the banning of all prostitution, a trade which they despise and which they see as reducing the sexual value and hence power of themsleves and most other ‘non-prostitute’ women.
Information, resources and links relating to the Myth of Sex Trafficking
== In the United Kingdom ==
In October, 2009 – The biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country. The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.
Nick Davis of the Guardian newspaper writes:
Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.
== World Cup 2006 ==
Politicians, religious and aid groups, still repeat the media story that 40,000 prostitutes were trafficked into Germany for the 2006 world cup – long after leaked police documents revealed there was no truth at all in the tale. A baseless claim of 25,000 trafficking victims is still being quoted, recently, for example, by the Salvation Army in written evidence to the home affairs select committee, in which they added : “Other studies done by media have suggested much higher numbers.”. Which has been proven by the German police to be completely false. Yet people still talk about these false numbers as if it were fact.
== In the USA ==
On August 5, 2008
U.S. Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine uncovered discrepancies in a program dedicated to cracking down on human trafficking, McClatchy Newspapers report. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales spent millions of dollars on combating the international trafficking of indentured servants and sex slaves, including by creating task forces across the U.S. that identified and helped victims. Over four years, the department paid $50 million to the task forces and other groups. Conservative groups, who pressured the administration to go after sex trafficking more aggressively, applauded his efforts.
Critics have questioned whether the problem was being hyped. Fine found in an audit issued that the task forces and other groups set up to help were ‘significantly’ overstating the number of victims they served. By examining a sampling of cases, Fine found the task forces had exaggerated by as much as 165 percent. Making matters worse, the inflated numbers were included in annual reports to Congress.
== Criminals engaging in sex slavery ==
Sex trafficking/sex slavery is illegal and the penalties are very severe. It is very difficult to force someone to be a sex slave, they would have to have 24 hour guards posted and be watched 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. Have the threat of violence if they refused, and have no one notice and complain to the authorities or police. They would need to hide from the general public yet still manage to have customers from the general public. They would need to provide them with medical care, food, shelter, and have all their basic needs met. They would need to have the sex slaves put on a fake front that they enjoyed what they were doing, act flirtatious and do their job well. They would have to deal with the authorities looking for the missing women, and hide any money they may make, since it comes from illegal activity.
If media reports are to be believed, there would be no young girls left in Nepal. Oft-quoted figures such as 5,000-7,000 Nepali girls being trafficked across the border to India every year and 150,000-200,000 Nepali women and girls being trapped in brothels in various Indian cities, were first disseminated in 1986, and have remained unaltered over the next two decades. The report that first quoted these statistics was from the Indian Health Association, Mumbai, written by AIDS Society of India secretary general, Dr. I S Gilada, and presented in a workshop in 1986. Subsequently, a version of this report was published as an article in The Times of India on January 2, 1989. To date, the source of this figure remains a mystery. Unfortunately, such a lack of clarity is more the norm than the exception when it comes to reporting on trafficking in women and girls.
The following links will give you more information about this:
Washington post article:
BBC Newsnight (YouTube) :
Human traffic website:
Essays by Angry Harry
Sex trafficking hysteria began early for the 2010 world cup in South Africa :
Stop this illicit trade in bullshit stories (Spiked Online – Brendan O’Neill)
The Dallas Observer on the Super Bowl Prostitute Myth (Jan 2011)
*Most of the information on this page was provided by a reader by the name of Jeff Lewis. Many thanks to him.
Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.
And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.
To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.
Feminists tend to dislike Darwinism almost as much as the evangelical creationist does. Yet you could pretty much feed into a computer equipped with a Darwinian algorithm the reproductive needs of a 9 month labouring female simian in a sexual jungle and you would be pretty much guaranteed to find the computer would accurately predict EVERYTHING that a feminist finds ‘objectifying, exploitative, abusive etc.etc’.
The infamous Amanda (see posts below) takes umbrage at my description of her blog as a piece of sexual trade unionism. In fact every single one of her posts bears some relation to sex and reproduction seen through the eyes and vested interests of an unattractive post peak-fertility female. Even the title of her blog gives the game away.
If feminists like Amanda could point to just one cause of theirs that DECREASES their own individual sexual power (relative, for example, to that of a beautiful 18 year old) instead of INCREASING it, then I’d swallow my words. Anyone who thinks that will ever happen though, has probably never read the history of feminism, and certainly not its first or second wave origins.
A comment was posted below my ‘All Feminists are Rapists’ YouTube video the other day which made a very intelligent point that I’ve been meaning to discuss for some time :
“Traditional” right-wing religious women are EXACTLY the same as the left-wing feminists are. They just use different mumbo-jumbo to achieve the? same ends. For example, both ‘radical’ & ‘traditional’ women oppose any kind of sexual competition e.g. prostitution, pornography, etc. Feminists blabber about ‘patriarchy, equality…’ while right wing fems quote bible verses. Same b.s. different packaging.
And this, in essence, is the difference between somebody like Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton.
..And this is why, in my honest opinion, the men’s movement will likely never be more than a damage limitation exercise in terms of the steady erosion of men’s rights. Men have as many conceptions of justice and of what is important in life as there are stars in the sky. Women tend to have only one. And this is the case whether they are right or left, religious or atheist, conservative or ‘progressive’. Men debate the ends whereas women only ever dispute the means.
It is also why I am so sceptical of ‘sympathetic feminists’ or even, unfortunately, women per se joining our movement. Invariably, they are confused feminists, dimly aware that most women in their position are unhappier than ever, coupled with a vague awareness that this requires not more economic and political independence for women, but rather a simple closure of the free sexual market and a return to traditionalism. We, the men’s rights movement, are simply a means to achieving that selfish conservative end.
I don’t want to close on such pessimistic reflections. I still have faith that the ever increasing speed of technological progress will eventually render the sexual conflict between men and women obsolete and irrelevant. Feminism has always been about playing catch-up in the quest to stop new technology from widening the free sexual market and putting the sexual interests of unattractive women at risk. As progress speeds up, one must hope that this will become increasingly impossible. To take one example. Anyone with eyes and ears will have noticed a marked ‘return to puritanism’ over the last year alone with regard to the media witchunts of ‘cheating’ husbands such as Tiger Woods. Quite possibly, even probably, within a couple of decades, the majority of people, at least young people, will be aware that they can be expected to live to remarkably long ages. When people can expect to live to be 150, 200, perhaps much longer than that, what becomes of the idea of marriage and life-long commitment? Would we simply see a formalized acceptance of the mating patterns we are increasingly seeing today – a woman demands exclusive commitment from a man for a decade or two, then dumps him and takes the kids and a massive divorce pay off to another male? Hopefully not. At least, in the long run, even women might see that their primitive Savannah sexual codes will become increasingly irrelevant and out of place in an unimaginably altered high-tech future. Perhaps even they will demand, through genetic or pharmaceutical intervention if necessary, the God given ability of a man to partake in sexual pleasure without demanding that the object of desire becomes his exclusive instrumentalized property for life.
Useful Links and Resources :