‘All Men Are Rapists’ – infamous quote attributed to feminist author Marilyn French (spoken by a character in one of her novels).
Angry Harry – Probably the most popular and linked to of MRAs and one of the founders of the online men’s rights movement. Harry writes on most of the topics that concern men’s rights but is particularly cogent on false rape accusations and the abuse industry. Also excellent when discussing strategies and tactics that the movement should adopt.
Debates within the Men’s Rights Community – MRAs are a politically diverse group of people. Whilst most would probably lean towards conservatism, it is by no means a settled question as to whether this or any other conventional political ‘allegiance’ should be intrinisic to men’s rights. Neil Lyndon, author of the first important men’s rights publication since the second wave, constructed his argument using a largely Marxian framework. More typically though, men’s rights activists usually see opposition to feminism as tied up with a libertarian dislike of an interfering and overpowering state. A huge and related issue within men’s rights is the interpretation of the historical relationship between the sexes and whether or not ‘patriarchy’, in terms of men having power in society, ever really existed. To be ‘conservative’ is not identical with wishing a return to an alleged state of male power over women, and the latter is certainly not men’s rights. Other key debates within men’s rights include the sensitive subject of ‘misogyny’. Many are fervent in their desire to see ‘misogynists’ rooted out of the movement, whilst others argue that men have a right to be angry with women and that we should work to either more fairly define the word ‘misogny’ or even to destigmatise it and thus render a key feminist weapon of shaming language redundant.
Hypergamy – practice of seeking a spouse of equal or higher socioeconomic status than oneself – a term usually applied to the ubiquitous female expression of this behaviour, whether in primitive tribal societies or in today’s developed world.
Mangina– a male who allows himself to be used as a tool of the opposite sex, even to the extent of supporting his own oppression and exploitation via the ‘chivalrous’ defending of feminism and/or misandry.
Misandry – the hatred of males.
MRA – Men’s Rights Activist.
No More Sex War (1992)– Classic work by British Men’s Rights pioneer Neil Lyndon. Argues that second wave feminism was merely an intellectual dressing to deterministic social changes driven by the needs of the labour market. One of the first authors to systematically question misandry and feminist assumptions regarding the likes of domestic violence and pay inequality. Lyndon’s career as a successful journalist was curtailed as a result of the backlash against his heretical work.
Pussy Pass – the ability to gain preferential treatment simply on account of being female.
Sistaria Law– A reference to Islamic/Feminist shared attitudes towards sexual behaviour and the need for it to be strictly regulated – particularly with regard to pornography, male adultory, prostitution, and public displays of sexuality by (beautiful young) females.
The Spearhead – multi-author men’s rights site, one of the most important hubs for news and discussion in the movement.
White Knight – a chivalrous male who sees defending the opposite sex as a duty to be performed by himself as a man.
vajazzle – the act of adorning a vagina with shiny crystals.
Only yesterday I posted my discovery that Jessica Valenti, leading online feminist, wanted realistic sex dolls to be banned on the grounds that they ‘objectify’ women.
Obviously, as learned readers of this blog will know by now, as well as anybody with an ounce of common sense, Valenti and her fellow feminists want to ban sex dolls because such things, increasingly realistic, threaten to give men sexual independence from women.
Following the recent Ontario/Canada Roundtable on Gender Equality, the below provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.
It is further proposed that provisions 6 and 7 are integrated into the Criminal Code of Canadato ensure uniformity with respect to the illegal creation, use, distribution, advertising, export and import of sexbots which are made in the image of minors under the age of 18. For the purposes of s. 163.1 of the Criminal Codethe definition of “child” should include sexbots created in the image of minors under the age of 18.
…The use of sexbots shall be restricted to government-regulated establishments unless otherwise approved by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence.
…The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
Dr Ian Kerr, a grinning mangina, apparently holds some position as professor of robot ethics at the University of Ottawa, and it appears that this fact gives him the ability to influence government policy and law making.
And what is most terrifying is the glimpse it gives us into how femi-nazi anti-sex laws, which lead to the rape of the male, come to pass. Sex bots are still a few years away, yet already there are ‘experts’ on the ethics of human-robot sexual relationships, feminists whose supposed expertise on such matters means that they can hold a ridiculous conference behind closed doors and then fully expect the government of their land to pass laws that will deny happiness to millions of men and criminilize those men as sex offenders if they dare seek that happiness. Simply because all these ‘experts’ have to say are the magic words ‘need to protect women and children’ and any rational scrutiny, let alone empirical judgement or testing, is not required.
In Ian Kerr’s case, it seems his ability to pass laws that will affect millions of people arises from being a middle-class kid who obtained a degree in philosophy at a second rate university and wrote his doctorate on a subject (ethics of human-robotic relations) that maybe only a dozen other people in the entire world have explored. Sex bots are still some distance away, no society could have an intelligent discussion on what laws need to be passed, because most people are completely unaware of what sexbots even are, let alone what ethical issues they might represent.
This strategy follows that used by feminists in the past with regard to new technology changing porn and sex. For example, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, recently ‘celebrating’ its 20th anniversary, included the outlawing of any pictorial representation of a minor in a sexual context. In other words ‘child pornography, defined to the max. Now, in 1989, any such pictures would be photographs of actual minors. Yet the feminists were careful to word the convention in terms of ‘representation’. Probably few of the 180+ countries that signed the treaty in 1989 realised that the wording of the documents that they were putting pen to paper to would lead to millions of ordinary men being criminalized for clicking on a mouse to view a digitally created anime picture that was merely a possible ‘representation’ of a person under 18.
Similarly, it appears feminists are drawing up laws against sex bots before even most educated people are fully aware of what the consequences of these laws might be for ordinary male sexuality in a future high-tech world. And one thing that keeps feminists motivated in doing this is that they know full well that once passed, it is almost impossible to repeal any sex offender legislation ‘that protects women and children’.
However, what might trip up the femibeasts is that they themselves do not know what the full implications upon society will be if the sexual trade union laws that they create are applied fully and logically in a different world.
Ian Kerr and his fellow feminists want any sexbot that looks under 18 to be banned full stop, under the pretence of virtual child pornography laws that criminalize the creation of any sexual image of a minor. Never mind that such ultra-realistic androids would surely prevent ‘paedophiles’ from having the urge to have sex with real minors.
But hold on a moment. If an ‘image’ now includes the three-dimensional shape of a sex doll or a sex bot, then surely the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry is going to go bankrupt overnight? Given that most teenage girls are fully developed at age 16 or 17 these days, an image of a person looking under 18 must include any woman who attempts to make her skin or her body as youthful and as perfect as possible (i.e. when it was 16 or 17 years old). The Swedish celebrity false rape accuser Ulrika Johnsonn, recently paid over £50,000 to ‘have the body of a 16 year old girl’. Now why isn’t she in prison being raped by butch lesbians for ‘creating the sexual image of a person under the age of 18’? This is the logic that follows from the creation of these absurd feminist laws designed to restrict sexual competition to themselves in a widened free sexual market – in other words, the rape of the male.
I would suggest that in the year 2020, when Josef Shiele of Bremerhaven, Germany, becomes the first person to be dragged before the courts for having sex with a cute, youthful looking Japanese sex bot (well, if they’re all going to be banned you may as well get yourself a good one), he takes his case to the European Court of Justice and points out that this is a gross violation of his human rights and dignity. That he should be punished for ‘creating’ the realistic, 3-dimensional sexual image of a desirable nymph when millions of women attempt to do the same each and every day with their own bodies (in order to be attractive to men like himself and all the other ‘perverts’ who constitute the vast majority of the male sex).
This will become even more absurd in the coming years, as scientists finally develop ways of obtaining the age old female dream (and men’s) – of permanently giving women the appearance of youthful, virgin skin. Already rich, middle-aged women are flocking to expensive Asian clinics in order to have stem cell therapy with the intention of giving their skin a more youthful (pre-pubescent, in fact) look. And by all accounts, this therapy will probably work, at least when mastered in a few years time.
It’s going to be a strange and brave new world, in just a couple of decades or less, when virtually ALL women, even 70 year olds, are walking around looking like Miley Cyrus. Who knows how such a thing will change the dynamics of the free sexual marketplace? One thing is for sure – the same feminists who create these absurd virtual child pornography laws that criminlize ordinary men for victimless crimes, will be the first to seek the treatment that turns their faces and bodies into that of buxom 16 year old girls.
After all, how could they possibly hope to compete with the sexbots otherwise?
If you would like to contact Ian Kerr and tell him what you think of his shameful participation in the rape of the male, his e-mail address is : email@example.com
The other evening, I walked in on my 15-year-old daughter as she lay soaking in the bath. Somehow, I held onto the gasp I wanted to emit at the sight of her: that beautiful young body, with its impossibly pert breasts and taut midriff, surely belonged to a woman and not my little girl. “Darling, I’m so sorry,” I said quickly, making to hurry out of the bathroom. “I’ll leave you in peace.” For the first time since she was born, seeing my child naked had left me feeling embarrassed, awkward and, oh dear, rather jealous.
With her incredible figure, long and naturally golden hair, and sculptured features, it was plain to see that my eldest daughter’s beauty eclipsed my own. I always knew that three pregnancies, and the simple passing of time, had had an impact on my own looks and shape. Now, as I compared myself to my woman-child, it struck me just how much. “It’s fine, Mum,” my daughter laughed, oblivious to the depressing epiphany she’d just provoked. “Stay and chat.”
Only I couldn’t. I needed to go away and process how I felt; to shake the green-eyed monster hanging off my back, before my darling girl picked up on how I was feeling. I’d have been mortified if I’d inadvertently ended up making her feel bad, too, so I made my excuses and left — and promptly told my husband that it was about time we fixed a lock on the bathroom door.
Yet increasingly, any man who even takes a second glance at a 17 year old girl, let alone that beautiful 15 year old who inspires such jealousy in her own mother, is the worst pervert imaginable, a nonce, a sub-human paedophile, to be locked away to be beaten, spat upon, and raped for the rest of his life. And some of you think this isn’t men’s rights. And some of you think the only thing that matters is proving that as many female monsters as men break statutory rape laws that were created by ugly, sexually jealous, middle-aged feminists in order to protect their own selfish sexual interests (if you don’t believe me, just read the above one more time, eh, and consider that women like this have criminalized millions of men as ‘perverts’ for clicking on a fucking cartoon picture of a female who MIGHT look as though depicting a girl of 17!!!!).
The major change taking place is in our attitude to ageing. “In our generation all the messages about women’s validity after 50 have completely changed,” points out Quilliam. “We are now free to do what and say what we want when we want; 50 is no longer the downturn that marks the end of a useful life. Now women work, the benchmark for the end of youthfulness is retirement. These days you can make love when you want to, go out when you like, learn a new skill or enjoy yourself how you please.”
To which I’m reminded of a brilliant photo signature I spotted beneath the posts of a forum member at menarebetterthanwomen.com (the girls are the two beautiful 16 y.o. singers Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato).
I posted a YouTube video recently arguing that the statement ‘All Feminists are Rapists’ has far more truth in it than the infamous radical feminist claim that ‘All Men are Rapists’. I wasn’t merely being melodramatic or deliberately provocative – I really think that feminism is the rape of the male and that therefore anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist has to accept the responsibility of being a rapist as well.
The logic of my argument is quite simple :
Premise 1/ Feminists imprison men through laws intended to coerce men into having sex with feminists – or the demographic of women that support feminists into positions of power where they can make these laws. (example : British feminists recently criminalized the paying for sex with prostitutes by men. This is an attempt to discourage men from paying for anonymous sex rather than having sexual relationships with i.e. middle-aged feminists. Another obvious example is the wish by most feminists to criminalize pornography i.e men will go to prison to be raped for looking at pictures of beautiful females instead of having sexual relationships with feminists).
Premise 2/ Coercing people into having sex is rape.
Therefore : Feminists are Rapists
The second premise would probably be accepted by all. The first premise might seem controversial. Today I came across a remarkable article (published in 2003) by the famous feminist Naomi Wolf, author of ‘The Beauty Myth’. The article is entitled ‘The Porn Myth’ and argues that ‘porn puts men off the real thing’. In other words, Naomi Wolf accepts that the standard feminist claim that pornography leads to rape etc. is simply a cover for the real objection : that porn makes it less likely that men will have sex with feminists. Feminists object to the voyeuristic element of porn, the fact that porn leads not to men wanting more sex with women, but rather less sex with women. Porn enables men to satisfy their sexual urges by jacking off to pictures of beautiful 19 year old models instead of having to have a sexual relationship with a real woman and this is why middle-aged feminists hate it. As the great Bernard Chapin puts it, porn doesn’t lead to rape, it ‘simply allows men to get to sleep a little earlier’. Actually feminists probably wouldn’t object to porn if it did lead to higher levels of rape, so long as it also led to men having more sexual relationships with them.
That this has always been the real reason for the feminist objection to pornography strikes me as simply obvious. If porn led to men wanting to go out and breed like rabbits then evangelical Christians would no doubt be handing out copies of Hustler and Penthouse to all the men in their congregations rather than preaching eternal hell for masturbaters.
Porn enables men to say no to women, in particular to say no to having a sexual relationship with a middle-aged or plain looking woman (the type of woman feminists tend to be). Banning pornography is an attempt by feminists to remove that ability to say no. Banning pornography is the rape of the male and Naomi Wolf is here admitting that All Feminists are Rapists.
The personal has become political – A 21st century Male’s survival guide
According to Kant, writing over 200 years ago, to marry was to halve one’s rights and to double one’s duties. For Kant’s great successor, Arthur Schopenhauer, marriage was only possible as the outcome of a conjuring trick played by nature upon men. The short lived beauty and charm of female youthfulness acting to lure lovestruck men into irrationally signing away their independence for a lifelong contract of devotion and commitment. The result of nature’s sorcery perhaps, yet Schopenhauer had no doubt that marriage was essential to civilisation, even if he, like Kant, was always too wise to fall through its heavily scented trap door. For (writing three decades before Darwin spelled it out scientifically) sexual attraction and the bonds that result from it, are nothing less than vital to the reproduction of the species itself, even if in the light of the 21stcentury this essential truth has incredibly been lost behind the deceitful fog of feminist mythmaking.
Such is the setting for Bernard Chapin’s quite brilliant treatise on what it means for society, as well as for the personal dignity of men and women, to lose sight of this politically incorrect truth and for nature’s fundamental balance between male desire and female desirability to be disturbed and broken. In a world in which feminists have achieved their oft-quoted aim of making the ‘personal political’, the book is an earnest plea for a rational reappraisal of the relationship between the sexes. The author shows how making the personal political has been achieved by a manipulation and perversion of the hardwired male chivalric disposition to express devotion to the female into a sad male acquiescence to the emergence of a political gynocracy . A New Womb Order in which decisions are made almost wholly for the apparent benefit of women, yet which not only leads to yet more suffering for the disposable male, actually fails to give a sense of personal happiness to the majority of women and that furthermore will be disastrous in the long term for both men and women and the civilisation to which they both belong. Feminism is reducing politics to the level of an ancient pagan mother goddess cult but men have forgotten that the reason our ancestors worshiped these fertility idols in the first place, was because they intuitively felt that the future of what they and their own forefathers had built depended upon it. The ultimate irony of feminism as womb deification is that, as Mark Steyn said to Chapin in an interview, ‘the future belongs to those who will be around to see it’. Feminism is leading to such a disastrous drop in Western birth rates that the likelihood is that ‘we’ won’t be around to see the results of our misguided devotion to the mother goddess who chooses to abort rather than concieve, and seeks re-election rather than reproduction.
I came to this book after becoming a devotee of the author’s brilliant and entertaining video blogs on youtube (‘Chapin’s Inferno‘). There, Chapin demonstrates a wonderfully educated and devastatingly rapier intellect which, every week, is unleashed upon some madness of the political left. I therefore had high expectations and I can honestly say that they have been quite exceeded. Not only is the argument of the book presented logically and clearly, it is also expressed at times quite beautifully. The guy is simply a very talented writer with a brilliant turn of phrase. This is demonstrated nowhere better than in his ruthless critique of the feminist position on porn and sexual objectification. He demolishes various arguments such as the idea that porn leads to sexual attacks on women ( ‘it simply enables men to get to sleep a little earlier’) and debunks the notion of the sexually objectifying ‘male gaze’ altogether – ‘(if the female sex are treated as objects then..) the female sex are treated with an awe generally reserved for religious relics’.
I couldn’t find many faults with the book. Chapin’s humanity and general ‘niceness’ are transparent throughout. If I was to make a criticism, it would be that the author is rather more charitable to the distinction between radical feminism and mainstream feminism than I and many others would be, and a lot more optimistic as to the ability of women to share legislative power with men in a just and equitable way. But perhaps it is better that Chapin doesn‘t quite share our pessimistic outlook, as it means that ‘Women : Theory and Practice’ can’t be pidgeon-holed by its opponents as simply an ‘anti-feminist’ work. Destined to become a classic of the Men’s Movement that it entirely deserves to be, this is also a book that every man should read simply as a guidebook to life in a brave new world.
Bernard Chapin has served up another splendily thought provoking video at Chapin’s inferno. Bernard makes clear that any use of violence or even aggressive behaviour on the part of MRA’s would be counter-productive to the cause and simply play into the hands of feminists who wish to portray men, or at least those who criticise feminism, as violent brutes.
Of course, violence is being committed upon men worldwide through the injustices of feminism on a massive and horrendous scale. Despite this, I would agree almost entirely with Bernard’s sentiments in this video. It’s important to remember that the mens’ rights movement is still in a very nascent and fragile form. If just a single anti-feminist or MRA was convicted of politically motivated violence then it would possibly derail and bring about the abortion of our movement before it had even really begun it’s long and (hopefully) productive life…and you know how feminists love to do things like that.
We still retain the ability to fight the emotional violence of feminists with the cool, rational arms of plain words and argument. Of course, that might not continue indefinitely – in fact it surely won’t. Feminist politicians in the UK and Europe have already begun drafting the broadening of hate speech laws to include any criticism of women and of feminism. What happens when saying blindingly obvious truth’s such as ‘men will always prefer younger women to older women because older women can’t reproduce’ gets you 6 months of prison rape time as a ‘sex offender’?
I’m probably too mild mannered and, perhaps, cowardly to ever even consider using violence as a political means, even if I were to condone the use of violence (which here and presently I am not doing). As I have argued, any ‘resistance’ to feminism is probably futile in that feminism is being driven by blind and brutal forces of nature that the human animal can never really have any control over. As far as the situation in Europe is concerned, any violent resistance is doubly pointless because sooner or later, in a sense, Islamic radical groups will do our work for us. And to any idiot who thinks I am here condoning what might or might not happen down the road in our continent, I am not. No more than any of the thousands or millions of clear sighted people were ‘condoning’ anything when they observed that the invasion of Iraq would increase the likelihood of Islamic terrorism occuring in the UK. And when I say ‘do our work for us’, I mean equally ‘do the work of women for them’. Regular readers of this blog will be aware I believe that feminism is akin to being the twin sister of Islam. Rather than being polar opposites, as many unthinkingly assume, Islam and feminism have a great deal in common. Maybe in 20 years time Muslim radicals will be targeting feminists in Europe just as they do in Afghanistan or parts of Iraq and Nigeria. But the Islamic radical state that these people aspire too will never represent the defeat of feminism, but rather the removal of the need for feminism. The only objective that Islamic terrorism against feminism could possibly achieve is simply the bringing forward of the day that the European femi-nazi state inevitably merges and melts into an Islamic theocratic state.
For my part, I write this blog as a means of self-expression, to keep sane, and to have the personal satisfaction of stating (and spreading) the truth about feminism while it remains possible to do so.
Here’s a book review I posted on Amazon a little while back. I should begin by saying that genuine eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa are awful psychological conditions. But for feminists to exploit such an illness by conflating it with counting calories at mealtime and teenage girls being ‘obsessed’ with looking good, all as a reason to demonize men, as well as promoting legislation or social policy which hampers efforts to combat the far more urgent problem of obesity amongst young people… well it is shocking and its disgraceful. Here is the review :
’This book is not only false and misleading on so many levels, it’s actually dangerous. Books like these now influence public policy and legislation and when the victims will not only be middle-aged men paying for the patriarchal sins of their forefathers, but also children and young people, then its time to read with a little more critical sobriety.
No matter the exaggerated number, but very real tragedy, of young women suffering from eating disorders – they have complex psychological causes. What is more, obesity clearly represents a far greater and urgent health problem facing our young people. Many American tourists come to my city and I have to say that I have never spotted an anorexic amongst them. I would however say that around half the young American females I see are unhealthily obese – by any reasonable definition. It strikes me therefore as utterly obscene for an American author to pretend that anorexia (a terrible psychological illness though it is) is in any way comparable to the threat posed by obesity to the health and well being of our young people today.
And yet the author has the audacity to claim (with no empirical proof or rational argument) that obesity itself is simply another eating disorder resulting from the evil objectification of the female body by men. Does obesity really have nothing to do with the junk food culture or the failure of parents to teach children responsible eating habits? Or, in fact, that so many females now DON’T care about living up to traditional ideas of femininity and grace? If we ban images of slim women (as the French have recently done) we will simply be guilty of encouraging obesity and therefore of abusing our children…even if middle-aged feminists no longer feel jealous rage whenever they watch a bikini model in a beer commercial or threatened by a slim teenage girl turning the heads of their husbands (they will all be over 18 stone soon before they even hit puberty).
Actually, it would be far better for the physical health of young Americans (if not the psychological health of middle-aged feminists) for young girls to be given compulsory beauty classes at college. Wanting too much to be attractive to the opposite sex appears to be the last thing on the average American girl’s mind.
Of course, no mention is made of the millions of young American males who are now force feeding themselves daily with steroids in order to be sexually acceptable to the opposite sex, knowing that they will likely be dead at 40 through liver disease or some other consequence.
What does the author really want men to do and what would be the consequences for us if we did it? Are we really to feel guilt and self-hatred at finding slim females attractive? Should we start cutting ourselves in shame and guilt every time an image of Maria Shaparova enters our heads instead of an 20 stone Russian shot putter (or feminist)?
And why no public discussion of the grotesque female sexual fetishisation of urban gangsta culture? Something that increasingly turns our young men into violent brutes willing to kill each other in a warped and tragic desire to seek validation from their female peers?’
A Russian advertising executive who sued her boss for sexual harassment lost her case after a judge ruled that employers were obliged to make passes at female staff to ensure the survival of the human race.
What should an anti-feminist say about this? Well, each anti-feminist to his own opinion I say. Personally, after having suffered sexual harassment at work myself (from a female and which eventually forced me to leave my job due to the stress – and getting no sympathy whatsoever from any member of the senior staff) I find it hard to cry chivalrous tears reading this, wronged though this woman may have been. I find it also very heartening to witness (and I have been predicting this for many years) that Russia is being forced to recognise that feminism = the death of your civilization. The Russians have had western feminism forced upon them in the space of less than a generation (rather like the Spanish), and consequently have experienced one of the sharpest and most disastrous declines in the birth rate in the entire world (just like the Spanish). The pace of change has occurred rather more gradually in America and the other European countries, giving the feminists time to mask the pernicious effects of their ideology behind the usual smokescreens of lies and political correctness.
Meanwhile, perhaps we too could recall more often the wisdom of Albion’s greatest son:
‘We should be woo’d and were not made to woo’
(Helena’s lament – Midsummer Night’s Dream, William Shakespeare)
Unfortunately, we continue to worship at the barren womb of the most insidious death cult in history.