Banned from YouTube (actually ‘Terminated‘!), banned from Reddit (yes, Reddit ‘Men’s Rights’! – for upsetting a diaper fetishist mangina), and banned from Amazon (or at least my review of ‘Living Dolls’ removed at the behest of a feminist).
Banned, Banned, Banned. Feminists 3 Schopenbecq 0
I’m having one of my ‘should I throw in the towel’ reflections currently. Even poor old JayHammers has evidently had enough. One less courageous voice against the sexual trade union.
Three cheering events this past week might persuade me to hang in for a little while longer.
First International Anti-Feminist Meeting Held in Zurich, Switzerland
Andersson described it as a “very special” and “historic moment”.
“The major goal is not to come to conclusions about anything but mostly to meet like-minded people. As you have seen, there are forces trying to stop us from having this meeting,” Andersson told swissinfo.ch.
News of the meeting was reported in the press and led to a demonstration by 50 feminist activists in Zurich and graffiti was sprayed on a community hall in Uitikon, canton Zurich, where the meeting was planned. Leaflets have also been handed out for a rally to coincide with the event.
You know, I’m not particularly fond of Islam, but when the inevitable happens, and muslims in Europe start demonstrating and heckling feminist gatherings, I promise to convert.
No, I’m just too liberal to do that. That’s why I despise feminists for being the freedom hating fascists that they are.
A couple of the following points did concern me a little :
In a written statement prepared for Saturday’s meeting, Andersson has drawn up five key beliefs of antifeminists: “opposing the feminist hatred of men, valuing the nuclear family, believing in the child’s rights to both its parents after a divorce or a separation, looking at the individual and not judging people by their gender, and accepting that men and women are different and counting that as assets”.
Is valuing the nuclear family really a core anti-feminist or men’s rights belief? Well if taken in the sense that children (particularly boys) need a male parent as well as a female, then yes, although being pro-family per se, I don’t think it is. No group has the right to impose its own particular political viewpoint upon the anti-feminist movement. Also, the point regarding ’men and women are different and valuing that as an asset’. That men and women are different is a truism that only feminist dreamers deny, but ‘valuing it as an asset’ sounds suspiciously like a defence of ‘patriarchy’ and traditional male/female roles, something which not all MRA’s accept (given that patriarchy was a myth and women have always had some form of power, if not always the overt political kind). I also tend to think that the fundamental differences between men and women are part of the inherent wheel of suffering that is life, not something to celebrate, but admittedly not something you can really make a political stance of opposing, unless through championing a form of trans-humanism.
But all in all, men finally coming together in public to oppose the lies of feminism is something to cheer loudly.
Another good piece of news is that men’s rights is to feature regularly on a British radio station. Namely, transcripts of the ground breaking Man Woman Myth series of videos.
Thirdly, the great Ferdinand Bardamu spoke out against the pedohysteric witch hunt of an American politician who merely stated the following obvious truth :
The greatest love interest in the history of romance is at least arguably Juliet from Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was 13 years old. For some reason females become fertile in their early teens and peak before the age of 18,” Redlich wrote. “You would think those who believe in the theory of evolution would see this as the design of the species.”
Ferdinand also quoted from my coverage of the similarly insane Glee/GQ ‘paedophilia’ scandal. Perhaps I should hang around for a little while longer.
I BEG you to not take down this blog.
Coming from a guy who did exactly that himself, I know that must ring hollow.
But … plans are afoot. THINGS will soon be HAPPENING, of this I am sure!
And this blog is what I would call a ‘critical resource’.
By removing it, you would be denying anti-feminists a powerful weapon against the feminist sector – AND you would be allowing conservatives to set the agenda for the MRM, by not speaking up in dissent in this regard, as you have been for some time.
Your disruptor meme – feminism as a sexual trade union – is TOO GOOD to lose!
More to the point – on this very blog you have archived the evidence backing up that theory.
Removing THIS blog would be FAR WORSE than when I removed Remasculation, a blog which was pretty directionless to be honest.
So … hang in there, and don’t let them win. Banning free speech is the name of their game, and what sense does it make to do their job for them … ?
I concur with Snark.
But if you DO decide to throw in the towel on anti-feminism there could still be another way to get your ideas out there. Atheism.
I think most atheists are men and I think they are, deep down, atheists because they intuitively understand that religion is opposed to their sexuality. (I think they also understand that feminism also hates their sexuality even though they will not admit it.)
Few women are atheists but those that are often look like this jewel here. And should we be surprised considering that for a girl like that God is just a barrier to all the sex she could want and plenty of power to go with it?
She DOES consider herself to be a feminist but what does that really mean for a girl like that? Such girls are acutely aware of the jealousy of fuglies and so could be easily be recruited as anti-feminists even as they consider themselves feminist. The thing is feminism is a just a word. Women are real. Sexy women are real. And unattractive jealous women are real too.
If the root cause of feminism is sexual jealousy of older and uglier women then there ought to be more than one way of attacking that root.
Unlike most anti-feminists I think that much of what you have written on this blog could actually receive support from say ‘sex positive’ feminists if the language were altered.
Same goes for the atheists that frequent the Richard Dawkins site. How can a person who doubts the existence of God not also doubt the notion that pornography or prostitution ‘degrades’ women?
The best way to do it would probably be to pretend to be a naive person who is a feminist because he believes in ‘equality’. (This is, after all, what we are SUPPOSED to believe.) And to use this line of defence any time you come under attack. Claim that feminists, like yourself, are for equality and that it’s those ‘other’ women (the real feminists) who are not true feminists and that they ‘hijacked’ an otherwise nobel movement (lol) for their own selfish sexual interests. Furthermore you can argue that these ‘false feminists’ are a barrier to muslim women getting help because their sexual jealousy makes them support Islam. This helps to turn atheists against real feminists.
I agree, and I sometimes regret choosing the name ‘the antifeminist’ because it means that few sites other than men’s rights blogs will even consider linking to this site. In fact, that’s one reason why I’m thinking of calling time on this project – it is rather limiting, and its probably served it’s purpose. Probably every MRA has passed through this site at least once at some point or another, and they either get it (like mras such as yourself, snark, FB) or they don’t, and you/they will carry forward the ‘sexual trade union’ meme or they won’t.
However, I’ll admit I’m sceptical about the possiblilities of bringing on board ‘sex-positive’ feminists ( a very tiny minority, and most of them change their tune once they hit 35). I think, on balance, the attacks on the psychology of older women I make here are worthwile in terms of likely effect. I honestly think that if just 100 men were to post comments referring to ‘jealousy’ and ‘sexual trade union’, under every feminist anti-sex news story that appears online, that it would make a difference. I simply can’t believe that more men aren’t calling women out on behaviour which is clearly sexually self-motivated. Instead, even men’s rights activists put it all down to cultural marxism, or else question the sexual motives of other MRAs who are brave enough to speak out (aka. the lynching of Jay Hammers).
I think as well as atheism, the singlularity/transhumanism ‘scene’ is one important area to try to influence. The one article of mine that has caused any kind of wave beyond the men’s rights community is my ‘feminists try to ban sex bots’ story. Now that’s important because anybody researching humanoid robots and ethics of relationships with them will likely come across my article. That’s a relatively small handful of people, but their power to impact upon the future of the sex market and male sexual happiness is immense.
A problem is, any secular ‘movement’ seems to sooner or later take on qualities of religious belief, forming their own dogmas which are often themselves based upon irrational Christian beliefs. It’s possible to see this happening clearly with both the militant atheist movement and the transhumanists/singularitarians.
“I simply can’t believe that more men aren’t calling women out on behaviour which is clearly sexually self-motivated.”
I’m convinced that the greatest accomplishment of the feminist was not taking over the media, the workplace, divorce court, law, etc.
Her greatest achievement EVER was rendering a full grown elephant sitting in a small, crowded living room utterly invisible.
Even a small child has little trouble understanding that the fuglies are ‘just jealous’. The problem is that they have had nearly two hundred years of experience with this straightforward accusation. Long enough to weave lies within lies in such a way that grown people of average intelligence could believe the whole thing had to do with anything but jealousy.
Basically they have told the world 3 lies.
lie#1: “I’m not acting out of sexual jealousy.”
lie#2: “Sex workers are slaves.”
lie#3: “Women have always been slaves by another name.”
Lie 2 is told to justify denying men access to sex and to cover up lie 1 (You don’t envy those you give condolences to.)
Back when slavery was a western reality this was as far as they really needed take it. (The mere fact of actual slavery was generally enough to convince people that most sex workers were probably slaves.)
But when slavery was abolished they had a problem. With slavery gone how could they perpetuate the meme that sex workers are still slaves?
The answer was in lie#3.
Over the last 150 years or so a positive feedback loop has been ongoing. Society, believing the feminists, attempts to right a perceived wrong by heaping power and priviledge onto women. This in turn forces the feminists to have to work harder to maintain lie#3. This results in society throwing even more priviledge their way which forces feminists to work even harder and so on.
The result is for the original accusation of jealousy to become buried beneath a growing pile of entitlements, anger and resentment.
I think you’re exactly right EWM.
Reading early anti-feminist literature opens your eyes to how the transparent basic motivations of feminists have become forgotten over time, even by current MRAs. And of course, cultural marxism gave the second wave feminists the intellectual mask they needed.
Thanks Snark, I appreciate your support. It’s unlikely I’ll take this blog down in the next few months, and if I do, I’ll probably convert it into a more ‘resource friendly’ site and keep the most important pages up.
I honestly think I’d be spending my (limited) time more productively, and spreading the ‘sexual trade union’ meme more effectively, by posting comments underneath news stories online. Most MRAs must be familiar with this site’s message now, I don’t have much more to tell them, and people like yourself and Ferdinand Bardemu are propagating the meme to a far wider readership than I can on this site.
Ah, good – at least leave me time to back up the entire site. LOL! I may want to use some of this stuff in the future – I will of course credit you for anything I use, even if you have decided to take the site down.
When MND announced it was closing down, I spent a few evenings doing little more than cycling back through the news items and opinion pieces and saving as much as I thought was worth keeping – which was rather a lot.
Schoppy, please do not abandon the cause. I don’t contribute much to this site, but I am an attentive reader of it. Don’t pull a “Snark” on us! Yours is a truly unique and valuable perspective on all of the sex controversy swirling about us. You are inspiring.
P.S. Snark, are you ever going to repost your old articles from REMASCULATION?
“Snark, are you ever going to repost your old articles from REMASCULATION?”
I’ll do you one better. LOL!
Just wait for it … there was always a reason for what happened.
I also wish that you do not shut down this website (and I am rather sad to hear that JayHammers has shutdown his, I didn’t visit him much, but it is still a loss).
If you do decide to do so, however, I respectfully ask that you archive the best articles somewhere.
For the love of God keep posting on this site and please do not take it down it is too valuable a tool to loose. I don’t mean to offend but are you sure that you are not just getting overly upset at having been banned from Youtube and censored at Amazon??? It is very unfortunate that this has happened but unfortunately this is what tends to happen to advocates of unpopular opinions try not to let it get to you. Giving up after this events will only encourage the use of censorship tactics against us.
This site is a very unique one in the MRA world: 1) It is very sex positive 2) It does not try to impose an arbitrary definition masculinity on everyone and put down other men who fail to live up to the advocates definition of a “real man” 3) It strongly argues the Sexual Trade Union hypothesis 4) It makes a 2 fisted defence of male sexual rights WITHOUT being overly negative towards all women (ex: you don’t see words like “ameriskanks”, “western whores”,”women are only good for fucking and chucking”) that being said it is my opinion that the percentage of women who have extremely selfish views WRT to male/female relationships is way to fucking high. 5) It does not have an overly separatist stance vis a vis women like many MGTOWers do (though I agree with the general principle of the MGTOW movement that men should “go their own way” WRT to things like marriage and children, I think we are all MGTOWers at heart here whether we give ourselves the label or not. 6) This blog is fun to read…even when reading about depressing news 7) This blog is one of the few that tackels Age of Consent and the rights of men and young girls to form consensual sexual relationships….and I could go on and on about the unique things about this blog and why it would be a shame to loose it.
I also disagree that you have little else to offer: 1) You stated that it was your intent to write a review of each chapter of The Woman Racket…this book is probably the best (and most underread) book on Men’s Issues out there and anything that could encourage more MRA’s to read it would be helpful 2) You were going to write an essay on peak sexual attractiveness 3) There will be plenty of developments and news articles to comment on in the future and we could really use your imput.
QUOTE: ” I’ll admit I’m sceptical about the possiblilities of bringing on board ‘sex-positive’ feminists”
From my experience “sex-positive feminists” try to overly downplay the role of feminism in the development of anti-sexual laws and attitudes they tend blame it all on “patriarchy” and try to frame all issues in that context. Also, again from my experience, “sex-positive feminists” tend to argue exclusively from a female point of view (ex: argue for prostitution in order for women to “have sovereignty over thier bodies” but say NOTHING wrt to men having access to a healthy sex life and bringing attention to sex abuse hysteria in order to “end the climate of fear that prevents women from enjoy their sexuality” while expressing almost no concern for male victims of false sccusations…etc). There is a desperate need to have an unapologetic voice for male sexual interests in these debates and bringing in “sex-positive feminists” who still tend to be very selfish/self-absorbed women could risk drowning that out as we would have to make some effort to accomodate them (and thier is the risk of engaging in constant debates with them as they make try to hijack the movement to try and frame all issues WRT to sexuality as “Patriarchal repression of female sexuality”).
Thanks Highwayman.
Yes, I keep meaning to start the chapter by chapter review of Moxon’s book. I also want to do the same for Neil Lyndon’s ‘No More Sex War’ (have you read that one btw? You can only get it second hand on amazon. It’s another classic and he has a lot to say about abuse hysteria, which was very new to the UK at the time of writing and consisted mainly of satanic child sacrifice claims – the primitive precurser to the present internet pedo hysteria).
I agree 100% with your analysis of sex positive feminists.
No I have not read No More Sex War. It sounds like an interesting book so I think I will try and pick up a copy. Speaking of “classics” have you ever read Murray Rothbard’s classic anti-feminist rant here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard4.html
I have much to disagree with Mr. Rothbard (as I assume you do as well) but it is interesting to note that he observed (back in 1970) that a fair amount of the second wave of feminism was motivated by “jealousy of attractive and pretty girls” and how feminists seemed to be preoccupied with attacking pornography, beauty contests and “sexist” advertizing featuring pretty models.
Jayhammers? why did he take it down? He could have stopped posting, but let it stand.
If he wants to stop, he can let someone else take over. At least it is a good position in google.
Or did he get threatened? Jailed?
They took down your youtube? all feminists are rapists? why?
Offending feminists?
You plan to take this DOWN?
Can we start a new mensRights group at reddit? did you get thrown out of reddit or of men’s rights?
Radical Men’s rights! Reddit AntiFeminists!
We could write about being kicked out. maybe JayHammers gives his blog for documenting feminst prosecution.
Actually, I often forget that my blog is not about men’s rights, but about dogmas, blind belief, unconsciousness etc. Just turned out that feminist laws are the frontline of such persecutions, so this turned to be one of the main topics.
Rather, reddit mens’ rights declared that so called child porn (which usually is neither child nor porn, rather adolescent erotics) and its 20 year jail sentences for mere possession are no men’s rights issue.
Maybe we should start a specific reddit section about child porn and teenage sexual freedom!? These are the worst taboo themes, where the entire population already had been brainwashed.
JayHammers was getting increasingly dispirited. I think the final straw was the moderators of reddit/mensrights making up a story about him having an illegal 15 year old girlfriend.
I’ve e-mailed him twice but gotten no response. I have his ‘age of consent is misandry’ article downloaded and I might post it here as a valuable resource.
We didn’t make that story up. Someone linked his own testimony in his own blog, and one the accusation was public, I publicly invited him to make a response.
Have you considered running your ideas through a more experience MRA? Just to get advice how to get your message across while compromising.
As for flamewars resulting in banning, this is dark censorship at its worst. I expect you to be given warnings as to appropriate language, which would also apply to the tactics used by some leftist a$$clown.
Schop,
Please do NOT give up. Do NOT take down the blog.
The loss of Female Masculist, Wedded Abyss, and Jay Hammers is bad enough.
Thanks for your support TFH.
In my opinion you’re one of the most important figures in the men’s rights movement.
I’ve actually been reading ‘the misandry bubble’ on amazon kindle this week (copied the text and saved as .txt file). You should convert your essay on to PDF and .mobi and other ebook reader forms.
Pingback: Generation Y, raised on nothing but feminism, will be a nightmare for men. | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception
Actually, Mr. Bardamu is mistaken. Yup, female fertility begins at puberty, but it doesn’t peak before 18. Fertility actually peaks between 22 and 26, and does not begin any appreciable decline until after age 30. Look at the wikipedia article under female fertility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility
I would argue this is actually somewhere around the most sexually desired age range of women in our society, i.e. most men are most physically attracted to women of about 21-24 years of age (in my experience anyway). Of course, it’s not at all aberrant that you or your readers are inclined towards 15-17 year olds – it makes sense that there would be a natural variety of sexual preferences in a given population of humans. There might even be a small subset of men that’s more interested in slightly older women too (28-31), but no one talks about them because they’re so utterly PC in our culture.
The sad fact of the matter is our society has decided that with education and the job market what it is, 15 is too young for girls to be having sex with men who, quite frankly, have no lasting interest in their welfare. The way we bring our children up these days, there’s simply no way a girl can acquire that skills she needs to raise to children by the time she’s 15. If you want to eliminate the age of consent so you can sleep with 15 year olds, fine, but first you’ll have to work on restructuring our education system so that girls (and boys) who choose to do so can get training in managing a home and tap out of formal education at a younger age. Otherwise, you can’t expect today’s girls to be open to all the pitfalls that can come with sex when, realistically, they have at least 7 years of schooling still ahead of them before they can get a job that could possibly support that baby you don’t want them to abort. Granted, we can’t stop them from having sex with each other, but we can stop them from being hawked as wifeys for 30 year old guys. 15 year olds can be sexy, yes, but very, very few have the maturity to raise a baby equal to the maturity of their appearance. And that’s never going to change until we stop educating girls and go back to training them early on as baby-makers. And that is something the feminists will definitely never allow, thank goodness.
And again, if you really want a 16 year old, there’s not much stopping you from marrying her.
I’ve addressed most of your points elsewhere in this blog.
You’re mistaking peak fertility with the age at which EP would predict men to find females most attractive. It woud be in a woman’s reproductive intrest to have her maximum fertility some time after securing a committed, long term mate. NOT when a passive caveman would most like to fuck her and dump her.
>The sad fact of the matter is our society has decided that with education and the job market what it is, 15 is too young for girls to be having sex with men who, quite frankly, have no lasting interest in their welfare.
Fail. Society has not decided anything. A relatively small band of feminist lobby groups, backed by puritanical American politics, has succeeded in creating a new social norm backed by international law. This has mainly been in response to the internet freeing up the free sexual market and making it easier for older men to access teenage girls.
Education and the job market have nothing to do with such a blind and primitive social force. Which country out of the USA and Japan has a teen pregnancy rate 8 times less than that of the other? Which country has the best educated young people? Hint : it’s not the pedohysteric country that screams fury at 25 year old women dressed up as schoolgirls. It’s the nation where the age of consent is 13, and until recently, had photobooks of scantily clad schoolgirls in every respectable bookshop.
Your arguments are baseless in a society with free contraception, easy and legal access to abortion, a welfare state, and a moral view that (generally) holds that sex is a human right.
Furthermore, if you read any of my other articles, you’ll see I’ve always made clear that older men who impregnate teenage girls should be held legally accountable.
Have you ever heard of something called birth control? And sorry I am not buying your argument that AOC is just society wanting to protect girls from unintentional pregancies and form men who care nothing about there welfare…if it was then why in many cases do western countries allow young girls to have sex with young boys but not older men? Surely a pregnancy resulting from sex with a young boy (who can’t do anything to support the girl) is far worse than a pregnancy resulting from sex with an older man (who is more likely able to be able to support her) and do young boys have more “lasting interest” in a girl’s welfare than older men do? Furthermore why do many western societies have double standards WRT men having sex with young girls vs older women having sex with young boys? You might argue that the older woman is better equiped to raise a child BUT consider this: 1) an older man can provide for a young girl whereas a young boy can do fuck all to provide to provide for a pregnant older woman 2) again there is something called BIRTH CONTROL 3) girls are more mature at that age than boys are.
What’s really behing high AOC laws and cultural attacks on sexual relationships between older men and young girls is the sexual trade union (as documented on this website) and IMHO the “cheater detection mechanism” whereby society seeks to prevent lower status males from obtaining sex from females that there position in the dominance heirarchy would normally not entitle them to (IOW because young girls are believed to be “easier”, something I dispute BTW, there is a fear that a lower status male would be able to acquire a higher quality mate than he normally would).
At present, neither theantifeminist nor mariaantonia are banned, and hadn’t been banned, though you’ve both pissed me off with your cute little coordinated attack today.