Category Archives: Men’s Rights

Feminists Even Handed Out White Feathers to Underage Child Soldiers During WWI

Featured

Posted on by
4

Currently reading ‘The Second Sexism‘, the important new men’s rights book that uses philosophical analysis to argue that males are experiencing disadvantages in society that are the result of sexism.  I’ll write a review sometime soon, but the couple of chapters I’ve read thus far have left me impressed.  Here, the author David Benatar is discussing the discriminatory pressure on males to enlist and fight in war :

One particularly graphic example of this is the campaign, during the First World War, of British women distributing white feathers – a symbol of cowardice – to young men who were not in uniform.  These were distributed even to adolescent boys who were technically too young to register.  One boy, Frederick Broome, who had succeeded in enlisting at age 15, fought in battle, was returned to England in a febrile state and then discharged at the insistence of his father, who produced his birth certificate to convince the authorities.  Then, while walking over a bridge in town, then age 16, young Frederick was accosted by four girls who gave him three white feathers.  He later recalled as follows :

“I felt very humiliated.  I finished the walk over the bridge and there on the other side was the Thirty-seventh London Territorial Association of the Royal Field Artillery.  I walked straight in and re-joined the army.”

 

Note that I have not sought the author’s permission to quote the above passage – I assume he will have no objections to me highlighting a small sample of his work on a men’s rights advocacy site.

The quoted quote from the boy soldier is taken from (according to the author’s notes) ‘We Will Not Fight‘, by Will Ellsworth-Jones.

In the notes section, David Benatar also reveals that the feminist icon Virginia Wooff dismissed, against all the evidence, the claim that white feathers were handed out during World War I in any great numbers.  She apparently attributed the belief to ‘male hysteria’.

You can read an interview with David Benatar on the subject of his book here in the Pink Paper.

**UPDATE : I have added a follow-up to this article which deals with the historical relationship between feminism and the white feather campaigns, something which redditors seem to be having a hard time believing :

http://theantifeminist.com/feminism-and-the-white-feather-campaign-during-world-war-1/

 

Study Finds That Sexual Competition Causes Jealousy and Envy More to Women than to Men

Featured

Posted on by
8

Well, whaddya know?  Looks like the boffins are finally catching up with sexual trade union theory, as well as basic common sense.  No, really, cultural marxism explains everything about feminism (sarcasm).

http://www.counselheal.com/articles/1762/20120503/sexual-competition-causes-jealousy-envy-more-women.htm

Sexual competition affects women more than men in raising jealousy and envy in a work environment, according to a recent study.

The study of analyzing the differences between men and women in feeling jealous and envious was published in the journal Revista de Psicología Sociai by a group of researchers from universities in Valencia, Spain, Groningen, Netherlands, and Palermo, Argentina. Women are more likely to feel jealous and envy in a sexual competition than men, while social skills provoked men and women equally.


“Women with a high level of intrasexual competition are more jealous if the rival is more attractive and more envious if the rival is more powerful and dominating. They did not get any results in men, as no rival characteristics that provoke jealousy or envy predicted intrasexual competition,” co-author Rosario Zurriaga at University of Valencia told Servico de Información y Noticias Científicas (SINC).

Intrasexual competition, as the study defined, is a competition between same sex people trying to keep access to the opposite sex. The group of researchers distributed questionnaires to around 200 people and chose 114 as the sample for the exploratory study. The sample was 50 percent men and 50 percent women, and they had an average age of 36 years and spent 11 years in their current employment.

The studied defined jealously as “a threat or loss of success in a relationship due to interference from a rival and implies a loss or threat of loss of what they had” and envy as “a response to another person who has success, skills, or qualities that they desire and involves a lack in comparison to the envied person”.

Sexual competition made women feel jealous and envious more so than men. Rival’s social skills, however, provoked both men and women equally.

“Our research intends to clarify the role of emotions like envy and jealousy at work. These feelings have not been studied in working contexts and can cause stress in workers and negatively affect the quality of working life,” said the researcher.

“This is one of the first studies that examines rivals’ characteristics in this environment and contributes to a better understanding of conflicts and problems that can occur in working relationships,” they said.

The study implied that in order to prevent the negative effects, they should modify aspects such as the perception of threat, loss, or comparison with others at work.

Steve Moxon Dropped by UKIP Over Anders Brevik Comments

Featured

Posted on by
15

Steve Moxon, author of the classic anti-feminist book ‘The Woman Racket‘, was dropped as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in this week’s local elections over comments he made on his blog previously regarding Anders Breivik. Whilst stressing how appalling and insupportable Breivik’s actions were, Moxon had noted that his manifesto presented an accurate account of the spread of political correctness in Europe. This was picked up by a local paper in the city that Moxon was standing in (Sheffield), forcing UKIP to drop him as a candidate – despite the vast majority of UKIP supporters no doubt sharing the same anti-PC views. UKIP – an ‘alternative right’ anti-EU party – gained 14% of the vote nationally in yesterday’s vote.

The very reason – the ‘justification’ for – why Breivik behaved in the appalling way in which he did was because of the completely closed-down debate about PC. That is abundantly clear from his ‘manifesto’. To head off the possibility of more Breiviks, this has to change.
The ‘guilt by association’ usual ruse was in full swing to close down debate yet further.
The standard line on Breivik is that he is ‘beyond the pale’, and therefore any analysis of PC is also ‘beyond the pale’.
It most certainly is not.
That someone who acknowledges the researched historical analysis of the origin of PC is a mass murderer in no way makes the research into the origin of PC a doctrine itself of mass murder. It is never the case that if A is in some way coincidental with B, and B is ‘beyond the pale’; that, therefore, A is likewise ‘beyond the pale’. That would be the most elementary non-logic.
Malicious nonsense of ‘guilt by association’ as it is applied to analysis of PC requires combating. If there is no free speech even on the topic of the most deep-seated, entrenched and widespread fascism ever to afflict societies — which PC indeed is — then there is no free speech at all.
Concerns about ‘sensitivity’ are just smokescreens to cover a PC-fascist stance. Evidently, even the deepest irony is opaque to the PC-fascist.
‘You’re not fit to be a journalist, let alone a political editor’, I admonished the hapless Marsden. “I don’t think you’re fit to be a candidate”, he retorted.
But that is my point! A PC-fascist does not accept that anyone who challenges the PC hegemony can be moral; and that therefore such a challenger is ineligible to stand in any election.
That PC is itself the height of immorality — seeking to label the disadvantaged as ‘oppressors’ and the privileged as the ‘oppressed’ – completely escapes PC-fascists. They feel obliged to stick rigidly to this self-delusion rather than to admit the failure of their whole ideology. But this vehement denial inevitably cannot long survive being comprehensively found out.

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17911131

Transhumanist Interview with an Anti-Feminist

Posted on by
3

Our friend Hank Pellissier recently contacted me regarding a possible interview that would be published at the IEET.  Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible (permissible), but I answered his questions via e-mail anyway, and the results have been published at what appears to be one of the few transhumanist sites that aren’t 100% for the eradication of the male gender.

Interview with an Anti-Feminist

In terms of emerging technology – do you think sexbots will replace women, for many men? what about sexbots replacing men for women?

Sexbots are seen largely as a symbolic representation of the idea that technology may one day free men from their sexual dependence upon women. Personally, I think that the technology required for autonomous artificially intelligent sexbots to satisfy the psychological sexual needs of either men or women are decades away. Transhumanism itself is likely a safer bet for creating the ‘ideal’ sexual partner. Much of our discontent is rooted in the mal-adaptive and conflicting sexual psychologies that we still carry around with us – from male slut shaming of women in an age of contraception, abortion, and paternity testing, to the selfish female desire for monogamy and commitment in a partner (not likely to be conducive to happiness when sex becomes completely divorced from reproduction, when few people have children, and we are all living to be 1,000).

 

As far as physical technologies are concerned, much more exciting and immediate than sexbots are the roles that telepresence, augmented reality, and 3D printing will enable both men and women to benefit from the free sexual market. 3D printing will allow the cheap and easy production of realistic sex dolls that can be life-like replicas of anybody on Earth (or a fantasy ideal figure). Although this may sound disturbing and selfish, its real value will be when conjoined with tele-presence technology (in a sense, sex bots controlled remotely for virtual sex). ‘Sex bots’ will not replace men or women, but will instead be used to enrich the sex lives between men and women. Older women (and men) will be able to enjoy sex in the bodies of their youthful selves again, or in any kind of ‘improved’ or fantasy body that they wish. In addition, and probably much sooner than that, augmented reality glasses or contact lenses will allow a similar effect – your lover will see you as however you (or he/she) wishes you to appear. This will likely happen within the next 5-10 years. Finally, rejuvenation therapies will eventually mean that men and women can physically return to their younger selves, whilst bioprinting and cosmetic surgery could mean women literally changing their faces almost as easily as changing hairstyle. Ultimately, technology could even lead to individuals routinely swapping gender, or the very idea of gender itself becoming meaningless.

 

If my interpretation of feminism is correct – which I call ‘sexual trade union theory’ – then the forces driving feminism that are resulting in inequalities and unhappiness for both men and women, will largely disappear in the coming decades. Feminism has been the history of women trying vainly to close the free sexual market that disadvantages them as accelerating technological progess continues to open it at a faster rate. Quite soon, technology will actually come to women’s aid in this regard, and we will reach a kind of ‘sexual singularity’, in which the very notion of sexual competition – the cause of feminism as a sexual trade union – becomes meaningless. The criminalisation of male sexuality, and the unhappiness of women, will be over.

Five Feminists On Board The Titanic – Four Survived…The Other Was A Male Feminist

Posted on by
15

Interesting article from TheScotsman reveals that five prominent feminists were on board the Titanic, and all of them survived bar one – William Thomas Stead, the only male feminist amongst them. A noted women’s rights campaigner, Stead was most famous for his ‘tabloid’ style expose of child prostitution in late Victorian London, which was largely responsible for persuading the British parliament to accede to feminist demands, against the wishes of early men’s rights campaigners, and raise the age of consent from 13 to 16.

The article seems to be stressing the bravery of the female feminists. One of them ‘helped other women and children into the lifeboats’. Another, ‘broke her ankle boarding the lifeboat but survived’. Poor dear. William T Stead, meanwhile, exemplified Victorian chivalry with a stiff upper lip.

William T Stead – a British newspaper reporter who paved the way for tabloid journalism – was a social reformer and ardent advocate of women’s rights. While editor of the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, he “bought” a 13-year-old girl for £5 in an attempt to expose the scale of child prostitution. Although he was jailed for unlawfully kidnapping a minor, the publicity the case generated led to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which raised he age of consent from 13 to 16. A friend of suffragette Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Stead was proud of being the first editor to employ women on the same wages as men. After all the lifeboats on the Titanic had been filled, Stead, who had been travelling to a peace conference, is said to have gone to the First Class smoking room where he was last seen sitting in a leather chair reading a book.

 

NSPCC Abuse Hysteria Anti-Father Pays Their Salaries Publicity Given Thumbs Up By Watchdog

Posted on by
6

Radical feminist fake children’s charity the NSPCC has had a controversial publicity campaign cleared by the industry watchdog.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/advertising/regulator-clears-nspcc-publicity-7579945.html

Publicity for children’s charity the NSPCC has been cleared by the advertising regulator after complainants described its reference to child abuse as “disturbing and offensive”.

The DVD case, sent as a direct mailing in December, featured text stating: “Kerry’s father asked her to do the unthinkable. And then he filmed it.”

A leaflet inside the DVD said: “The footage of Kerry is now with the police. As is her father, because she was able to talk to ChildLine.”

Seven complainants objected that the text on the cover was disturbing and offensive while another said it could cause distress to individuals who had suffered abuse.

Another said the case was inappropriate for children to see.

Defending the wording, the NSPCC said it relied on mailings generating a good level of response from donors and it was therefore important that they stood out.

Underage Models Risk Creating ‘Hyper-Sexualised French Lolitas’

Posted on by
24

The Telegraph prints an article on a subject I was alerted to and posted on recently : the bid by feminists in France to ban beauty pageants, child models, and ‘adult’ clothing for children (children being defined as under 18 or 16).

The French report suggests restricting beauty pageants to girls aged over 16 or 18, banning advertisers from dressing under age models in adult attire or using them as brand figureheads. It also advocates the return of uniforms in primary schools phased out in 1968 and considered a curious British anachronism by many.

Titled ‘Against hyper-sexualisation, a new fight for equality’, the report was triggered by international outrage over a French Vogue magazine cover featuring a heavily made-up 10-year-old model.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9126568/Under-age-models-risk-creating-hyper-sexualised-French-lolitas.html

I’ve added a comment below the article – please add your own :

Whilst concerns over the sexualisation of 8 year olds might have some validity, we all know this is about feminists exploiting such concerns to artificially ‘de-sexualise’ teenage girls.

First you legally define children as anyone under 18 (when throughout history, adulthood began at puberty).

Then, when most people still associate ‘childhood’ with pre-pubescents, you create a hysteria over the ‘sexualisation of childhood’.

Finally, you legally ban 17 year olds from wearing thongs or mini-skirts as part of a legislative package supposedly to protect pre-teens, which no politician chasing the female vote (every politician in a modern democracy), the family values vote, and the muslim vote,  dare challenge.

This way, 40 year old feminists (not to mention 40 year old male Islamists) don’t have to be wracked with pain everytime they walk down the street, having to pass girls at the peak of their beauty displaying their flawless skin.

This is how third wave feminism operates, increasingly in conjunction with the Islamisation of society.  Feminists can’t honour kill their younger sexual rivals, but they do have the power and spurious moral authority to forcibly victimise 17 year old ‘children’.

 

In the same newspaper, and on a closely related Islamo-feminist slut shaming theme, a British girl has become the first white victim of honour killing by the muslim community :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9149929/Teenager-is-first-white-victim-of-honour-killing.html