Anti-Feminist Theory of Men's Rights, Male Sexuality, Feminism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.

Barbara Hewson said in an interview that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the “persecution of old men”.

She also said that complainants should no longer receive anonymity.

The NSPCC called her views “outdated and simply ill-informed” and said to hear them “from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief”.

Her remarks come after a number of high-profile arrests from Operation Yewtree, the police investigation into historic sexual abuse following the Savile scandal.

The arrests have included Max Clifford, Stuart Hall and Gary Glitter among others.

Isn’t it shameful that a female barrister can make such a plea, and yet when myself and my readers – all men’s rights supporters – argue that issues surrounding the age of consent should at least be discussed in the context of men’s rights, in order to stop the barbaric persecution of old men, we are effectively kicked out of the movement?

The Men’s Human Rights Movement, however, would rather get into bed with the devils in the NSPCC – a collection of pure and utter evil radical feminists, interested only in enriching themselves whilst soothing their own psycho-sexual jealousies through the persecution of old men for decades old ‘crimes’, and the promotion of medieval hysteria that leaves millions of men demonised and in fear of ruin.

Placing the prevention of the sexual abuse of boys at the top of the men’s rights agenda seems like a no brainer to me.  First of all we save boys from a lifetime of abuse, trauma, and destruction.  Period.  Secondly, it will give mainstream legitimacy to our movement.  Given that the protection of girls has historically been one of the leading activist goals of feminism since its origins in the 19th century Social Purity Movements, highlighting the sexual abuse of boys will demonstrate to the world that the men’s human rights movement is simply the male equivalent of feminism and part of the mainstream progressive human rights movement.  Thirdly, it will attract more women into the movement, something that we all agree is needed, and once again, will provide legitimacy to our cause.  Good women care about children, and putting the protection of boys at the top our agenda will attract the sort of women that we need, and that our society needs.  Finally, highlighting the sexual abuse of boys will increase donations from the public and possibly even win our cause funding from government.  There is a reason that child protection agencies such as the NSPCC spend a disproportionate use of resources in tackling sexual abuse, even when their own research tells them that problems such as bullying and parental divorce are affecting children much more.  Sex sells, and the sexual abuse of children sells most of all.  It would be foolish of us as a pragmatic and progressive human rights movement to ignore that fact.  The inevitable cash flow can then be used to both prevent the abuse of boys, as well as a diverse range of other men’s human rights concerns ranging from fairness in family courts to awareness of gay rights.

That stopping the sexual abuse of boys may be a no brainer, but how to incorporate that goal into successful Men’s Human Rights Activism is a more difficult challenge.  As a preliminary to further debate, I suggest the following 5 point plan :

1. We commence a campaign with a snappy logo (such as ’1 in 4 – Boys Count Too!’) together with banners and buttons linking to a donation page and encourage all genuine Men’s Human Rights Sites to display them.
2. We demand that age of consent laws reflect the fact that boys mature later than girls, physically, emotionally, and sexually.  Feminists performed one of their few good deeds when they raised the age of consent from 12 to 16 or 18, but such ages do not reflect the reality that boys need protecting further.  We therefore propose that the age of consent be raised to 21, for both boys and girls (this is necessary to ensure equality).
3. We reach out to feminists and feminist child protection groups in an effort to build bridges and to demonstrate that we share a common goal – the protection of childhood innocence.  Gender politics should never stand in the way of protecting the most vulnerable in our society – girls AND boys.
4. We commission University research (paid with by, say, 10% of our donations) to prove the already demonstrated statistic that 1 in 4 boys have been sexually abused, including non-contact sexual abuse*.  We also fund the training of specialist therapists who are able to understand and treat the particular trauma that teenage boys go through when molested by their female teachers.
5. We pursue a policy of total exclusion on those supposed men’s rights activists who question the sexual abuse of boys or girls and who call for discussion on such nauseating and suicidal topics as the age of consent.  These monsters are hijacking our cause and have no further place in a progressive men’s human rights movement.

*Credit goes to the sterling work of activist and Home Run hitter TyphonBlue

Interesting factoids of the day – annual income of leading UK children’s charities :

NSPCC : largest ‘child protection’ charity, deals almost entirely in the sexual abuse of teenage girls by male sexual predators, with the physical abuse of boys and girls by their fathers a distant second. Everything else is ignored. Total Yearly Income : £ 135 million

Children with Cancer : One of the largest children’s cancer charities in the world.  Spends money on helping children with cancer lead better pain free lives, as well as funding research on fighting cancer.  Total Yearly Income : £ 11 million

According to the NSPCC’s own research, bullying is by far and away the biggest problem facing children and young people today, and according to young people themselves.  Despite this, the NSPCC rarely promotes anti-bullying campaigns, and whenever they do mention bullying, it is almost always in relation to supposed ‘sexual bullying’ or sexual behaviour that might ‘lead to bullying’, such as ‘sexting’.  There are also very few charities in the UK devoted to bullying.  One of the few that I found posted latest accounts revealing a yearly income of just £626.

Act against Bullying : One of the very few anti-bullying children’s charities in the UK that hasn’t closed down in the last couple of years due to lack of donations and funding.  Total Yearly Income : £626  (yes that’s just 626 pounds, compared to the 135 million pounds that the NSPCC, which deals almost exclusively with teenage sex, draws in).

Lesson learned?  Any MRA who thinks we aren’t going jump at this cash cow like a repressed Catholic schoolgirl finding a dildo under her bed, is living on another planet.

1 in 6 men and boys experience sexual abuse

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

(George Orwell, Animal Farm)

Three new absolute masterpieces from the father of Men’s Rights :

Emotions are the Key

The Recovery of Recovered Memories?

Much to my dismay, a few days ago, I stumbled upon an article on an  MRA website written by a man who was claiming that he had been raped by a  woman 20 years ago and that, as a result, he had suffered significant  trauma.

As I scanned it briefly, I began to groan inwardly.

Not because I have any objection to men writing about any woes that have arisen as a result of their various mishaps with women – indeed, I’ve  spent many years wailing about such incidents myself – but because, in the  case of this particular article, I recognised certain characteristics  which troubled me.

And the term ‘recovered memory’ almost immediately sprang to my mind….

…I forgot that one must never question the suffering of victims. And  whatever they say must be true.

And I have now even received emails asking me whether or not I was  drunk when I was making my comments.

LOL!

Well, actually, I was a bit – but not enough to cloud my mind.

Disoriented perhaps – mostly by old age and by my complete and utter confusion  over the  comment flow – and also thoroughly exasperated at seeing some old abuse myths coming  up again.

But the driving force behind my somewhat confused energy was not  alcohol at all.

If anything, it was mid-level panic from thinking about all the horrors that generally arise from the typical activities of those who believe in the veracity of “recovered memories”. And it was also mid-level   dread from thinking about all the extra hysteria that would be generated  by associated parts of the trauma industry should their empires be  encouraged to grow by men’s activism.

And the thought that both might be gaining traction in the Men’s  Movement – something that would be absolutely catastrophic, both for men, in general, and for the MM itself  – was fairly unbearable.

Traumatised by a Tomato

http://angryharry.com/esDoWeNeedAnAbuseIndustry.htm

Yes, of course we do.

But it is too big.

The organism has become a monster, and it is feeding off the broken lives that it, itself, is creating. The abuse industry needs to be cut down to size so that it only has the wherewithal to deal with serious cases of abuse. As with most things in life, it is all a question of balance.

And the laws and the various definitions also need adjustment so that innocent people – and also those who have not done anything seriously bad – are not dragged through such a horrible mill.

Once again, it is all a question of balance.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13043/

“Most of the stats that are dragged out to show that Britain is packed with child abusers emanate from the research of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). A recent BBC Newsnight report on Jimmy Savile’s sexual depravity was basically an advert for the NSPCC (I thought the Beeb wasn’t supposed to do ads?), where factlet after factlet from recent NSPCC reports was interspersed with images of dirty, leering Jimmy. ‘One in six children aged 11 to 17 have experienced sexual abuse’, we were informed. There were ‘17,727 sexual crimes against children under 16’, it was claimed. Others say 24.5 per cent of young adults experienced abuse as children….

…But a look at the studies and bits of research that are used to back up these claims suggests that reality is very different from the horror stories promoted by child-protection charities. …

….What about the ‘sexual abuse’ aspect of child maltreatment? Surely that’s a much clearer category, with no room for sweeping interpretations? You’d be surprised. The NSPCC’s definition of child sexual abuse includes both ‘contact abuse’ (fondling through to rape) and ‘non-contact abuse’ (showing a child pictures, speaking to them in a sexual manner, and so on). Even more strikingly, it includes interaction between children as well as between an adult and a child. As Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK Today says, ‘Sexual abuse includes contact and non contact by any adult or peer perpetrator’. Judging by the NSPCC’s survey questions, it can potentially even include consensual sex by over-16s. So one question asks, ‘At any time in your life, before you were 18, did you do sexual things with anyone 18 or older, even things you wanted?’ For a great many people, the answer to this will be yes – lots of 16- and 17-year-olds, who are above the age of consent, have sex with 19- or 20-year-olds or even older people. Yet in the NSPCC’s survey, this is put under the heading ‘sexual victimisation’. “

See also my article : The NSPCC as an evil feminist organisation that revealed that nearly all of the NSPCC’s senior researchers are radical feminists, including the ‘professor of child sexual abuse and exploitation’ – Marianne Hester – who has published a book claiming that all (adult) sex is rape.

Also : Angry Harry – the Curse of the NSPCC

It’s collection tin rattling time again for the radical feminist ‘child protection’ group known as the NSPCC, so what better than to throw out a shock statistic that every tabloid will lap up?

One child is being sexually abused every 20 minutes (or 60 a day)

A child was sexually attacked every 20 minutes last year and more than 400 offences reported each week.

The scale of sex crimes against children emerged yesterday after a Freedom of Information request by the NSPCC.

The statistics also revealed how only one in 10 accused were convicted, the charity said.
More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.

The NSPCC published the figures yesterday after sending FOI requests to the 43 police forces of England and Wales.

A total of 14,819 offences were committed against 11 to 17-year-olds and girls were six times more likely to be abused than boys.

Jon Brown, head of the charity’s Sexual Abuse programme, said: “A concentrated effort has to be made if we are to start reducing this distressing level of offences.

“When you have a situation where more than 60 children are being sexually abused every day, something is very wrong.”

The poor conviction rate was particularly worrying, added Mr Brown.

Although every child sexually abused in the UK represents an individual tragedy, it remains prudent whenever dealing with a radical feminist lobby group, especially the NSPCC, to subject their collection tin rattling hysteria to a degree of healthy scepticism.

60 children a day are not being sexually abused according to these statistics – 60 children a day are reported to the police as being sexually abused.  Only 10% of these reports are sufficiently serious or credible to result in convictions.  Naturally, it is beyond any radical feminist hate group to admit to the possibility that thousands of men are being falsely accused of child sexual abuse, or that the majority of these reports are simply mistaken or the result of overzealous concerns.  In fact, a recent NSPCC ‘don’t wait until you’re certain‘ campaign will only increase the numbers of falsely accused men.

As said, every real case of child sexual abuse is an awful tragedy, but the only real statistic to be garnered here is that ‘only’ 6 British children a day are proven (through the courts) to have been sexually abused.  Compare this statistic to the fact that around 15 British children each day are killed or seriously injured simply crossing the road.

Furthermore, whilst this site has always condemned unreservedly any illegal activity involving underage children, the majority of those 6 sex abuse cases each day involve teenagers – and a sizeable percentage of those cases likely involve willing participation on the part of the ‘victims’, and in fact, will have only been legally defined as ‘sexual abuse’ as a result of campaigns by feminist groups themselves, including the NSPCC :

More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.

This is meant to be shocking enough for you to reach for your credit card and make a donation.  However, one fifth of the victims being primary school age means that 4/5 weren’t.

The number of under 18′s (children under feminist legal definitions) in the UK is around 12 million.

6 children sexually abused a day = around 1,800 a year.   That means the chances of an individual child being sexually abused in a given year (and leading to a conviction) is around 1 in 6500.

Of course, not all of the non-convictions resulting from reports to the police about sexual abuse will be false accusations, and not all real incidents of sexual abuse will even be reported to the police.  So for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the NSPCC might even be close to the mark and 60 children a day are being sexually abused in the UK.

That would mean that the odds for an individual child being sexually abused in an individual year are around 1 in 650.

Over 5,000 British children a year are killed or seriously injured crossing the road.  That equates to around a 1 in 2400 chance each year.  As indicated earlier, just as some cases of rape are worse than others, whatever feminists say, some cases of child abuse are worse than others.  A 5 year old being raped is worse than a 15 year old having a 25 year old boyfriend, or a 15 year old and her friends giggling at being flashed at in the park (or online) by an old man with a small willy.  Arguably, those latter two cases of sexual abuse are far less serious and damaging than a child losing a leg in a road accident.

Even granting the NSPCC’s spurious statistic, and even equivalating all ‘child sexual abuse’ with the seriousness of being killed or maimed, the fact remains that a child is slightly less than 4 times more likely to be sexually abused than she or he is to be killed or seriously injured crossing the road.  I cannot recall the NSPCC ever launching a campaign on road safety for children, or even mentioning the importance of improving road safety for children. Saving the lives of the thousands of children killed or maimed in road accidents simply doesn’t fall within its radical feminist sexual trade union lobbying agenda.

In a perfect world, no child would be killed or injured crossing the road, and no child would be sexually abused.  We seem able to accept the sad truth that beyond a few sensible laws relating to drink driving, the introduction of measures such as speed bumps to roads etc, and a certain level of education for children regarding road safety, we can never hope to completely ensure that no child will die in a road accident. Yet we seem completely unable to accept that, unfortunately, some children will always be sexually abused, no matter how much fear and hysteria we instill in their young minds, and no matter how many men we lock up, criminalize, or falsely accuse.

Accepting that the world is imperfect, and that the possibility of evil and harm will always be present within it, is the price we pay for having a functioning society.  Just as roads and traffic are essential to the infrastructure of a healthy society, so too are features of human existence such as the family, schools, and interaction between the young and the old.  Allowing feminists to exaggerate the scale of child sexual abuse, to inflate the definitions of child sexual abuse, and to pretend that (if only you give the NSPCC a little more money) that the sexual abuse of children can ever hope to be stopped completely, is undermining the very fabric of society, and doing more damage to children themselves than all the paedophiles in the world could ever do.

Other statistics concerning the dangers that children face :

Nearly 1 in 2 children in the UK is bullied, with 10% saying they had been bullied in the last 6 months according to a 1999 study (it is acknowledged by the handful of genuine child protection charities in existance that the problem of bullying has increased since then).

1500 children in the UK are diagnosed with cancer each year.  That’s over half the number of children involved in a sexual abuse crime resulting in a conviction.

According to statistics quoted by the NSPCC themselves, 7% of children suffer physical abuse.  A child therefore has a 1 in 14 chance of being physically abused by one or both of their parents, compared to a 1 in 650 chance of being sexually abused by anyone in a given year according to the NSPCC (and a 1 in 6500 chance of being sexually abused later proven by a conviction).  The NSPCC itself admits that mothers are equally or more likely than fathers to physically abuse their chilren.  Despite this, on the minority of occasions when the NSPCC decides to campaign against physical abuse (rather than more lucrative sexual abuse anti-paedo campaigns), the father is invariably depicted as the abuser.

To put the last statistic another way.  According to the NSPCC themselves, a child is anywhere between 20 and 200 times more likely to be violently physically abused by their own mother than to be sexually abused by anyone inside or outside of the family in a given year.  This is even more striking given the fact that the majority of laws and definitions relating to child sexual abuse have been set by radical feminists (such as the policy makers of the NSPCC) themselves.

See also :

(Angry Harry) The NSPCC Shatters Child Abuse Myths – Its Own Myths!

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.

Leafing through the Spectator Magazine whilst waiting to board my plane at Gatwick Airport last week, I was  a little bit stunned, but tremendously heartened, to see the following full page advert from Fathers 4 Justice :

Organisations like the Labor party, the Fawcett Society, and the NSPCC have become dominated by a militant form of feminism which will condemn Matthew to a lifetime of discrimination…

http://fathers4justiceadvertising.wordpress.com/

See also my article – ‘The NSPCC as an Evil Feminist Organisation‘ to learn just how dominated that ‘child protection’ charity has become by radical feminists.