Extremist or Diplomatic?

JayHammers got a lot of stick recently for an article posted on ‘The Spearhead’, since taken down but available to read on his blog. His argument was that the men’s movement was showing unwelcome signs of diluting its message in the attempt to achieve mainstream status. An issue I’ve addressed here too. The ‘mistake’ Jay made was in being slightly tactless and appearing to directly attack two notable and powerful websites and the individuals behind them. Websites and individuals that, whatever else, have undoubtedly achieved a great deal for men. Bruised egos and vicious infighting have been the result.

Two excellent essays have appeared, saying much the same as Jay did, except that the authors here avoided making individual attacks.

Angry Harry : http://angryharry.com/esGoingRoundInCircles.htm

Anti-Feminist Tech : Be extreme and unreasonable

I no longer identify myself as a men’s rights activist. I’m going to stick exclusively to analysing and interpreting feminism as a sexual trade union. However, that doesn’t stop me posting links to men’s rights articles that I know my readers might enjoy.

For what it’s worth, I believe that mras have to wake other men up and articulate just how much pain and anger feminists are causing. The mainstream can’t ignore tens of thousands of angry, committed men, determined to expose feminism for what it is. Rather than weeding out misogynists or ‘perverted extremists’ who question feminist laws based on unscientific ‘argument’ that lead to countless men being raped and beaten in prison, the men’s movement might be better advised simply trying to wake men up from their chivalrous slumbers.

Of course, being tactful, moderate, and seeking mainstream acceptance is surely not incompatible with a more radical and ‘extremist’ voice within the anti-feminist movement. Afterall, it was radical feminists such as Andrea Dworkins that gave ‘mainstream’ feminism its credence and allowed its message to be heard (now of course, we have reached the point where all men are, in effect, legally defined as rapists – all carried through by these ‘moderate’ mainstream feminists. The radical/moderate distinction was always illusory).

I’m going on holiday for a few weeks so I won’t be updating so often. I’m actually thinking of changing the format of this site. Trying to update regularly seems to prevent me from writing the longer pieces and essays that I’d like to spend more time working on – such as an alternative history of feminism.

Although this site helps me to let off steam, its not without its stresses. I’m heartened, therefore, when somebody leaves a comment to tell me that they understand the reference to Houellebecq or that my work has some importance to the welfare of men. Although my traffic continues to go up, I’ve come to the realization that a lot of these visitors are feminist stalkers, even masochistic 60 year old women from East Anglia, who for some reason enjoy reading the truth as to why they like to lock more and more harmless men up to be raped. It’s nice to be reminded that I do have some genuine readers also.

Reddit Men’s Rights has become a joke…and is now becoming a danger to our movement

Is there really a men’s rights forum whose members consist mainly of ‘sympathetic’ feminists supported by white knight manginas who claim also to be ‘men’s rights supporters’. Men’s rights supporters who will downvote you, call you an extremist, and tell you to fuck off if you ever dare to criticise feminism in any way? Notice I said ‘criticise feminism’, not criticise ‘women’. We all know that the men’s movement has a vociferous and public wing who firmly believe that our cause is not served by baiting cheap accusations of ‘misogyny’ through crudely expressed, if understandably motivated, verbal attacks on women. I have no problem with such a position, although I think that the concern is sometimes a little overstated.

But can there really be a men’s rights page that actively denounces as heresy any mere finger pointing at feminists and their role in the decline and fall of the contemporary male?

Yes, incredibly, there is. It’s called Reddit Men’s Rights, and it is the fastest growing men’s rights resource on the web, proudly numbering 8,000 readers and counting. And it’s a place where newcomers to our young movement will ‘learn’ that the likes of Angry Harry and The Spearhead are ‘ crazy extremist sites’ morally equivalent to feminazi blogs that call for the entire male sex to be burned alive (and we shouldn’t post links to feminazi blogs at Reddit because they ‘misrepresent feminism’!).

Reddit, in terms of the comments section and the constant downvoting, is clearly a joke and a travesty to our movement. The question is – is it now becoming a real threat to our movement?

The first thing I should say is that there are a lot of intelligent and genuine men’s rights supporters on Reddit who I respect and admire. A couple of very important MRAs – MGTOW and Pierce Hanlon, of the false rape society, also post important and relevant links there. In fact, between them, they post nearly all of the important and relevant links. Having said that, only Pierce Hanlon and JayHammers are MRAs who participate in discussions there who I recognise from elsewhere in the movement (and JayHammers is also tired to death of what Reddit is sadly becoming).

To those of you unfamiliar with it, Reddit is a social ‘bookmarking’ site, in which members post links in suitably defined categories which are then up or downvoted according to how readers view their relevance and interest. Thanks largely to the hard work of MGTOW and Pierce, Reddit had become an unmatched source for up to the minute stories relating to men’s rights issues. Over the last few months, however, it has become noticeable that perfectly good links immediately get downvoted (they are then automatically removed from the front page and become near invisible). More recently still, it has become apparant in the comments sections below the posts, that there are clearly more feminists now visiting ‘our’ Reddit than genuine men’s rights supporters. And the ‘men’s rights discussion’ at Reddit is becoming proportionately crazier and crazier and out of touch with mainstream men’s rights as a result.

Before I give a couple of brief examples, I should explain why I feel that this issue is important, and why Reddit could become a real danger to men’s rights. As I’ve already said, however twisted the viewpoint there is becoming, it is the fastest growing men’s rights resource on the web. At least in brute numbers. Attracting over 1,000 readers each month is impressive, even if most of those numbers are feminists (and the others don’t seem to hang around). If you google ‘mens’ rights’ you will find that Reddit already appears on the second page of results. With the massive page rank that Reddit enjoys, it probably won’t be long before it sits right at the top of the Google mountain, the unofficial ‘homepage’ of our movement. The demographic of Reddit is also different to most other men’s rights places online. I assume it is a lot younger. It certainly sounds younger. Whichever way you look at it, this subreddit is many people’s first encounter with men’s rights, especially those of young people. A place for men’s rights beginners that is overpopulated (infested might be a better description) with ‘sympathetic’ feminists and chivalrous white knights who forbid even the slightest criticism of feminism, is potentially a threat to our nascant movement if it is teaching those newcomers a completely erroneous view of what most men’s rights activists believe and struggle for.

In a sense the Men’s Rights Reddit is irrelevant in terms of real activism (I’ve tried to set up a ‘call to action’ system there, which was largely ignored). However, in terms of demographic and sheer weight of numbers, there is a very real possibility that it could begin to mould the future agenda and outlook of the men’s movement. And it is an agenda that feminist trojan whorses there, such as CryptoGirl and Inabook, are only too willing to pervert.

Take the following example. A highly relevant post was submitted consisting of a news report stating that over two thirds of murder victims in the UK last year were male. Men’s rights? Of course it is. Just as much as it is accepted that the fact that a disproportionate number of male homicide victims are black is a ‘black rights issue’.

But not for feminist male rights supporter CryptoGirl, who immediately denounced the irrelevance of the post by pointing out that most of the murderers of males were also males. Men killing men is not men’s rights. His/Her comment (‘she’s’ a transvestite waiting for the snip), since deleted, swiftly recieved the customary barrage of upvotes, other MRAs promptly agreed with her, and her position as the independent arbiterer of what is and isn’t men’s rights was further cemented – with a final comment consisting of ‘now, back to equal rights! 🙂‘ . Yes she actually did make that last comment (whichReddit MRAs naturally again upvoted).

Except that men killing men is a men’s rights issue. If men are more than twice as likely to be the victims of murder than women are, then that should at least be a cause to question the feminist dogma that society is better for men than it is for women, no matter who is doing the killing. And you can’t have your cake and eat it. If we have to blame ‘society’ on the need for men’s rights rather than feminists, then we should also be able to blame a society that is unfair to men on such gender imbalances as the likelihood of being a victim of murder. In fact, there is a strong case for arguing that it is women, and not ‘society’, let alone men, who play a dominant role in the greater incidence of male homicide – especially when so many of those murders are the results of gang feuds, typically between young, urban black males, who have had their sense of masculine worth defined and perverted by the grotesque and racist sexual needs of white females.

Another example. Only yesterday another sympathetic feminist (inabook) praised a senate bill that will prevent teenagers from being jailed as sex offenders under feminist created statutory rape laws. Nothing wrong with that you might say. It is indeed a welcome and long overdue initiative to stop a child abusing practice that puts the American justice system into disrepute and was only serving as an increasingly embarrassing reminder that such laws have nothing to do with child protection. But is the following comment really worth 10+ upvotes on a men’s rights page? :

This sounds like an excellent step forward– focusing on age difference rather than purely on age of consent.

So a 16 year old slut can quite happily bang a similarly immature 16 year old boy, but if it happens to be a 25 year old who knows how to put on a condom but is perhaps a little emotionally immature and is attracted to younger girls, then lock him away and throw away the key? If a 16 year old can consent to sex with a boy her own age, why is she mysteriously unable to consent to sex with an older male? Studies have proven time and time again that young people are far more likely to be sexually abused by their peers than by older partners. In fact, it seems that inabook and the asshats who vote her inane comments up don’t even understand the concept of peer pressure…or perhaps just conveniently forget it when it justifies them stopping their boyfriends or husbands ever being tempted by nubile younger flesh.

In fact, surely it follows, if consent only becomes invalid if there is a percieved possible imbalance in power, that crazy feminist laws that lock professors up for sleeping with 21 year old students or that criminilize men as rapists for having sex with tipsy women, are also justified? Well, actually the crazy gang at men’s rights reddit probably think that those laws are justified. After all, only extremists think that men’s rights has any connection with anti-feminism…

As well as illustrating the danger that Reddit has become, the above two examples clearly showcase one of the fundamental errors of the men’s rights movement in general. Allowing feminists to set our agenda by chasing a ridiculously naive and simplistic conception of the notion of equality. As I have stated here many times, equality is not just about the distribution of goods, but about the valuation and selection of those goods in the first place. I keep half-expecting to see CryptoGirl make a post declaring her disappointment that society has been slow to accept the right of men to have an abortion….and no doubt that too would get dozens of upvotes from the simple-minded equality whores at Reddit.

Men’s Rights is about speaking up against the abuse and discrimination suffered by men in an increasingly misandristic society created by feminists and their supporters. Our movement is still very young and still, all too depressingly, very small. Reddit Men’s Rights is one of the few places (and in sheer numbers, the largest) where the future outlook and agenda of our cause is being decided and debated.

We must not let feminists decide what that agenda should be. This isn’t about silencing opposition to our cause (in the expert manner of feminists). It’s about allowing our nascent cause to develop its own true voice. Surely we deserve that dignity at least?

A new Reddit Men’s Rights has been created and all genuine men’s rights supporters are welcome to join and participate :


Male sexuality classified as a mental illness

Tiger Woods hypersexuality
Will men like Tiger soon be detained under feminist 'mental health' legislation?

Hypersexuality – the desire for multiple partners, i.e. natural male sexuality (polygyny), is to be officially classified as a mental disorder by the ‘bible’ of the psychiatric profession.

The disorders, which also include hypersexuality — the desire for multiple partners, perhaps characterised by the golfer Tiger Woods — reflect changing social patterns. Critics believe, however, that their classification as psychiatric problems may lead them to be exploited for profit by drug companies.

Hypersexuality to be classifed as mental disorder

Such female driven pharmaceutical intervention into male sexuality may be closer than you think. Oxytocin, a hormone whose primary impact on males is monogamous attraction to a partner, is undergoing manifold clinical drug trials at this very moment (you might have seen it being lauded on Oprah or read about it in a thousand female health and lifestyle articles).

Thus the touchy, feely ‘science’ of psychiatry, increasingly the preserve of women bitter at the thought that they wasted their youth in books rather than beds, now officially becomes a medium of feminist shaming language against male sexuality, and likely soon an instrument of formal state control. Tiger Woods disease must and will be eradicated. Men WILL be faithful and monogamous to the female primate who can only give birth once every 9 months and who requires a loyal mate for protection and to obtain for her and her child necessary resources…well at least in the period of EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptation).

The welfare state and draconionly enforced child support payments are apparently not enough to soothe the primal anxieties of the 21st century female, a mind which struggles in vain to free itself from the moral straightjacket of the African savannah.

The only real science in psychiatry is that which is based upon evolutionary theory. Feminists are increasingly being allowed to pevert male science into hocus pocus – and all in order to legitimise their own evolutionary mating strategy – a ‘morality’ that, in an age of free contraception which renders polygyny relatively harmless, ought to have gone the way of belief in fairies and other superstitions. A genuine mental disorder.

A to Z of Anti-Feminism

‘All Men Are Rapists’ – infamous quote attributed to feminist author Marilyn French (spoken by a character in one of her novels).

Angry HarryProbably 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.

vajazzlethe act of adorning a vagina with shiny crystals.

Feminists seek legislation over sex bots

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.

Now I learn that feminists in Canada are already drawing up legislation that would limit the sale and ownership of sexbots – realistic androids created for the sexual gratification of men.

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.

For example, recently, a British airport’s security added x-ray scanners that are so powerful that they literally create an image of the naked body of the person being scanned. But now a ‘child rights’ group has pointed out that the creation of those images, when the person who passes through the scanner is under 18 (or looks under 18), is contrary to the government’s own virtual child pornography laws. The x-ray scanner has now been scrapped.

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 : iankerr@uottawa.ca

Top Heavy
In the not too distant future, most women will look like this..

More Mother Teen Daughter Jealousy Exposed

What it feels like for a mother to see her little girl turn into a woman :

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!!!!).

Meanwhile, the Daily Express, seeking to win away the crucial female 35+ year old readership from the equally odious, deluded, and paedohysteric Daily Mail told it’s target audience exactly what it wanted to hear :

50 and Fantastic : Rise of the Quintastics


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).

Demi Lovato Selena Gomez
"To All Women - This is who we are looking at on the beach"

Russian View on Sexual Harrassment

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.