IMPORTANT : Men’s Rights Supporter Appears On Huffington Post to Talk About Sex Abuse Hysteria

In what might be a very important breakthrough indeed, a prominant champion of men's rights appeared on the Huffington Post this week to warn its 'liberal' readers of the dangers of swallowing uncritically self-interested feminist sex abuse hysteria.  Brendan O'Neil, you are a hero.

If You Were Abused by Jimmy Savile, Maybe You Should Keep It to Yourself

If you were abused by Jimmy Savile 30 or 40 years ago, is it really wise to reveal all now, or would it be better to keep it to yourself?

I think it's the latter. I think there is more virtue in keeping the abuse as a firm part of your past, rather than offering it up to a scandal-hungry media and abuse-obsessed society that are desperate for more episodes of perversion to pore over...

...

And society as a whole doesn't benefit from the open invitation to every person who had a bad encounter with Savile to reveal all. In fact, society, the big communal space we all inhabit, looks set to be the biggest loser in all this.

The Savile scandal will further dent social solidarity. The promotion of the idea that paedophiles lurk everywhere, that, in the words of the deputy children's commissioner Sue Berelowitz, "There isn't a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited", will exacerbate today's climate of suspicion and mistrust. The now widely accepted idea that there were "paedophile networks" at the Beeb, in the NHS, even around Parliament, will ratchet up already high levels of public cynicism towards institutions and the political sphere.

Meanwhile, the serious discussion about introducing mandatory reporting of every rumour involving child abuse will intensify our alienation from one another, encouraging us to live in a permanent state of suspicion towards our colleagues, friends, strangers. It will unleash a potentially very ugly finger-pointing climate. Who would want to live in such a warped, Stalinist-like society?

The reason the Savile scandal continues to gather pace, despite its obviously destructive effects, is because there are two industries that do benefit from it - the media industry and the therapeutic industry.

In the media, right from the salacious tabloids that like nothing better than to panic about paedophiles to feministic commentators on the broadsheets who muse at length about "cultures of abuse", the existence of an alleged 300 Savile victims is like manna from heaven....

 

Meanwhile : A new study shows that the Nazis weren't just following orders but took pride in their work, because they believed they were 'right'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9694194/Nazis-werent-just-following-orders-but-took-pride-in-atrocities.html

A new study has shown that terrible acts involve not just obedience, but enthusiasm too.

The scientific paper - jointly authored by by a Scottish university professor - challenges a long-held belief that human beings harm others because they are programmed to obey orders.

Professor Stephen Reicher, Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of St Andrews, and Professor Alex Haslam of the University of Queensland, Australia, have published the paper in the journal PLos-Biology on the nature of tyranny and evil.

It comes 50 years after social psychological studies showed that even decent people can engage in acts of extreme cruelty when instructed to do so by others.

28 thoughts on “IMPORTANT : Men’s Rights Supporter Appears On Huffington Post to Talk About Sex Abuse Hysteria

  1. Alan Vaughn

    If you were abused by Jimmy Savile 30 or 40 years ago, is it really wise to reveal all now, or would it be better to keep it to yourself?

    I think it’s the latter. I think there is more virtue in keeping the abuse as a firm part of your past, rather than offering it up to a scandal-hungry media and abuse-obsessed society that are desperate for more episodes of perversion to pore over…

    Hopefully, this advice might at least be considered by other Huffington Post commentators, i.e. Dean Esmay, who wants 17 year old BOYS (‘children’) added to the growing list of ‘abuse victims’ within the feminist abuse industry; for the abuse-obsessed society and media, who are always hungry for more ‘episodes of perversion’ to pore over…

    A GREAT article by a great writer!

  2. Alan Vaughn

    Oh BTW: I am apparently “in denial” (according to the what Brendan O’Neill refers to as the ‘therapeutic industry’) although admittedly I wasn’t so ‘unfortunate’ to have been ‘abused’ by an older female predator. LOL!
    (My ‘abuse’ experience consisted of 2 different gay men trying to ‘seduce’ me when I was a teenager).
    I told them both to fuck-off, they did and that was the end of it, in both cases.
    I thought they were crazy, because they both behaved in the same way I would myself when I am 99% certain that I’d just ‘got lucky’ with a girl, i.e. put their arm around my waist etc.. I didn’t like it at all, but by the same token I didn’t think they needed to be executed or even bashed up.

    I was fair minded enough (and grown-up enough) to reason that they were only doing what was natural to THEM. I could reason that I don’t get the shit kicked out of me when I try (but fail) to seduce a girl, so why should a gay man be punished for effectively doing the same thing. (Unless of course, the girl is with her husband or boyfriend when I try to pick her up)…

  3. jack

    Unfortunately the readers’ comments below the Huffington Post article are all negative. The sheeple doesn’t want to lose their cherished paedohysteria. Can’t live without it any more. If some of you guys have an account that enables you to post some remedial comments in support of the author, please do so. Someone even wrote “you will never get a writing job”. That says it all.

  4. Eric

    Jack:
    I got only part way through the comments before I felt like vomiting. These commenters are perfect example of the kinds of men whom Antifeminist as ‘taking pride in their work’ above.

    After WW2, psychologists interviewed some of the commandants of the death camps. Most were very proud of their efficiency, most notably the head of Auschwitz who bragged about his innovations in speeding up the number of executions.

    Can’t you imagine someone like Bill O’Reilly running a camp like that and bragging that ‘we gassed 2000 sex offenders just this month!’ And then getting a medal from Hillary!

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Another fine Spiked-Online article :

    http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13139/

    If you go to reddit men’s rights a news article on the dropping of child porn charges for the Minnesota football coach is at the top with over 300 upvotes :

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/147eyg/child_pornography_charges_dropped_against/

    Yet this would give Paul Elam the creeps to put on AVfM.

    Also : http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1480et/ill_just_park_this_here_germaine_greer_published/

    I see Angry Harry has got a link to a new article on his site but the link appears broken at the moment.

  6. Eric

    Alan:
    You know, I can’t remember what my ‘Abuse Experience’ was. I’m sure I must have had one, though, since according to Typhoon Blue, Dean Esmay, and others, this whole phenomenon is more widespread that anybody realizes.

    Maybe I have Repressed Memory Syndrome.

  7. Alan Vaughn

    @Eric

    Maybe I have Repressed Memory Syndrome.

    Or you could be what I am: “In Denial” (because I DO remember a couple of incidents that they would definitely consider abuse), or maybe they would say you’re both and therefore in urgent need of paedohysteria-training psycho-therapy…

  8. Eric

    Jack:
    I’ve noticed also that some commenters are already starting to question whether Brendan O’Neill ‘has something to hide.’

    The witch-hunting mentality out on full display.

  9. Alan Vaughn

    @ERic,
    Well they would – they’re comments of text-book paedocrites. Brendan O’Neil’s anecdote (and the questions he asks) would and should have them feeling very nervous by now… They have to ‘keep up appearances’.

  10. jack

    Wikipedia has this about Germaine Greer (3rd link above):

    Germaine Greer (born 29 January 1939) is an Australian academic and journalist, and was a major feminist voice of the mid-20th century

    This shows that the mustering of paedohysteria by feminism is a recent development in the history of feminism. I guess feminists will seize on anything if it suits their aims and financial interests.

  11. theantifeminist

    Post author

    This shows that the mustering of paedohysteria by feminism is a recent development in the history of feminism. I guess feminists will seize on anything if it suits their aims and financial interests.

    That’s sort of only half-true Jack.

    As I’ve written about here often (and at http://historyoffeminism.com ) feminists raised the age of consent in the anglo-saxon worlds (and I assume in Europe) to 15, 16, 18 in the Victorian/Edwardian eras. They did this through creating what we would call paedohysteria today (white slavery panics, sex predators preying on unmarried teenage girls – of course ‘paedophiles’ were referred to simply as ‘cads’ back in those days, when fucking a 14 year old girl would likely leave her holding a baby as well as her reputation and chances of marriage ruined).

    The early second wave of feminism was about feminists rationalising what they clearly had no control over – the ‘sexual liberation of women’ (brought about mainly by the pill and also the huge number of weird things all happening together in the 60′s such as counter culture, vietnam, millions of adolescent baby boomers etc).

    Because the political movements of the 60′s were led by or at least depende on students and youth, what’s striking about the second wave of feminism in its early days is the youth of the main protaganists such as Germaine Greer. So they weren’t so much into promoting paedohysteria as a way of restricting younger competition (or expressing bitterness at the beauty of teenage girls) but they were gradually introducing such classic sexual trade union tenets as rape culture (Germaine Greer claimed to have been raped by an entire rugby team at university). Second wave feminists had their hands full addressing immediate concerns of young women such as legalising abortion, as well as claiming victory for the ‘sexual liberation’ of women.

    It wasn’t until the 80′s that as femnists entered their late 30′s and 40′s that feminism, once again, became a sexual trade union seeking primarily to control male sexuality (rather than simply survive it and rationalise it as the early second wavers were doing).

    As far as Germaine Greer is concerned, when she published ‘Beautiful Boy’ in 2003, feminists had long since established paedohysteria (at least in the USA and the UK). 2003 was the same year that feminists in New Labour passed the sexual law amendement act which created the present child porn laws encompassing all sexual images of anyone under 18 (or appearing to be under 18).

    I’ve always interpreted her decision to publish ‘Beautiful Boy’ as a sort of ‘we’ve won’ statement – rubbing it in our faces that exactly at the moment that feminists, for the first time in human history, had managed to create a moral norm consisting of the contrary to reality belief that finding adolescent girls attractive is perverted and evil in itself, that a leading feminist like her can publish a book composed of nude adolescent boys, explicitly ‘reclaiming the right for women to find boys attractive’.

    EDIT : If you’re talking about feminists protecting boys from ‘paedophilia’ then you’re 100% right. Most feminists and most women couldn’t care less about boys having sex with either women or homosexuals (because most women don’t fancy teenage boys, and obviously teenage boys don’t compete with women for heterosexual men). However, they will pretend to care in the interests of ‘equality’ if they can buy off the American men’s rights movement, which is the only conceivable threat to the child abuse industry.

  12. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I’ve noticed also that some commenters are already starting to question whether Brendan O’Neill ‘has something to hide.’

    The witch-hunting mentality out on full display.

    And this is the same crowd that AVfM wants to appeal to. I wonder how many of those same paedocrite readers visited AVfM after Esmay’s interview and made a paypal donation?

    BTW, I think why Brendon O’Neil touches such a raw nerve with these middle-class ‘liberal’ arsehole Huffington Post readers is because he blames paedohysteria on the middle-classes and the elite (including feminists) rather than the working class.

  13. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    Here’s a question relating to the evolution of feminism in history: what do you think of the impact of the French Revolution on feminist thought? The French Jacobins probably went further than any modern government in trying to obliterate any distinction between the sexes.

  14. Eric

    I think that you’re right about O’Neill touching a raw nerve. The obsession these people seem to have with paedohysteria and sex crimes and scandals generally make me suspect that THEY are the ones hiding something. It’s what depth psychologists would call ‘repression.’

    Murdoch plays this psychological card in the media with almost diabolical ingenuity. He fans paedohysteria while promoting lurid images of young women. In other words, he creates false guilt and provides scapegoats for it at the same time. He’s become Dr. Mabuse in real-life!

  15. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Here’s a question relating to the evolution of feminism in history: what do you think of the impact of the French Revolution on feminist thought? The French Jacobins probably went further than any modern government in trying to obliterate any distinction between the sexes.

    I haven’t read much on the French Revolution Eric, apart from a few authors who identify it as the logical culmination of the Englightenment and the belief that human reason could master and re-make the world in any image it wanted – particularly with the aid of modern science and technology. The Jacobins believed that through violence and terror both society and the individual could be re-modelled for the purpose of ‘equality’. Something, of course, that feminists continue with to this day, but which as Angry Harry suggested in his last article, is likely to be finally debunked by the latest (real) scientific findings about the brain and about gender differences.

  16. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    However, they will pretend to care in the interests of ‘equality’ if they can buy off the American men’s rights movement, which is the only conceivable threat to the child abuse industry.

    And it looks like Dean Esmay and Paul Elam and 1 or 2 other prominent US mRAs have just sold it to them even more easily than what they’d hoped to. (Buy them off – and shut them up for good, almost like stealing candy from a kid) and they’ll never be able to buy it back UNLESS they face reality: Stop kidding themselves about boys being victims of older female ‘predators’ and so on and accept, then TELL the hateful feminist genocidal bags (and society) that criminalizing men just for being men IS a CRIME against humanity.

    I can only hope. I know that will never happen whilst the current US mRA ‘management’ running the show…

  17. Eric

    Meanwhile, the commentary for the Esmay Article has been somewhat more positive:

    ‘Why do we only assume that men are the only ones capable of sexual abuse?’ the Huffington Post blogger Shelley Thomas indignantly snorts, ‘Do you have a story you would like to share? Please e-mail me at…’

    The revolting whining at AVfM wasn’t much better.

  18. Alan Vaughn

    @Eric

    The O’Neill Article has apparently brought such an uproar that mangina Huffington Post blogger Tony McKenna has seen fit to write a snotty ‘rebuttal’.

    I didn’t even click the link. I don’t want to read it, because I know how nauseous I’ll feel if I do.

  19. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Meanwhile sex offences are set to become even tougher in the UK : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20619590

    Sentences for rapists and other sex offenders in England and Wales could become tougher to recognise the long-term psychological harm they cause.

    The Sentencing Council also suggests judges could give longer sentences to offenders who film their victims.

    In a new consultation, the body says judges should closely consider the complex and damaging effect that a crime has on a victim.

    The proposed new guidelines cover virtually all sexual offences.

    Why not violent offences in general? And you know this new sentencing won’t just cover real abuse and real rape, it will cover things like 15 year olds giggling when a 30 year old man shows his penis on cam (life long trauma) etc. so the man must be subjected to real violence and rape (or the threat of violence) for years in a prison cell.

    What about people (including children) who suffer from violent physical assault and have if filmed (either by the assailants or bystanders or cctv) and then have it watched by millions of people for entertainment on the internet?

    Of course, the mRM will be cheering this.

    Note also that this new sentencing guideline is clearly related to the EU femi-hag directive on child protection which calls for tougher and minimum sentences for sex offences, particularly involving ‘new technology’. Whenever the UK government obeys a EU directive on sex crime, it’s never acknowledged as the reason, just portrayed as ‘the government has announced it is cracking down on paedos..sex offenders’..etc give us your vote, we protect women.

  20. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Here’s something a bit more heartning – look at the reader’s comments underneath this :

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/presenter-stuart-hall-held-over-rape-claim-164752380.html

    Maybe the nature of them will have changed by the time you read them, but I was quite astounded – they’re nearly all reasonable. I almost felt like I’d slipped into a parallel universe where the British population are rational human beings :

    ————————–

    “I do think they shouldn’t name names until the accused is found guilty because of their innocent family members. And as I’ve said before who’s coughing up the compensation when it’s a false accusation..the tax payer I should imagine.”

    ——–
    Trial by their! media, seems to be the hallmark of british justice? today. Guilty until proven otherwise. JMHO

    8 Replies

    dave b
    0users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment
    dave b 30 minutes ago Report Abuse

    Innocent until put on the TV

    Yet again alleged historic events and names being released—this is completely wrong and can only create family problems—names should only be released on a conviction not allegation—

    38 Replies

    MarkF
    3users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment
    MarkF 2 hours 11 minutes ago Report Abuse

    What do you expect from our scandal hungry press?

    … More

    More
    Reply
    Psychonaut
    358users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down17users disliked this comment
    Psychonaut • 16 hours ago Report Abuse

    Innocent until proven guilty. Just because you are arrested, it doesn’t mean you are guilty. You are arrested on “suspicion”.

    But what the heck, we’ll no doubt see the usual undercurrent of “red top rag” readers jumping to conclusions, putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5, etc. The same halfwits who run people out of town for being a paediatrician…

  21. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The worst is that Dean Esmay appears to realise that promoting feminist child abuse hysteria does harm men :

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/successful-troll-is-successful/

    Judging from the fact that it appears that virtually every American MRA has been sexually abused by a woman as a child (even John the Other implied on one video I was watching the other day that he had been too), I think we can conclude that most adults ARE child sex predators, men and women (unless women are far more likely to be paedophiles than men, which I don’t even think AVfM is surely claiming).

  22. Alan Vaughn

    Judging from the fact that it appears that virtually every American MRA has been sexually abused by a woman as a child…

    If you define ‘abuse’ the SAME way the feminist child abuse industry does, EVERYONE has been abused as a child, by some adult pervert…
    However it’s only them and their mangina supporters that want to make their ‘abuse experience’ into something (that will help feminists criminalize MORE men and brainwash many more boys into feminized little mangina faggots), and elevate paedohysteria to even higher levels, such as what the feminist co-opted US mRAs have agreed to do.

  23. Alan Vaughn

    And this wil be the result if the mRM continues pretending to support boys by being co-opted by the feminist child abuse industry :

    I’d all but forgotten that great post! But yeah, just the same stuff over and over again, only a lot MORE of it, more often and more mind-bogglingly ridiculous!!

  24. Eric

    Alan & Antifeminist:
    It occurred to me today that there seemed unusally suspicious about this Esmay article. We know for example that unofficial blacklists circulate in the US media (I think that Welmer actually once mentioned that he’d seen one). We also know that AVfM is on the SPLC Watch List as a suspected ‘hate-group.’

    So just HOW did Esmay manage to get a Huffington Post interview? And why all the positive feedback from the Radfems/manginas who work there?

    And, BTW, isn’t it suspicious that they published Brendan O’Neill at the same time, just to trash him?

    To use an American idiom: I’m beginning to smell a rat around here.

  25. theantifeminist

    Post author

    So just HOW did Esmay manage to get a Huffington Post interview? And why all the positive feedback from the Radfems/manginas who work there?

    And, BTW, isn’t it suspicious that they published Brendan O’Neill at the same time, just to trash him?

    To use an American idiom: I’m beginning to smell a rat around here.

    The Huffington Post had also linked to my site just a few days ago (in their report on Steve Moxon speaking at the Parliamentary Committe on the gender gap in boardrooms).

    So obviously their journalists had been reading my site.

    I wonder if it made them realise that there was an urgent need to do a little co-opting before my views and those of Brendan O’Neill’s become a little too popular…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>